Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[AmbiguousGuy]

And if anyone feels as if those reasons are not sufficient, then let him critique it.

People critique them all the time.

Then refute the claims.

I don't know what claims you're talking about, but I have refuted all the claims of those who do not see things as I see them. It's easy.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

People critique them all the time.

They sure do, that is why Christian apologetics is a full time job....so keep the critiques coming...we need that job security.

I don't know what claims you're talking about, but I have refuted all the claims of those who do not see things as I see them. It's easy.

Good..as I said...job security.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I wouldn't necessarily say that. I imagine none of our views are completely flawless. Some might be closer to being right than others, but I wouldn't say that any one existing collection of beliefs must be fully correct. We're all probably wrong about something.

Well the fact of the matter is, either God exists or he doesn't. Bottom line, right?

 

[Parsimony]

Well the fact of the matter is, either God exists or he doesn't. Bottom line, right?

Depends on how one defines God. If the question is phrased "either God exists according to my definition or He does not", then the answer will indeed be a solid yes or no.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Depends on how one defines God. If the question is phrased "either God exists according to my definition or He does not", then the answer will indeed be a solid yes or no.

Ok, but still...you can define God any way you want...either the God that you define exists, or the God you define doesn't exist, right?

 

[Parsimony]

Ok, but still...you can define God any way you want...either the God that you define exists, or the God you define doesn't exist, right?

Right. In which case, it is possible that no one has the right definition.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Right. In which case, it is possible that no one has the right definition.

I think Christians have the right definition, personally. But hey, what do I know.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

They sure do, that is why Christian apologetics is a full time job....so keep the critiques coming...we need that job security.

Thanks, but I really don't take Christian apologetics seriously. My job here is to search for God, not to be instructed in the God which some other person has found.

I think people have taken the wrong path who spend their lives trying to defend the God they've found.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Thanks, but I really don't take Christian apologetics seriously.

I bet you don't.

My job here is to search for God, not to be instructed in the God which some other person has found.

My job here is to defend my faith against bible attackers, skeptics, critics, atheists, agnostics, naturalists, etc.

I think people have taken the wrong path who spend their lives trying to defend the God they've found.

We defend what we believe.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

My job here is to defend my faith against bible attackers, skeptics, critics, atheists, agnostics, naturalists, etc.

You might want to ask yourself a question, as follows:

Why am I so alone? There are other conservative Christians here who claim to be defending Christianity against all the skeptics and Bible attackers. So why am I alone? Why haven't we formed an Apologists' Group? Why, instead, do I find myself in such disagreement with every other Christian apologist in this place?

Is it possible that I am not defending Christianity at all, but rather am desperately defending my own personal religious views?

We defend what we believe.

Yeah, it's why I preach that belief should be resisted. I think our time is better spent in seaching for wisdom, not in defending what we've already found.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You might want to ask yourself a question, as follows:

Why am I so alone? There are other conservative Christians here who claim to be defending Christianity against all the skeptics and Bible attackers. So why am I alone? Why haven't we formed an Apologists' Group? Why, instead, do I find myself in such disagreement with every other Christian apologist in this place?

Is it possible that I am not defending Christianity at all, but rather am desperately defending my own personal religious views?



Yeah, it's why I preach that belief should be resisted. I think our time is better spent in seaching for wisdom, not in defending what we've already found.

..........

 

[Monk Of Reason]

We defend what we believe.

If a belief is worth having it defends itself.

 

[brokensymmetry]

This is a misunderstanding of the concepts. If you can't count down from infinity to 1, then how can you count from 1 to infinity? If you can't reach infinity as a destination going foward, then you can't reach infinity as a destination moving backwards.



And if we imagine that the geneaology of your family is past infinite, and there were an infinite number of births which lead to your birth, so how would your birth ever come to past if an infinite number of births preceded it?? Makes no sense.



But I did!! There is a infinity problem that you nor anyone else can reconcile, and that is the fact that the Mormon god was himself created by another god, and his god by another god, and so on and so forth, all the way back to eternity past. That is the problem, and the event of the Mormon god would not be reached if there were an infinite number of events which lead to his creation.

