Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Hope on September 24, 2016, 08:04:37 PM
-
Has anyone read this book by a former atheist homicide detective (James Warner Wallace) who used the same methodology on the gospels as on a number of other 'cold' cases. In the course of this process, initiated in order to disprove the basis of Christianity once and for all, he became convinced of its validity. He even points out that the 'contradictions' match what you would expect to find from witnesses in any such case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Warner_Wallace notes his credentials.
-
I've not heard of him, Hope, but I have read similar from others or a-nother many years ago; also knew a couple of people who did what James Wallace describes and came to faith via that route.
-
I haven't read the book, but the Wikipedia entry says
Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35, after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus.
Allegedly he is a homicide detective and yet he can't see that the gospels are not eye witness accounts. I hope he is more scrupulous in his day job.
-
I haven't read the book, but the Wikipedia entry says
Allegedly he is a homicide detective and yet he can't see that the gospels are not eye witness accounts. I hope he is more scrupulous in his day job.
As Hillside would say you have committed a Bourne imperative here.
This homicide detective has looked at the Gospels and determined that they do indeed contain reportage and literature that is recognisably ''witness statement''.
CS Lewis, an expert on myth also detected elements that were not mythical writing.
-
Has anyone read this book by a former atheist homicide detective (James Warner Wallace) who used the same methodology on the gospels as on a number of other 'cold' cases. In the course of this process, initiated in order to disprove the basis of Christianity once and for all, he became convinced of its validity. He even points out that the 'contradictions' match what you would expect to find from witnesses in any such case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Warner_Wallace notes his credentials.
I suspect he might being applying different standards as regards the gospels compared with his day job. For example his 'witness statements' are potentially post-hoc by years, are of unknown provenance and claim remarkable things that I doubt have a related investigation protocol in the 'how to investigate stuff' detectives manual - and there are no 'forensics'.
Imagine the case being handled by Jack Regan of 'The Sweeney' fame: Carter says 'There are reports of a death, guv' so Regan replies 'right; secure there area - nobody touches the body - and call in SOCO a.s.a.p'. Carter pauses, thinking about how to say what he needs to tell his boss, and then says 'you're not going to believe this, guv, but we're being told the guy was dead for sure for 3 days - but then he wasn't - has been seen around and about, apparently'.
Regan throws his fag on the floor, grinds it under his shoe, glares menacingly at Carter, and then heads to the pub shaking his head as he goes. Cue the slow version of the theme tune.
-
Hope,
So a Christian apologist former detective decides to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith, and undeterred by the category error concludes that the contradictory accounts of the latter are not dissimilar to the contradictory accounts you sometimes find after the former.
And that's meant to demonstrate what exactly?
-
Hope,
So a Christian apologist former detective decides to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith, and undeterred by the category error concludes that the contradictory accounts of the latter are not dissimilar to the contradictory accounts you sometimes find after the former.
And that's meant to demonstrate what exactly?
Sorry, But wasn't he an atheist former detective when he started all of this Hillside? I think you might have committed an Icarus Agenda here.
-
I suspect he might being applying different standards as regards the gospels compared with his day job. For example his 'witness statements' are potentially post-hoc by years, are of unknown provenance and claim remarkable things that I doubt have a related investigation protocol in the 'how to investigate stuff' detectives manual - and there are no 'forensics'.
Imagine the case being handled by Jack Regan of 'The Sweeney' fame: Carter says 'There are reports of a death, guv' so Regan replies 'right; secure there area - nobody touches the body - and call in SOCO a.s.a.p'. Carter pauses, thinking about how to say what he needs to tell his boss, and then says 'you're not going to believe this, guv, but we're being told the guy was dead for sure for 3 days - but then he wasn't - has been seen around and about, apparently'.
Regan throws his fag on the floor, grinds it under his shoe, glares menacingly at Carter, and then heads to the pub shaking his head as he goes. Cue the slow version of the theme tune.
Great I suppose we can now, following your logic dismiss all those modern psychiatric analyses of the saints then..................fat chance in the world of antitheist double standard.
-
I haven't read the book, but the Wikipedia entry says
Allegedly he is a homicide detective and yet he can't see that the gospels are not eye witness accounts. I hope he is more scrupulous in his day job.
