First ...
And now, your turn.
Please show why and how the resurrection is more plausible than the MIracles recorded in the inscriptions of Epidaurus.
-
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!
Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
- Thread starter Apologes
- Start date
First ...
And now, your turn.
Please show why and how the resurrection is more plausible than the MIracles recorded in the inscriptions of Epidaurus.
Apologes
Active Member
The resurrection hypothesis doesn't say 'God did it', it's not a god of the gaps argument. Since I haven't done so in the OP I'll state clearly how Licona defines the resurrection hypothesis (RH):
"Following a supernatural event of an indeterminate nature and cause, Jesus appeared to a number of people, in individual and group settings and to friends and foes, in no less than an objective vision and perhaps within ordinary vision in his bodily raised corpse."
Since most people in this thread have been confused by lesser terminology I'll point out what some of the terms used here mean. Objective vision is a visionary experience that has an ontologically real basis, that is the disciples saw Jesus in a vision but Jesus was actually present there with them. This is contrasted with a subjective vision which has no external reality but is just a product of a person's mind. Moving on, to say Jesus appeared to them within ordinary vision in his bodily raised corpse is to say that it wasn't a vision of any sort but that Jesus actually materialized in his body.
I will repeat that Licona offers additional arguments that lead him to conclude that God was behind it but that comes after establishing the resurrection argument. Furthermore, the resurrection hypothesis can only be considered ad hoc in the sense that it requires a view of reality which allows for supernatural but this is a matter of a person's horizon (their worldview or philosophical predispositions) which should be bracketed as the question at hand is a historical one.
leroy
Well-Known Member
@Apologes is Asking you to quote the fallacies, why dont you do that?
Ok lets assume that all Gods are real...... how does that affect tje argument?
For example that is a red herring falacy. So if I can quote your actual words to support my accusations of you making a fallacy why cant you do the sane with @Apologes ? Why dont you quote his actual words and explain why is he using fallacies?
a red herring is a logical fallacy in which irrelevant information is presented distracting attention from that relevant information
even if luke made with the dates, how does that affect tje argument presented in the OP?
I might be wrong, but I am almost sure that Licona grants tha Luke made a mistake
Yes Licona is a scholar, you cant denigrante a person's title just because they dont agree with you.
Not to mention, if you can use atheist activists to support your claims why cant christians use apologists as a source?
Brian2
Veteran Member
The claim also is that Ananias, an early Christian, was told to go to Paul and heal him. That seems to confirm Paul's story as being actually Christ to me.
But the reason that it seems to confirm ... to you flows entirely from your faith in Acts, despite (a) it being clearly a piece of apologetics, and (b) ...
According to Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, the author was Luke, named as a companion of the apostle Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself; this view is still sometimes advanced, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters."[10] (An example can be seen by comparing Acts's accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1–31, 22:6–21, and 26:9–23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17–24).)[11] The author "is an admirer of Paul, but does not share Paul's own view of himself as an apostle; his own theology is considerably different from Paul's on key points and does not represent Paul's own views accurately."[12] He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.[13]
The earliest possible date for Luke-Acts is around 62 AD, the time of Paul's imprisonment in Rome,[14] but most scholars date the work to 80–90 AD on the grounds that it uses Mark as a source, looks back on the destruction of Jerusalem, and does not show any awareness of the letters of Paul (which began circulating late in the first century); if it does show awareness of the Pauline epistles, and also of the work of the Jewish historian Josephus, as some believe, then a date in the early 2nd century is possible.[5][15][16] [source]
I'm sure you can understand why the claim has little value to those who lack unflinching faith in its author.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Hume has long been refuted by contemporary scholarship, for example one of the most obvious mistakes that he makes is that he is just defining miracles as something that cant happen.First ...
And now, your turn.
A complete critique of hume.
The intrinsic probability of the resurection can be determined by.
