Nomad

Actually Michael, your statement simply proves my point. Science neither proves, nor disproves miraculous claims, especially those that are singular historical events. Your faith in science is laudable, but misplaced in this particular case, requiring you to make truth statements based not on empircal facts, but on scientific methodology.

Just because an event is non-repeatable, or even super-natural/miraculous by its nature does not make it impossible. Such a belief on your part is merely a metaphysical presupposition.

What scientific method do you refer to in saying that a single person (namely Jesus of Nazareth) never rose from the dead? No scientific study has, or can be done on such a claim. You are using a metal detector to look for diamonds, and declaring diamonds to not exist because you cannot find them with your tool.

This is fallacious reasoning.

See how your prejudices colour your evaluation of the evidence? By ruling something out a priori, you cannot learn if it actually happened.

In any case, this is not the place for this debate. People wish to demonstrate that I am inconsistent in my beliefs in what constitutes evidence, and I have shown that I am not inconsistent. You have even agreed with this truth. Thank you for that much. When this nonsense is over, perhaps we can have a further discussion on the quality of evidence in historical claims.

Nomad

Nomad

Yes.

Nomad

Nomad

Thank you for finally asking me some questions Dennis.

No Dennis, this thread is about whether or not I am consistent in what I call evidence. Since I am, this thread has largely been nothing more than simple ad hominem against me. That said, if some wish to know what I believe constitutes evidence, then I will tell them. You have asked, so I will answer you.

In 1941 much of what was claimed was not subject to independent varification, and in 2000 years I have no idea how much independent evidence of the Holocaust will remain. I drew this illustration simply to point out to you that one can have a biased witness, AND those witnesses can be testifying to the truth. I assume at this point that you accept this to be a truism.

As this question is directed to yourself, I would say that you are best qualified to answer it. Based on your phraseology however, I would tend to agree that you are very bothered by the way I present my views. Unfortunately I cannot help you with that.

The heart of your argument is that I am inconsistent in what I consider to be evidence. I am not inconsistent in this matter, so I do not see why you simply do not withdraw your assertion, and we can all move on.

First, you accuse me of misconstruing your argument, even as you deliberately avoid my own presentation of evidence and arguments. This double standard on your part is very apparent, even if the fans in the stands do not see it. I have told you that I use the same standards for evidence as Meier and Akenson, yet you deliberately neglected to address Akenson's point. If you will do so, and show how my acceptance of his rules is not acceptable to you, I would be willing to listen.

Actually, I am not outraged. Perturbed would be about the extent of it.

No Dennis. You have continued to attack me. Even as you attempt to formulate questions for me, you cannot help but actually address some of them to yourself. In a dialogue, it is assumed that one knows ones own beliefs, and wishes to learn those of the person with whom they are conversing. Ask me a question, and I will answer it. And when I give you a definition of the word evidence, and quotes from a secular scholar like Akenson, address those points rather than avoiding them.

First, I have not claimed any kind of victory, nor have I "gone home". I do wish that you would stop with your misplaced attempts to understand me, and stick with asking me questions when you are unclear as to my beliefs.

Second, Paul's statement is evidence that he believes Jesus rose from the dead. He is also claiming to be a first hand witness to this event (as opposed to Luke, for example, who tells us that he is reporting something that has been told to him by the witnesses to the events). That is all that any testimony can be. We testify to what we have personally experienced, or to what others have told us that they have experienced. We would then evaluate the quality of this evidence based on whatever other evidence is available to us from other sources and means of investigation.

Nomad

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Nomad ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

So, again, the question would go to Paul's character, just as any witness on the stand would be subject to.

What he says is largely irrelevant in this regard, since we have no other evidence and are therefore no longer interested in the alleged event, rather the witnessing of the event and the veracity of the one relating the alleged event.

Should Paul's testimony (or anyone's for that matter) be accepted at face value and if so, why?

Kosh

One more time Nomad (since you ignored me the
last time I had to correct you on this).

Please show us the verse in the bible where Paul
says he witnessed the resurrection.

Are you really familiar with the book which
you purport to defend? Paul showed up 2 or 3
years AFTER the fact. Why do you keep
getting this wrong?

PAUL IS NOT A FIRST HAND WITNESS TO THE ALLEGEDRESURRECTION

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Feels so good when you stop...

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Kosh ]</p>

Nomad

Hello Logan

Yours is a good question, and can be pretty involved. I will stick with the specific examples you have offered to help clarify my point.

1) The virgin conception (slightly different from the virgin birth, BTW, which requires Mary to remain a virgin thoughout the period of her pregnancy). The evidence for this particular claim is fairly weak from an historical critical point of view. Of all of the 1st Century documents in our possession, only two mention it, and then only very briefly. I have argued extensively (based largely on Raymond Brown) on XTalk that Matthew and Luke almost certainly used a pre-existing source for this belief, and that there may well have been two (or more) distinct sources for this claim. On the basis of the criteria of multiple attestation, it is more likely than a claim like Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, for example, as we have only a single source for this claim (John 11). With the virgin conception we have a minimum of two, and probably 3 or 4 sources, though no more than 2 of them are probably independent of one another. We can also determine that the belief in the virginal conception began very early in the Church's life (probably no later than 60-65CE). From that we cannot determine its historicity however.