Is that you talking as a homicide detective with years of experience or an atheist a bit peeved that someone using using skills you don't have came to believe the Gospels were what you would expect of witness to say?
God works in mysterious ways. Tell me what you have done regarding the gospels and what you have learned as an atheist that you can show they are not eyewitness accounts... Don't use something from someone else...
-
I suspect he might being applying different standards as regards the gospels compared with his day job. For example his 'witness statements' are potentially post-hoc by years, are of unknown provenance and claim remarkable things that I doubt have a related investigation protocol in the 'how to investigate stuff' detectives manual - and there are no 'forensics'.
Imagine the case being handled by Jack Regan of 'The Sweeney' fame: Carter says 'There are reports of a death, guv' so Regan replies 'right; secure there area - nobody touches the body - and call in SOCO a.s.a.p'. Carter pauses, thinking about how to say what he needs to tell his boss, and then says 'you're not going to believe this, guv, but we're being told the guy was dead for sure for 3 days - but then he wasn't - has been seen around and about, apparently'.
Regan throws his fag on the floor, grinds it under his shoe, glares menacingly at Carter, and then heads to the pub shaking his head as he goes. Cue the slow version of the theme tune.
Believing is seeing....
Isn't that the route most take... They have to look for truth about Jesus and be prepared to want the outcome if it shows up to be true.
It Is clear from your reply that you like so many have to find answers which do not come from yourself but the use of props.
The guy clearly used what knowledge he had and in reading with the same he found the elements which show him they are true.
Do you not believe the possibility that he is right and you are wrong? If so, what will you do about it? :)
-
Hope,
So a Christian apologist former detective decides to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith, and undeterred by the category error concludes that the contradictory accounts of the latter are not dissimilar to the contradictory accounts you sometimes find after the former.
And that's meant to demonstrate what exactly?
You omit the big point.... to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith
HE DIDN'T HAVE A FAITH.
He was not religious. In the course of this process, initiated in order to disprove the basis of Christianity once and for all,
Your post becomes misleading and you mislead yourself, albeit unintentionally. But the fact remains the man did not do as you said he did.
How come we read the post and knew what you didn't. Could it be that we, the detective and I, read what is written and not what we want it to say. Could you be mistaken when you read other things?
-
Great I suppose we can now, following your logic dismiss all those modern psychiatric analyses of the saints then..................fat chance in the world of antitheist double standard.
No idea, since I haven't seen them - but of course this isn't what this thread is about, which is the ridiculous notion that Christianity is somehow supported by modern methods of police investigation being applied to ancient anecdote that is indistinguishable from fiction, where the risks of mistake or lies in these accounts hasn't been addressed.
-
No idea, since I haven't seen them - but of course this isn't what this thread is about, which is the ridiculous notion that Christianity is somehow supported by modern methods of police investigation being applied to ancient anecdote that is indistinguishable from fiction, where the risks of mistake or lies in these accounts hasn't been addressed.
I see this as an atheist former detective looking at these documents against the background of American biblical fundamentalism and American atheistic scientism and Jesus mythism and, came out against the facile logical nonsense of the Jesus Mythers.
-
I see this as an atheist former detective looking at these documents against the background of American biblical fundamentalism and American atheistic scientism and Jesus mythism and, came out against the facile logical nonsense of the Jesus Mythers.
Perhaps you do, Vlad, but then that isn't what the OP suggests.
It suggests that this particular PC Plod was trying to apply current 'police procedural' to ancient anecdote involving claims of the divine: which is of course silly unless said current 'police procedural' has a section on investigating supernatural claims - in which case we'd all love to see what methods are employed.
-
Perhaps you do, Vlad, but then that isn't what the OP suggests.
It suggests that this particular PC Plod was trying to apply current 'police procedural' to ancient anecdote involving claims of the divine: which is of course silly unless said current 'police procedural' has a section on investigating supernatural claims - in which case we'd all love to see what methods are employed.
Something like thus I presume
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimm_(TV_series)
-
Something like thus I presume
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimm_(TV_series)
Yep - we need Detective 'Nick' on the case (looking forward to the new series soon).
-
Perhaps you do, Vlad, but then that isn't what the OP suggests.
It suggests that this particular PC Plod was trying to apply current 'police procedural' to ancient anecdote involving claims of the divine: which is of course silly unless said current 'police procedural' has a section on investigating supernatural claims - in which case we'd all love to see what methods are employed.
