McBell
Admiral Obvious
Don't forget that they were a superstitious lot.
Believing things like sneezing is ones body expelling evil spirits.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence for Jesus' Resurrection
- Thread starter kobayashi
- Start date
Believing things like sneezing is ones body expelling evil spirits.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Don't forget that all that went out the window if it meant they were getting stoned or they had to answer to Pilate. Just like regular folks today.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Which makes it absolutely amazing that Christianity survived after it's leader was so brutally murdered in public for all the world to see.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Something changed them.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Thrown out a window perhaps?
In light of recent posts I will hold off on the lengthier posts unless the unthinkable happens and someone asks me to finish them. Here I will just share why I personally find the hallucination theory to be extremely unbelievable:
If a man was arrested for stealing motor oil from an auto parts store, and he claimed that he was doing it because an alien appeared to him and asked him to do it, and if he stuck to that story even in the face of prosecution, we would all be justified in dismissing him as a liar or a lunatic. If, on the same night, a group of other people were arrested for stealing motor oil from a different auto parts store, and if they all claimed that an alien fitting the other man's description appeared to them at various times and asked them to steal motor oil, and if they all stuck to this story in the face of prosecution, we would begin to think something was amiss. Perhaps a conspiracy, or a prank - but why would they all be willing to face the charges if it was made up? If, along with all this, a man who had formerly been an outspoken skeptic of alien visitations suddenly claimed to have had a similar visitation, and (barring any charges for stealing motor oil) he committed himself to leading a group of people dedicated to telling the world about this alien, we would all be very confused (especially if his initial 'skeptic' status was verified). Finally, if one of the arresting police officers suddenly claimed to have witnessed the alien himself, who made the same request for motor oil, and the officer joined in with the stealing and was thus arrested, but stuck to his story in the face of prosecution, citing the event as mere hysteria or hallucination would be dishonest.
It does not mean we would be under an obligation to believe in aliens. It only means that, on the basis of all this testimony, we would have to believe that something outside of the minds of all these individuals was causing these experiences. In other words, we would acknowledge these as having been real experiences of something as of yet undetermined. Of course if it is outside their minds, then it cannot have been hallucination. I believe we have a similar situation with the claims of the disciples, Paul, and James.
If a man was arrested for stealing motor oil from an auto parts store, and he claimed that he was doing it because an alien appeared to him and asked him to do it, and if he stuck to that story even in the face of prosecution, we would all be justified in dismissing him as a liar or a lunatic. If, on the same night, a group of other people were arrested for stealing motor oil from a different auto parts store, and if they all claimed that an alien fitting the other man's description appeared to them at various times and asked them to steal motor oil, and if they all stuck to this story in the face of prosecution, we would begin to think something was amiss. Perhaps a conspiracy, or a prank - but why would they all be willing to face the charges if it was made up? If, along with all this, a man who had formerly been an outspoken skeptic of alien visitations suddenly claimed to have had a similar visitation, and (barring any charges for stealing motor oil) he committed himself to leading a group of people dedicated to telling the world about this alien, we would all be very confused (especially if his initial 'skeptic' status was verified). Finally, if one of the arresting police officers suddenly claimed to have witnessed the alien himself, who made the same request for motor oil, and the officer joined in with the stealing and was thus arrested, but stuck to his story in the face of prosecution, citing the event as mere hysteria or hallucination would be dishonest.
It does not mean we would be under an obligation to believe in aliens. It only means that, on the basis of all this testimony, we would have to believe that something outside of the minds of all these individuals was causing these experiences. In other words, we would acknowledge these as having been real experiences of something as of yet undetermined. Of course if it is outside their minds, then it cannot have been hallucination. I believe we have a similar situation with the claims of the disciples, Paul, and James.
Except that's not analogous to your story of alien-inspired motor oil theft.
Say Steve comes and tells you that Brian saw an alien. Later on, Steve tells you that William saw an alien. Then, Steve tells you that both Kevin and Bruce saw an alien... at the same time! And... he tells you that Bruce always thought that those alien stories are bunk. Have I really heard anything that's made me abandon my position that the alien is probably just in Steve's head?