2) Jesus walking on the water. Here again we have multiple attestation of this event, from Mark and John (Matthew and Luke used Mark for their source, so they are not independent textual evidence). Given that it is extremely unlikely, that any experiment could reproduce this event, however, we cannot verify through scientific enquiry that it actually happened. Michael Grant's comments on the miraclulous stories in the Gospels may be useful here:

"Accordingly, therefore, to the cold standard of humdrum fact, the standard to which the student of history is obliged to limit himself, these nature-reversing miracles did not (emphasis in original) happen... In a sense (however)... these stories are not tractable material for the historian, for they do not add to the facts which he has to try to marshal. But to declare in consequence that they have no claim to 'serious consideration as historical evidence' is to invite misunderstanding. On the contrary, they are extremely important historical evidence because they tell us how Jesus was regarded." (emphasis mine)
(Michael Grant, Jesus, [London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd., 1977], pg. 39-40)

As you can see, what the classical historian must accept, is that historical evidence is offered, and must be treated consistently, and viewed as it would have been viewed by the ancients themselves. One need not accept the actual historicity of the reported events (especially the miraculous claims), and Grant certainly does
not do this (he is an atheist), but good historians understand that it remains hisorical evidence never the less.

In this case, therefore, and in direct response to your question, as an historian I accept the miraculous claims of the Bible as historical evidence of how Jesus was viewed, and as a Christian I accept their historicity as a matter of faith, refusing to see that science alone can tell me all that there is to know about the universe, or history itself. The latter I recognize as a philosophical claim, but it is the metaphysical claims that interest me the most in any case. Mere facts can become rather boring pretty quickly in my view. Fortunately none of us lives our lives based only on the facts that can be known to us.

3) The resurrection. Here we have the widest range of independent multiple attestation. In addition to Mark and John, we also have Paul (1 Cor. 15).

Again, however, I would caution that the event is supernatural in by definition, and therefore not subject to what Grant calls the "humdrum" tools of the historians' trade. On that basis it would be an over statement for an historian to call it an "historical fact". Acceptance of this event can only come from one's faith in the original witnesses, coupled with one's own experiences of God. For me, it is when I came to know that the Resurrection was true that I was required to become a Christian. One cannot be a serious rational person, and refuse to accept the truth once it becomes known to one.

4) What historians agree with me as to what can be "proven" historically? In addition to Grant (quoted above), I subscribe broadly to the criteria used by J.P. Meier (_Marginal Jew_, Vol. 1-3), Raymond Brown (several works, especially _Birth of the Messiah_ and _Death of the Messiah_), Donald Akenson (_Saint Saul_), and L.T. Johnson (_The Real Jesus_).

If you would like me to go into those events that I would classify as either historical "facts" about Jesus of Nazareth as well as the early Church, please let me know, but I do not wish to make this thread even longer than it is. I would be happy to do this on a separate thread however.

You can find a good number of Till's articles here on the Secular Web.
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/index.shtml</a>

Peace,

Nomad

Nomad

1 Corinthians 15:5-8

Paul clearly tells us that Jesus appeared to him, just as He had appeared to Cephas, James (the brother of Jesus), the Twelve, and 500 other witnesses. I also understand from verse 8 that Paul considered himself to be the least of the apostles, largely because he was the last to see Jesus in the flesh, but did not see that as central to this discussion. My apologies for having missed your comments earlier. I am trying to reply to as many serious questions in this thread as possible.

No need to yell Kosh. If you wish to quibble, then no one reported seeing the Resurrection itself, only Jesus' appearances after the fact. But it is more typical in conventions (even amongst sceptics) to speak of the appearances as the Resurrection, and this is how I have defined it.

I hope you can relax now.

Nomad

Kosh

Paul saw Jesus in a vision, not "in the flesh".

Nomad

That which is gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied. As I have no wish to side track this thread further, especially on usupported assertions, I will, instead, refer you to past discussions from this forum on this particular topic.

The thread was called <a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000220" target="_blank">Paul and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus</a> and involved a three page discussion with Layman, SecWebLurker, le pede and me. I did not see you there Kosh, but if you have any questions on my arguments, please let me know.

From this point forward, as a favour, I would ask that individuals refrain from hurling any more mere assertions at me. Substantive arguments with supporting evidence would be preferred. This is how we all learn.

Thank you.

Nomad

Toto

It appears that Nomad has confessed that the evidence for Jesus' resurrection is of the same quality as the evidence for space aliens landing at Roswell. Is that correct? Did I hear you right on that?