Now feel free to correct me if I am wrong in this regard, but if that is the case, then the Mormon god is based on something that cannot happen, which is the traversing of infinity. Now, if you can demonstrate how traversing infinity could happen, then you will make the entire case, but you nor anyone else can do this.

So you are basically saying that Joseph Smith saw something that could not logically exist, so therefore, he didn't see anything of the sort.



I've DEMONSTRATED why the Mormon god can not exist, can you (or the atheist) demonstrate why the Christian God cannot be said to exist?



There is a distinction I was making there. Of course, the disciples claimed they saw Jesus' Resurrected body, and this is made clear in 1Cor 15:3-7. As far as Paul is concerned, the narrative of his conversion in Acts 9:1-20 doesn't necessarily imply that he saw Jesus' Resurrected body, but it does imply that Jesus spoke to him. So I can either conclude that the "light" that Paul saw in Acts 9 is ambiguous with him seeing Jesus in a manifested form of light, or that Jesus appeared to Paul bodily and that particular event wasn't recorded in the bible.

But the fact of the matter is, Paul claimed he saw Jesus, and as a former Christian skeptic and persecutor, there would have been no reason for him to turn to the faith and claim that he saw or heard anything if in fact he never saw or heard anything.



Yeah, and that is the point that I was making above, of course there are some psychological factors involved and not all cases are equal...BUT, according to the narratives, Jesus not only appeared to one person, but many people. Not just at one time, but MANY times. Not spiritually, but PHYSICALLY. Not only to believers, but skeptics as well. That is a big difference.



Luke 1:1-4 states:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught"

Sounds like someone is coming from the heart to me, and Luke was a physican of Paul, and Paul was a former Christian skeptic but converted and was in close fellowship with the ORIGINAL disciples.



True, but the point is 1 Corin 15:3-7 is early stuff...and most critics tend to want to harp on how long ago after the death of Jesus when the books were written, even though 40 years after the fact is not long in terms of contemporary (at the time) events. The point is the Resurrection story is a early, and not the result of lengendary crap that leaks in to the stories as centuries come and go.

Hmm on eternalism events don't happen one after another so concerns about infinite past regression do not begin to run. This you haven't addressed once.

Even if you accept presentism... As far as the symmetry argument, I reject there is a different between potential and actual infinities. If we can conceptualize an unbroken of births and deaths into the future, without end, we can exist in the present moment from an infinity of past events. There is no real difference here. If you allow for the directionality of one without conceptual difficulty it is incumbent on you to demonstrate there is an actual relevant distinction.

As far as the Mormon god goes, you are still having to run a bunch of arguments *before* establishing the bare plausiblity of historical claims. You have to do this with the Christian version of things too. Why should an atheist take you seriously?

1 cor 15 doesn't out of necessity imply that the body was the same physical body Jesus walked around in. If it was a 'glorified body' in some sense, and not necessarily the same body he walked around in, this entire argument is in jeopardy as it stands.

I agree Paul was sincere and sincerely experienced something. So what? I think so did many of Joseph Smith's followers and according to you they cannot be correct. So apparently it is possible for human psychology to manifest delusions that are very vivid and strong.

We don't actually know who Luke was, the author of Luke/Acts, at all. By the way, Acts is a lot later than Paul, Luke is derivative of several other sources, I won't accept that prima facie as awesome primary source material.

Why should we believe the narratives in every detail here? In terms of, JEsus appearing to the 500. Why should I believe THAT happened in particular?

I mean to be honest,it would be nice to be convinced of this. Originally I found forms of this argument convincing. I am just not seeing it hold up. It's carrying immense weight here. Establishing the absolute truth of the universe, basically, and this is all we have? It's a bummer.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

..........

Don't worry about it. I leave many people speechless.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Hmm on eternalism events don't happen one after another so concerns about infinite past regression do not begin to run. This you haven't addressed once.

Well if events don't happen one after another then the whole concept of time is out of the window...as there would be no temporal becoming. Makes no sense. It isn't as if the people that will be born in 3014 are somewhere in the distant future waiting on time to catch up to them so that they can be born. They simply don't exist...and there existence is dependent upon things that are happening in the present day.

If, and only if there was a time at which you DIDN'T exist, then the fact that you now EXIST in the present moment needs to be explained, and you can't explain the origin of your existence from a prior point of non-existence without presupposing preceding moments.