I think even more important here is your dismissal of ancient documents and by extension ancient history as 'ancient anecdote'
Also there is the question of how we treat the context namely the early Christian community and on several accounts your own attitude is IMHO wanting and is not a million miles from Nearly Sane's apparent suggestion that since history is supposedly methodological materialist we can create a hole in or a Gordon sanitaire around the history of the early Christian community.
We should conclude of course that for these people these things were absolutely true.
-
I think even more important here is your dismissal of ancient documents and by extension ancient history as 'ancient anecdote'
Also there is the question of how we treat the context namely the early Christian community and on several accounts your own attitude is IMHO wanting and is not a million miles from Nearly Sane's apparent suggestion that since history is supposedly methodological materialist we can create a hole in or a Gordon sanitaire around the history of the early Christian community.
We should conclude of course that for these people these things were absolutely true.
Just to note for clarity what I have stated (not apparently suggested) is that history is studied in a methodological naturalistic manner.
-
It's an open and shut case...Jesus was murdered by the state. All the evidence tells us this and really, no one seems to deny it...but it is the hidden detail involved that requires the magnifying glass. I wont burden you here...but the evidence says that he knew that this would happen to him and he wanted to pass on to future generations the twists and the turns behind speaking the truth of righteousness and the moronic dictates of authority which allows all sorts of misbehaviour as long as it is kept secret from the public.
Their time will soon be up...Jesus also showed how the true nature of the universe works...he showed us that by standing firm against this cult of oppression, though we may anger many, in the eyes of Almighty God and Jesus Christ we are the salt of the Earth with a promise of a special place in the future dynamics of this world.
-
................................. this particular PC Plod
Patronising.
-
I think even more important here is your dismissal of ancient documents and by extension ancient history as 'ancient anecdote'
Touch of straw there Vlad - we are just talking about Christian anecdote and not 'ancient history' - at least I was!
Also there is the question of how we treat the context namely the early Christian community and on several accounts your own attitude is IMHO wanting and is not a million miles from Nearly Sane's apparent suggestion that since history is supposedly methodological materialist we can create a hole in or a Gordon sanitaire around the history of the early Christian community.
History is methodologically naturalistic and so is police investigation since as far as I know the police don't factor in the supernatural as something to be investigated: they seem to rely more on the likes of fingerprint evidence than claims based on reports of divine intervention.
We should conclude of course that for these people these things were absolutely true.
Quite possibly - but that doesn't imply there these things were actually true.
-
Patronising.
Nope - I'd say 'fair comment'.
-
Touch of straw there Vlad - we are just talking about Christian anecdote and not 'ancient history' - at least I was!
Well then if you dismiss documentation merely on the grounds of being Christian then that i'm afraid is the genetic fallacy.
Police, Christian ......any other groups who you'd like to suggest yourself superior to?
Of course history is methologically naturalistic.....Nearly Sane says so.
-
Well then if you dismiss documentation merely on the grounds of being Christian then that i'm afraid is the genetic fallacy.
Police, Christian ......any other groups who you'd like to suggest yourself superior to?
Of course history is methologically naturalistic.....Nearly Sane says so.
Again please note what I have been saying is that is history is studied in a methodological naturalistic fashion.
-
Well then if you dismiss documentation merely on the grounds of being Christian then that i'm afraid is the genetic fallacy.
Yet another straw man - last time I looked this thread is specifically about Christian sources (these being specific to the activities of this PC Plod).
Police, Christian ......any other groups who you'd like to suggest yourself superior to?
Nope - this thread is about what this guy was up to.
Of course history is methologically naturalistic.....Nearly Sane says so.
NS is talking about how history is currently studied and investigated, in the absence of a method that isn't methodologically naturalistic.
-
Vlad,
Sorry, But wasn't he an atheist former detective when he started all of this Hillside? I think you might have committed an Icarus Agenda here.
No he wasn't, and if you'd bothered reading the link you'd know that. See below:
In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35...
After his conversion, Wallace began applying the principles of cold-case homicide investigation to Christian apologetics...
Wallace’s first book is Cold Case Christianity; A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels (David C. Cook, 2013)...
In Alive: A Cold-Case Approach to the Resurrection (David C. Cook, 2014)...
