Gooch's dad

JubalsCalls:

That argument might hold a bit more water if you could show another supernatural claim from the first century that was debunked by people questioning the eyewitnesses.

He did name a few eyewitnesses, those being the disciples. I tend to think that Paul wasn't describing a physical resurrection, but a 'vision', which is a clear meaning of the word he used (ophthe, meaning appeared or revealed in Koine Greek).

But what were the skeptics (if any even bothered with this tiny sect of Christians) supposed to say to the disciples? Cross-examine them and compare the details of their story?

You're projecting a 21st century skepticism back onto the 1st century, whereas it is clear that Palestine of the 1st century was full of superstitious people who were ready to believe anything miraculous. They didn't distinguish between ordinary events and what we now would call 'supernatural' or 'miraculous' events.

Cheers,

-Kelly

JubalsCall

To Gooch's dad:

So are you pretty much just saying that everyone who lived in the 1st century were idiots and believed everything that people said?

Tibbs

Gooch's dad

Tibbs,

Pretty much, yeah

No, of course there was an educated class that was somewhat skeptical, there is also a great deal of evidence for that. The philosophers whose writings we now have, for example.

Richard Carrier has a great essay on this topic in the SecWeb library. There were certainly skeptics at that time--Carrier tells of Lucian and his writings about Peregrinus and Alexander, two charlatans of the time. The thing is, Lucian's attempted debunking of the doings of Alexander (who had a trained snake with a puppet head, which he claimed to be a divine incarnation) did nothing to stop the popularity of these charlatans.

Just read Acts for some more examples. Weren't Paul and Barnabas worshiped as incarnations of Greek gods, for making a lame man walk?

-Kelly

JubalsCall

Thanks for the essay.

Tibbs

Family Man

JubalsCall --

You don't even have to assume that gullibility was strictly a first-century trait. There are a lot of charlatans today -- Madame Cleo, Peter Popoff, the guy who talks to the dead (can't remember his name at the moment) making millions off of people even though their practices have been exposed as fraud time and time again. If these scams can be run successfully today, is it any wonder that a sincere, if foolish and inaccurate belief in a resurrection might flourish among the masses in the 1st century?

As for your 500 witnesses, if someone told you that 500 people witnessed a miracle, but was unable and unwilling to specify who these people are, would you put much credence into it? A claim that 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus is just that -- a claim.
And a claim made by people with a vested interest in promoting that very claim. In short, that 500 witness claim is worthless as evidence.

luvluv

Hi. Short on Time.

Biff, can you shoot me any links or quotes on that alternate translation?

Another possibility: The regathering of the nation of Isreal. God predicted that about 50-11 times in the Old Testament (specifically in the prophets).

Jack the Bodiless

Already covered. That was the one I brought up (and granted) in my first post on this thread: so far, the ONLY fulfilled prophecy.

Jan Haugland

I will not claim having done a comprehensive study of all relevant texts, but isn't this merely a case of recycling old prophecies that spoke about the Israelites returning to their country after the Babylonian exile?

If modern Israel had not been created, would anybody claim that the Bible contained an unfulfilled prophecy about the Jews returning to the holy land? If not, then the claim suffers from being infalsifiable; believers could claim the Bible is correct both when it predicts Israel's rebuilding (as it does) and the continued diasphora (which it also does).


- Jan

...who rants and raves every day at Secular Blasphemy

Jack the Bodiless

...Heheh.

If this can be shown to be applicable to every "prophecy" of the re-formation of Israel, then the number of confirmed Biblical prophecies has just hit zero.

Surely this is lower than we'd expect by chance alone?

Which leaves two possibilities:

1. The authors of the Bible were always very careful NEVER to actually prophesy anything, for fear of being caught out. Every single Biblical prophecy was constructed after the event, and there was a total refusal to speculate about events that genuinely lay in the future.

2. There IS a God: a supernatural agency which ensures that the authors of the Bible always get it wrong.

luvluv

Hey Biff the unclean!

I'd like a link or a source on that alternate translation of Psalms 22, please!