Even if you accept presentism... As far as the symmetry argument, I reject there is a different between potential and actual infinities. If we can conceptualize an unbroken of births and deaths into the future, without end, we can exist in the present moment from an infinity of past events. There is no real difference here. If you allow for the directionality of one without conceptual difficulty it is incumbent on you to demonstrate there is an actual relevant distinction.

So, if I told you to start walking an infinite distance North on an infinitely long road, and once you reach infinity you will receive a check of 1 billion dollars, and you can travel at whatever speed you desire, please tell me how long it will take you to reach the infinite distance?

Hey, you can feel free to talk in whatever technical terms you want to, I will keep my thought analogies simple, because that is all I need to do. And I assure you, there is no WAY possible for you to conceptualize how you can traverse infinity. No way possible. If you can, I will expect you to be able to answer the very simple question I have above.

As far as the Mormon god goes, you are still having to run a bunch of arguments *before* establishing the bare plausiblity of historical claims. You have to do this with the Christian version of things too. Why should an atheist take you seriously?

Actually I don't because on the Christian view, there is no infinite regression, and thus logical absurdities does not result based on the mere concept of our God alone.

Also, it is worth mentioning, that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. His prophecies gave specific times and events, and NONE of them came true.

Deut 18:22 states "When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken."

You can look up the false prophecies yourself, and again, I stress the point that the Mormon god is based off of logical absurdities and false prophecies, which makes any testimony of the man who started the religion a liar.

1 cor 15 doesn't out of necessity imply that the body was the same physical body Jesus walked around in. If it was a 'glorified body' in some sense, and not necessarily the same body he walked around in, this entire argument is in jeopardy as it stands.

So wait, it was a different body? Ok, so why was the tomb empty of the old body? If Jesus appeared in a different body than he was laid to rest in, then why was the prior body not in the tomb? Makes no sense.

I agree Paul was sincere and sincerely experienced something. So what? I think so did many of Joseph Smith's followers and according to you they cannot be correct. So apparently it is possible for human psychology to manifest delusions that are very vivid and strong.

Right, so if Paul was sincere, he wasn't lying about what he claimed he saw, so the question is, what would cause him to see what he claimed he saw?? If you say he saw a delusion, then that wouldn't explain the empty tomb, nor would it explain the origin of the disciples belief in the Resurrection either.

As for Joseph Smith, the concept of his god is based on a logical absurdity, plus he predicted prophecies that turned out to be false, as they did not come true. The "delusion" would seem to fit him more than it would either Paul or the disciples. People don't have delusions about the same exact thing at the same exact time, which was the case for the disciples, which would make any delusion or hallucinating argument a poor attempt to explain away the origin of the disciples belief.

We don't actually know who Luke was, the author of Luke/Acts, at all. By the way, Acts is a lot later than Paul, Luke is derivative of several other sources, I won't accept that prima facie as awesome primary source material.

The early church fathers attributed the authorship to Luke, and Luke wasn't a disciple or eyewitness to anything relating to Jesus, so I find it hard to believe that the church fathers would attribute the book to this unknown guy if it weren't true that he actually wrote the book.

As far as Luke being later than Paul, I don't think so. If this is the same Luke that Paul is referencing in Col 4:14, then I find it hard to believe that Luke would write a book at which Paul is the central figure and not record his alleged martyrdom or death otherwise. If you are going to write a book about someone, how can you not include his/her death? So I am led to believe that Paul was still alive when Acts was written, and since Acts is part 2 of the Gospel of Luke, then Luke would have had to be written earlier than Acts.

Why should we believe the narratives in every detail here? In terms of, JEsus appearing to the 500. Why should I believe THAT happened in particular?

Because Paul was a former Christian skeptic and persecutor there would be absolutely no reason for him to give any credibility to a religion at which he was hell bent on setting out to destroy. The main point of this is the fact that the events were within 5 years of the cross, which is early. The Gospels may have been written x amount of years after the cross, but the core belief of Christ and the Resurrection was held by the original followers of Jesus and at least a couple of skeptics shortly after Jesus' death.

I mean to be honest,it would be nice to be convinced of this. Originally I found forms of this argument convincing. I am just not seeing it hold up. It's carrying immense weight here. Establishing the absolute truth of the universe, basically, and this is all we have? It's a bummer.