1 the probability of God existing (any type of generic god is enough)
+
2 given "1" the probability of mieacles occuring
+
3 given "2" the probability
of the specific miracle of a resurection
Honestly none of these points seem to be very improbable
Given the existence of a god, miracles and resurections are not unlikely (but rather expected)
And unless you have good conclusive evidence against the existence of a god, "1" wouldn't be too unlikely ether.
That is easy, just to provide 1 of many arguments........the resurection is reported by multiple contemporary authors.
So while the intrinsic probability might be the same for both miracles, the historical evidence for the resurection is much better.
Apologes
Active Member
I've got a little time now so I'm back!
I find it interesting how the majority of the posts here didn't really offer a critique of Licona's work from a historical perspective but a philosophical one. Most posts here rely on the same argument LeafCoast mentioned so I am going to keep my replies focused on the discussion I'm having with him as far as that goes. I do find it hard to believe that that's the only flaw people see in his arguments. Surely there's objections to the argument that go beyond the old Humean a priori dismissal of miracles and I would like to familiarize myself with some of those.
The big thing that struck me was the same thing I corrected the other guy for, when I said it's a historical fact that Jesus was a miracle worker and an exorcist, you expressed disbelief because you took me as saying it's a historical fact that Jesus actually performed miracles and exorcised demons. But it doesn't matter, just giving an example of what lead me to that conclusion.
Ok, what if we had a bunch of scientists doing all sorts of possible tests and they come to the conclusion that there is no conceivable way that he could've placed the cup there? (For whatever reason, maybe there was no one in the room at the time of it appearing or whatever.) If all possible natural explanations for the cup appearing fail to explain it adequately would you be willing to posit a miracle as an explanation or would you just chalk it up to mystery, saying we don't know how they did it but it must've been natural?
I'm not explaining the resurrection, I'm using the resurrection as an explanation for the historical bedrock. As stated in a previous post (I'll repeat it here since I intend to focus on our discussion as I said earlier) Licona doesn't make reference to God in the resurrection hypothesis which he states as follows:
"Following a supernatural event of an indeterminate nature and cause, Jesus appeared to a number of people, in individual and group settings and to friends and foes, in no less than an objective vision and perhaps within ordinary vision in his bodily raised corpse." (Chapter 5.7.1. Description of the Resurrection View)
I know I made reference to God wishing to raise someone from the dead but if we're going to stick to Licona's argument as he defends it he would say that the plausibility of a miracle would be directly linked to one's horizon. If naturalism is true it's unlikely that a miracle is an explanation but if supernaturalism is true the miracle as an explanation becomes far more likely. We need to look at the data and bracket our worldviews or we'll be driven by our horizons rather than the evidence.
I find it interesting how the majority of the posts here didn't really offer a critique of Licona's work from a historical perspective but a philosophical one. Most posts here rely on the same argument LeafCoast mentioned so I am going to keep my replies focused on the discussion I'm having with him as far as that goes. I do find it hard to believe that that's the only flaw people see in his arguments. Surely there's objections to the argument that go beyond the old Humean a priori dismissal of miracles and I would like to familiarize myself with some of those.
The big thing that struck me was the same thing I corrected the other guy for, when I said it's a historical fact that Jesus was a miracle worker and an exorcist, you expressed disbelief because you took me as saying it's a historical fact that Jesus actually performed miracles and exorcised demons. But it doesn't matter, just giving an example of what lead me to that conclusion.
Ok, what if we had a bunch of scientists doing all sorts of possible tests and they come to the conclusion that there is no conceivable way that he could've placed the cup there? (For whatever reason, maybe there was no one in the room at the time of it appearing or whatever.) If all possible natural explanations for the cup appearing fail to explain it adequately would you be willing to posit a miracle as an explanation or would you just chalk it up to mystery, saying we don't know how they did it but it must've been natural?