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
You think that would do it?
Let's see:
The disciples claimed to have seen Jesus. Paul verifies this (if you question his reliability on the matter, what is the evidence for doing so?); a creed in 1 Cor. 15, dating back to within five years of the crucifixion and which most scholars say was given to Paul by the disciples, which proclaims multiple appearances to groups and individuals among the disciples; and later testimony of the church fathers - if we doubt their testimony, what is the evidence for doing so?)
Paul claimed to have seen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1, etc.); he attests to his former way of life as a persecutor in Philippians 3 - if we question this testimony, what is the evidence for doing so?
James is reported in the early 1 Cor. 15 creed as having seen Jesus; the gospels show that even Jesus' own brothers did not believe him (Mark 3.22; John 7.5) - the principle of embarrassment leads many to conclude that this is accurate. Yet James became a prominent leader in the early church.
I must emphasize again that the majority of New Testament scholars, including skeptics like Gerd Ludemann, concede these points. These are the facts; the question is, what is the best explanation for them? If it were only one person's testimony, we could perhaps deduce hallucination. But hallucination cannot adequately account for these multiple experiences. Something really happened, the question is, what?
At this point, I haven't introduced reasons for not accepting the account beyond just the general principle of considering information critically.
In any case, seeing how you're likely dealing with the same author for all of 1 Corinthians 15, this is like what I described: you don't have multiple sources for multiple stories; you've got one source for multiple sources. There are two things that are common to them:
- the subject matter (i.e. in both cases, people are described as seeing Jesus after the resurrection)
- the author (i.e. both were recorded by the same person)
If you're suggesting (and it seems like you are) that commonality of the described experience implies a common cause, then we can look to the common elements to both to find that cause. There are two things that are common to both accounts:
- Jesus
- Paul (or, potentially, an anonymous author pretending to be Paul)
And I have no reason to eliminate Paul as a potential common cause.
But it is only one person's testimony. Paul describing what both he and James experienced is the testimony of Paul and Paul alone.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I dunno.
Is was the window opened or closed?
Does 'considering information critically' mean ignoring the near unanimous consensus of those who are authorities in this field? The fact that Paul includes the creed in his letter is not a good argument to demonstrate that the creed is not in fact a source independent of Paul. What about Acts 17.8 where Paul (or at least Luke) quotes from the poet Aratus? Would we suggest that Aratus could not be counted as an independent source simply because he is used by Luke/Paul?
Hospitaller
Seminarian
i never said blind faith, i said faith and trust. see, even if there was un-"dubious" evidence you would just deny it and call it unrealistic, just like you are right now. The real question is, do you believe, or do you not?
i think for a lot of us including me evidence doesnt really matter and we either denounce the Resurrection or believe in it. what really impacts me is that God is all powerfull so he could with all ease bring His own Son back from the dead. That and the Bible is enough evidence for me.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Sorry, but appeal to numbers fallacies do not impress me.
You will needs re-write this sentence, for it makes no sense in its present form.
What about it?
Huh?
Hospitaller
Seminarian
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
A catholic tryin to convice another catholic...:ignore:
Hospitaller
Seminarian
Consensus on what, exactly? That the Resurrection happened?
You're right. Just because Paul talks about James' experience doesn't mean that accounts of James might come from other sources.
Now... would you mind pointing out some of these other sources?
I assume you mean verse 28, not 8 (because "When they heard this, the crowd and the city officials were thrown into turmoil" doesn't exactly sound like a poetic quote).
Maybe I should put it more simply and explicitly:
- 1 Corinthians is one source.
- Even if it describes multiple events, it's one source.
- If you can confirm the multiple events with other sources, that's fine, but then you would have multiple sources.
- Even if you confirm the multiple events in 1 Corinthians with other sources, 1 Corinthinans itself is only one source.
Exactly. And by the same token if you choose to take it on faith, fine, but don't go around inventing evidence or falsely claiming scholastic endorsement for your beliefs.
Note: I'm not talking about you personally, Hospitaller. I'm using the generic "you".