Aw man...it is at least nice to hear that you want to be convinced and you at least found "forms of this argument convincing". Tell ya what, I would invite you to watch several debates regarding Christ and the Resurrection.

1. Watch the many debates on youtube between Dr. William Lane Craig and his opponents. William Lane Craig has debated the likes of Bart Erhman, Richard Carrier, John Spong (to name a few). Dr. Craig is a prominent figure in issues regarding the Resurrection, and his opponents themselves are also prominent figures...you should check them out.

2. Also check out Michael Licona and Gary Habermas. You may be familiar with both these guys, they are on the forefront when it comes to the Resurrection, especially Gary Habermas. The debate Michael Licona had with Richard Carrier is very stimulating, and you should check it out.

3. Check out any of Lee Strobel's books, especially "The Case for Christ"...in these books, Lee is interviewing many prominent Christian apologists regarding different many different topics...he is playing the role as the devils advocate and is asking these guys many difficult questions, questions the skeptics may ask. These books have been very helpful to me in my apologetic journey, and I am sure that it will help you as well.

4. Ask Christ to come into your heart. Heb 11:6 states: 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

If your heart yearns for answers...for God...examine the evidence for the Resurrection, and pray....and I am CONFIDENT that you will come out convinced.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

4. Ask Christ to come into your heart. Heb 11:6 states: 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

If your heart yearns for answers...for God...examine the evidence for the Resurrection, and pray....and I am CONFIDENT that you will come out convinced.

So I can't believe in god till I believe in him?

OR the more likely scenario is that for me to be convinced of god's existence then I need to be dedicated to convincing myself or being convinced in the first place?

I don't think you properly understand what this means. The bible itself has just declared that it does NOT have compelling arguments for its case but instead must have people brainwash themselves into believing it to be true before they can accept it as truth.

I'm not exaggerating or kidding. That is LITERALLY what it says right there plain as day.


Now that aside what are the evidences for the Resurrection? Are they purely spiritual or is there physical or historical evidences?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So I can't believe in god till I believe in him?

OR the more likely scenario is that for me to be convinced of god's existence then I need to be dedicated to convincing myself or being convinced in the first place?

I don't think you properly understand what this means. The bible itself has just declared that it does NOT have compelling arguments for its case but instead must have people brainwash themselves into believing it to be true before they can accept it as truth.

I'm not exaggerating or kidding. That is LITERALLY what it says right there plain as day.

I have no clue what you are talking about here.

Now that aside what are the evidences for the Resurrection? Are they purely spiritual or is there physical or historical evidences?

Historical evidence that the disciples claimed they saw post-mortem appearances of Jesus Christ, which they sincerly believed, and this belief is best explained by the the truth value of the claims.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Well if events don't happen one after another then the whole concept of time is out of the window...as there would be no temporal becoming. Makes no sense. It isn't as if the people that will be born in 3014 are somewhere in the distant future waiting on time to catch up to them so that they can be born. They simply don't exist...and there existence is dependent upon things that are happening in the present day.

If, and only if there was a time at which you DIDN'T exist, then the fact that you now EXIST in the present moment needs to be explained, and you can't explain the origin of your existence from a prior point of non-existence without presupposing preceding moments.



So, if I told you to start walking an infinite distance North on an infinitely long road, and once you reach infinity you will receive a check of 1 billion dollars, and you can travel at whatever speed you desire, please tell me how long it will take you to reach the infinite distance?

Hey, you can feel free to talk in whatever technical terms you want to, I will keep my thought analogies simple, because that is all I need to do. And I assure you, there is no WAY possible for you to conceptualize how you can traverse infinity. No way possible. If you can, I will expect you to be able to answer the very simple question I have above.



Actually I don't because on the Christian view, there is no infinite regression, and thus logical absurdities does not result based on the mere concept of our God alone.

Also, it is worth mentioning, that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. His prophecies gave specific times and events, and NONE of them came true.

Deut 18:22 states "When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken."

You can look up the false prophecies yourself, and again, I stress the point that the Mormon god is based off of logical absurdities and false prophecies, which makes any testimony of the man who started the religion a liar.