I'm not explaining the resurrection, I'm using the resurrection as an explanation for the historical bedrock. As stated in a previous post (I'll repeat it here since I intend to focus on our discussion as I said earlier) Licona doesn't make reference to God in the resurrection hypothesis which he states as follows:
"Following a supernatural event of an indeterminate nature and cause, Jesus appeared to a number of people, in individual and group settings and to friends and foes, in no less than an objective vision and perhaps within ordinary vision in his bodily raised corpse." (Chapter 5.7.1. Description of the Resurrection View)
I know I made reference to God wishing to raise someone from the dead but if we're going to stick to Licona's argument as he defends it he would say that the plausibility of a miracle would be directly linked to one's horizon. If naturalism is true it's unlikely that a miracle is an explanation but if supernaturalism is true the miracle as an explanation becomes far more likely. We need to look at the data and bracket our worldviews or we'll be driven by our horizons rather than the evidence.
Last edited:
But there is zero evidence, simply apologetic claims.
Exactly. You are free to make whatever faith claim you wish, much as I am free to dismiss it. All I ask is that those who make such claims demonstrate the good sense and integrity to leave terms such as evidence and plausibility behind.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, he does. We have been over this endlessly and you kept being shown to be wrong. How do you keep forgetting how badly that you have lost?
And if one lowers the "minimal facts" to the point of being legends then that is automatically admitting that they Jesus stories are just legends. How does that help you?
This is just another refuted apologetic.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, there is nothing wrong with stating a belief. The problems arise when people try to claim that it is a rational belief.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I did. I pointed one out to him that was very clear. Like you he simply ignored the explanation and asked the same question again. When a person refuses to understand that is there problem.
You should read entire posts before posting questions. That is a self refuting belief. That is how it affects the argument. Only one can be right. But all of them can be wrong.
Oh my a bunch of nonsense. It was not a red herring fallacy, it shows that the gospels are not historically reliable. And it seems that in this post you now appear to be arguing, "The Gospels are no more reliable than other myths, but we should still believe them". Is that really your point? If you want to say that they show that Jesus probably lived, that was already granted by almost everyone here. No one is arguing that he does not exist. But none of those arguments support magic Jesus. You appear to be conflating the two concepts.
He is sometimes a scholar. But this latest argument is nonsense that is not respected by other scholars and has already been refuted. He even had to modify it a bit.
If we accept the Cambridge Dictionary definition of rational as "based on clear thought and reason," I would hesitate to paint Christian faith claims as inherently irrational from their perspective. I rather doubt that I would do particularly well in a debate with folks like Anselm and Aquinas.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Didn't they try to argue more from basic tenets rather than the odd arguments that we have been given here?If we accept the Cambridge Dictionary definition of rational as "based on clear thought and reason," I would hesitate to paint Christian faith claims as inherently irrational from their perspective. I rather doubt that I would do particularly well in a debate with folks like Anselm and Aquinas.
Clearly they are not true Scotsmen ...
leroy
Well-Known Member
I noticed that you havent explicitly accepted nor denied any of these mínimas facts..... wouldn't that be a good start?
The point of the mínnimal facts aproach mentioned in the OP is that even if you treat the gospels as legends those facts would still be true.
Strawman falacy...... (see I can quote you falacies)
I am not saying that the minimal facts are leyends.
I am saying that even if the gospels where leyends, these minimal facts would still be well supported and probably true.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And they all tend to be "So what?" claims. They do not support the parts of the Bible important to mythical Jesus. No matter how many "minimal facts" one has that does not support the supernatural. This is something that apologists do not seem to understand. The odds of anything supernatural appear to be so low that any, and I mean any, naturalistic explanation is more likely.
Yes, you can quote, but it does not mean that you understand what a strawman fallacy is. How is that a strawman fallacy? Even worse you did not understand the argument. I never said or implied that the minimal facts are legends. So no strawman there.
And you are back to using the "minimal facts" as a "So what?" argument. Your argument is refuted by a simple:
So what?