So wait, it was a different body? Ok, so why was the tomb empty of the old body? If Jesus appeared in a different body than he was laid to rest in, then why was the prior body not in the tomb? Makes no sense.



Right, so if Paul was sincere, he wasn't lying about what he claimed he saw, so the question is, what would cause him to see what he claimed he saw?? If you say he saw a delusion, then that wouldn't explain the empty tomb, nor would it explain the origin of the disciples belief in the Resurrection either.

As for Joseph Smith, the concept of his god is based on a logical absurdity, plus he predicted prophecies that turned out to be false, as they did not come true. The "delusion" would seem to fit him more than it would either Paul or the disciples. People don't have delusions about the same exact thing at the same exact time, which was the case for the disciples, which would make any delusion or hallucinating argument a poor attempt to explain away the origin of the disciples belief.



The early church fathers attributed the authorship to Luke, and Luke wasn't a disciple or eyewitness to anything relating to Jesus, so I find it hard to believe that the church fathers would attribute the book to this unknown guy if it weren't true that he actually wrote the book.

As far as Luke being later than Paul, I don't think so. If this is the same Luke that Paul is referencing in Col 4:14, then I find it hard to believe that Luke would write a book at which Paul is the central figure and not record his alleged martyrdom or death otherwise. If you are going to write a book about someone, how can you not include his/her death? So I am led to believe that Paul was still alive when Acts was written, and since Acts is part 2 of the Gospel of Luke, then Luke would have had to be written earlier than Acts.



[/COLOR][/B]

If your heart yearns for answers...for God...examine the evidence for the Resurrection, and pray....and I am CONFIDENT that you will come out convinced.

My intention isn't to befuddle the issue with 'technical speak' for no good reason. I just find it a lot easier to write 'eternalism' then have to try to describe the view each and every time I type it out. I thought I defined it a while ago and we would be good to go. If you are curious about my view of time, I recommend looking up B-theory of time or eternalism. My primary reason for holding this position is scientifically motivated. I think it makes the most sense out of special relativity and vice versa. That we seem to 'move through time' is a psychological delusion brought about entropy. But yeah, it's very interesting. I don't know of any better way to make sense of what we learn from relativity about the nature of space and time. Insofar as there is not 'one even after another' the problem of 'transversing infinite time' is reduced to a question about whether or not you can have an infinite space.

By the way, if you don't accept this as a potential possibility you run into the same issue with an infinitely existing God. Craig knows this, but wants there to be a problem of 'actual infinities' which is why he has God existing in 'B theory time' until creating stuff, and only then in 'A theory of time'. If you only want there to be A-theory of presentist time, then you also accept there is a solution to the infinite regression of events by accepting that God has existed forever.

Alright so now with the Joseph Smith case you are using outside arguments and potentially complicated theological and philosophical criteria to judge whether or not the eye witnesses ought to be trusted? Here's the problem I see. Let's apply these same sorts of criteria and principles to the resurrection of Jesus case. I have discussions about this sort of thing with my brother from time to time. He has recently gotten involved with reform Judaism. Not long ago we were both secular types, agnostic/atheist. Now he asks me, if you want to be religious,why don't you just go with the family religion (in essence). We've had this sort of discussion about Jesus, and he says, look, there was no expectation for a Messiah who just gets killed like a criminal. You can't interpret the prophetic texts that way it's not valid.

The nitty gritty details aren't important so much as hopefully you can see how this affects the principles you are using here. If we can't 'trust' the eye witness reports of miracles without going through a rigorous philosophical and then theological background check, now I am stick in the muck trying to decide rather complicated and technical issues about what the messiah ought to look like through an exhaustive scholarly study of the tanakh-- *before* deciding that the 'eyewitness' reports are good. I will never be done with this. It makes the argument for the historicity of the resurrection quite a bit less useful.

As far as the 'body' goes, there is a genuine issue here of understanding what a glorified spiritual body is precisely. If it isn't identifiable with a resurrected physical body there is going to be an issue with understanding how to identify the historical happening as a literal resurrection of a body from the dead. It will be open to critiques about it being about grieving people seeing visions of a beloved leader.

I think Paul was sincere but a lot of people make sincere religious changes due to astounding visions and such, this is not unique to Christianity and so not helpful in establishing its unique truth.

As far as me, I'm likely screwed as far as this stuff goes. I've read the Licona book Habermas stuff, plenty of Craig. I've also read a bunch of general NT and OT/hebrew bible scholarship from various sorts of believers and nonbelievers. I've run the argument for the resurrection myself on several occasions. I realize that the bible is an enormous topic and nothing I could fully master hte scholarship of, even were I to devote my life to it. But there are key things I've identified that make me think it's likely I'd never find satisfaction on this issue,.... not even for the weight of these claims. One is simply that of the people who are experts in this area, so many are entirely unconvinced themselves.

As far as spiritual experiences etc. all manner of prayers, I have had those. I figure it like this. If I somehow remain in the Christian faith, it is either a psychological quirk of mine or God. If I remain I will never really know which but it won't matter, because I'll end up staying in it which seems like the same end result. But aside from that, I feel as though I am in the middle of a structure collapsing all about me. At some point I will be unable to remain. PS I had to erase some random part of your post so the length was acceptable to post.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What you are speaking of are words in a book and the supposed ‘facts’, as in the Resurrection and the holy men leaving their graves, are entirely at odds with the meaning of the term as something that is verifiable or corresponding with experience.

?

That is just an empty assertion. There is no ‘evidence’ whatsoever of the (Cartesian) mind surviving bodily death.

There is more evidence of the mind surviving bodily death than there is for evidence of the origin of consciousness coming from unconsciousness.

Well of course the dead living again breaks no law of logic any more than does life coming from non-life! The argument is from probability, not possibility, and it is more probable that the dead will remain dead than they will spring to life again.

Only if god doesn't exist would it be neither probable or possible.

And that is just pure speculation. As I said previously not even those with the most ardent faith in Christianity actually believe or accept that dead bodies will rise from their graves in this life, which is what is supposed to have happened according to the Bible.

Well I don't know what "in this life" means. Christians believe in resurrections.

No, that is not the point. You are supposed to be arguing that God exists because the Resurrection is true. Instead all you’re doing is telling me what Christians believe.

What I am saying is; if we have good reasons to believe the Resurrection is true, then we have good reasons to believe in the existence of a specific God.

You believe what you were raised to believe and you accept it absolutely and unconditionally, disbelieving anything that challenges your faith.

That is not necessarily true. How many on here can say that they were raised in the church but later abandoned the faith?

I can’t pretend to know how the world originated or understand what Hume called the ‘secret springs’ by which the world appears to operate; and even the things we have good reason to believe true are only as sound as the last experiment or they may be overturned by a competing theory. That is the difference. Yours is the assertion, the claim to knowledge, and yet it is only held from faith.

I have reasons to believe everything that I believe.

Well you might want to consider a woman that was turned into a pillar of salt, the case of the articulate donkey, and a flesh and blood human living to 600 years of age. Those instances seem to me to be the result of waving a magic wand (or perhaps bedtime stories told to children?).

All those things you mentioned were orchestrated by an omnipotent God. If you take God out of the equation, I am at a lost to see how we can get to the point of donkeys, salt, women, and human beings in the first place.

Only if you have the disposition to believe such things.

I have reasons to believe such things. But hey, 1 Corin 1:18 states "18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

It isn't for everyone.

You’ve begun with the belief that ‘God exists’ is true, and therefore you already believe his existence is possible (you can’t believe what you don’t believe). So now it is for you to argue for what you believe to be true, i.e. the Resurrection as a miracle. And a case can only be made on the basis of probability, for as Dr Greenleaf says “In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether is it possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true.” And those holy men leaving their graves or Jesus rising from the dead is not sufficiently probable that it must be judged true, because it is more ‘sufficiently probable’ that the dead remain dead than that they should return to life three days after in perfect health without the least corruption to the flesh? Your response is to say to say it is probable if God exists because God can perform miracles. So you’ve parachuted a miracle-working God into the argument to support your assertion that the Resurrection is probable on the basis that God is possible, but without proving the Resurrection which in turn is supposed to prove the existence of a miracle-working God. See?

Still harping on the holy men and the graves? lmao.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

My intention isn't to befuddle the issue with 'technical speak' for no good reason. I just find it a lot easier to write 'eternalism' then have to try to describe the view each and every time I type it out. I thought I defined it a while ago and we would be good to go. If you are curious about my view of time, I recommend looking up B-theory of time or eternalism. My primary reason for holding this position is scientifically motivated. I think it makes the most sense out of special relativity and vice versa. That we seem to 'move through time' is a psychological delusion brought about entropy. But yeah, it's very interesting. I don't know of any better way to make sense of what we learn from relativity about the nature of space and time. Insofar as there is not 'one even after another' the problem of 'transversing infinite time' is reduced to a question about whether or not you can have an infinite space.

By the way, if you don't accept this as a potential possibility you run into the same issue with an infinitely existing God. Craig knows this, but wants there to be a problem of 'actual infinities' which is why he has God existing in 'B theory time' until creating stuff, and only then in 'A theory of time'. If you only want there to be A-theory of presentist time, then you also accept there is a solution to the infinite regression of events by accepting that God has existed forever.

Examining the different views of time is irrelevant, because on neither view of time will you be able to adaquately answer my question. If infinity could be traversed, then it should be easy to give an answer. I will patiently wait for an answer.

Alright so now with the Joseph Smith case you are using outside arguments and potentially complicated theological and philosophical criteria to judge whether or not the eye witnesses ought to be trusted? Here's the problem I see. Let's apply these same sorts of criteria and principles to the resurrection of Jesus case. I have discussions about this sort of thing with my brother from time to time. He has recently gotten involved with reform Judaism. Not long ago we were both secular types, agnostic/atheist. Now he asks me, if you want to be religious,why don't you just go with the family religion (in essence). We've had this sort of discussion about Jesus, and he says, look, there was no expectation for a Messiah who just gets killed like a criminal. You can't interpret the prophetic texts that way it's not valid.

The nitty gritty details aren't important so much as hopefully you can see how this affects the principles you are using here. If we can't 'trust' the eye witness reports of miracles without going through a rigorous philosophical and then theological background check, now I am stick in the muck trying to decide rather complicated and technical issues about what the messiah ought to look like through an exhaustive scholarly study of the tanakh-- *before* deciding that the 'eyewitness' reports are good. I will never be done with this. It makes the argument for the historicity of the resurrection quite a bit less useful.

I would have thought that the rigorous philosophical and theological background checks would prove to be pivotal.

As far as the 'body' goes, there is a genuine issue here of understanding what a glorified spiritual body is precisely. If it isn't identifiable with a resurrected physical body there is going to be an issue with understanding how to identify the historical happening as a literal resurrection of a body from the dead. It will be open to critiques about it being about grieving people seeing visions of a beloved leader.

The disciples claimed they saw the Resurrected physical body, though? Why not just focus on what they claimed instead of adding our own little twists?

I think Paul was sincere but a lot of people make sincere religious changes due to astounding visions and such, this is not unique to Christianity and so not helpful in establishing its unique truth.

The empty tomb is still unexplained.

As far as me, I'm likely screwed as far as this stuff goes. I've read the Licona book Habermas stuff, plenty of Craig. I've also read a bunch of general NT and OT/hebrew bible scholarship from various sorts of believers and nonbelievers. I've run the argument for the resurrection myself on several occasions. I realize that the bible is an enormous topic and nothing I could fully master hte scholarship of, even were I to devote my life to it. But there are key things I've identified that make me think it's likely I'd never find satisfaction on this issue,.... not even for the weight of these claims. One is simply that of the people who are experts in this area, so many are entirely unconvinced themselves.

Exactly, they are led to the water but they refuse to drink. First, I'd like to find out why they are unconvinced, and then focus on why they are unconvinced and offer suggestions. If that doesn't work, hey, you can't please everyone.

As far as spiritual experiences etc. all manner of prayers, I have had those. I figure it like this. If I somehow remain in the Christian faith, it is either a psychological quirk of mine or God. If I remain I will never really know which but it won't matter, because I'll end up staying in it which seems like the same end result. But aside from that, I feel as though I am in the middle of a structure collapsing all about me. At some point I will be unable to remain. PS I had to erase some random part of your post so the length was acceptable to post.

What is the single most biggest concern regarding the Resurrection which is keeping you a skeptic?