In God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe (David C. Cook, 2015)...
In "Cold-Case Christianity for Kids", detective J. Warner Wallace draws readers into the thrill of high-stakes investigation by showing them how to think rather than telling them what to think. (David C. Cook, 2016)...
You're welcome.
-
Vlad,
I see this as an atheist former detective looking at these documents against the background of American biblical fundamentalism and American atheistic scientism and Jesus mythism and, came out against the facile logical nonsense of the Jesus Mythers.
Then you see it wrongly. See my last post for the explanation of why.
-
Sassy,
You omit the big point....
...HE DIDN'T HAVE A FAITH.
He was not religious.
No, you miss the big point: yes he was. Why did you omit the "After his conversion, Wallace began applying..." bit?
-
Sassy,
No, you miss the big point: yes he was. Why did you omit the "After his conversion, Wallace began applying..." bit?
Wikipedia has his conversion after his investigation Hillside.
-
Vlad,
Wikipedia has his conversion after his investigation Hillside.
Not according the the Wiki link Hope posted and that I quoted it doesn't. What do you know that the author of the article doesn't?
-
Vlad,
Not according the the Wiki link Hope posted and that I quoted it doesn't. What do you know that the author of the article doesn't?
No, I'm right it's under ''conversion to christianity''
-
Vlad,
No, I'm right it's under ''conversion to christianity''
No, you're flat wrong. Here it is again:
"In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35..."
"After his conversion, Wallace began applying the principles of cold-case homicide investigation to..."
-
Wikipedia has his conversion after his investigation Hillside.
Vad is right, see
'In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35, after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus'
Bluehillside is correct with his quotes. That is wiki for you but I don't see whether he was or was not is of much interest. Methods should stand or fall on the methods. Without reading the book it is difficult to comment in detail but both history as it is studied and police work as it is carried out are methodological naturalist. So if Vlad or Hope who have constantly run away from providing a method for investigation of such claims want to read tbook, then get back us that would be great.
-
Vad is right, see
'In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35, after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus'
Blue.
Sorry to piss on your Bonfire.
-
I haven't read the book, but the Wikipedia entry says
Allegedly he is a homicide detective and yet he can't see that the gospels are not eye witness accounts. I hope he is more scrupulous in his day job.
But do you have any evidence for your assertion that they aren't eye-witness accounts, jeremy?
-
NS,
Vad is right, see
'In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35, after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus'
No Vlad isn't. I posted: "So a Christian apologist former detective decides to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith..."
To which Vlad replied: "Sorry, But wasn't he an atheist former detective when he started all of this Hillside?", "all of this" referring to my "decides to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to...".
Rightly or wrongly, the Wiki article says that he did this after his conversion. He may well have "investigated the gospels" to his heart's content before then, but the application of the methods of criminology we're told came later.
As you say (and as I said), it doesn't matter much anyway - he may as well have used a Geiger counter to investigate the aesthetics of ballet - but I was just correcting Vlad's mis-statement.
-
Blue.
Sorry to piss on your Bonfire.
The editing of my post to leave out the next bit is dishonest, Vlad.
-
Vlad,
Sorry to piss on your Bonfire.
You didn't - you just ruined yet another pair of trousers.
-
I've not heard of him, Hope, but I have read similar from others or a-nother many years ago; also knew a couple of people who did what James Wallace describes and came to faith via that route.
Seem to remember that the advertising agent who wrote 'Who Moved the Stone' (Albert Henry Ross, aka Frank Morison) followed a similar route.
-
NS,
No he isn't. I posted: "So a Christian apologist former detective decides to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith..."
To which Vlad replied: "Sorry, But wasn't he an atheist former detective when he started all of this Hillside?", "all of this" referring to my "decides to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to".
Rightly or wrongly, the Wiki article says that he did this after his conversion. He may well have "investigated the gospels" to his heart's content before then, but the application of the methods of criminology came later.
As you say (and as I said), it doesn't matter much anyway - he may as well have used a Geiger consider to investigate the aesthetics of ballet - but I was just correcting Vlad's mis-statement.
And again to quote
'In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35, after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus'
This sentence in wiki clearly states Vlad's position. Denying it and, note when quoting it in your post for the first time, you carefully edited the second part (in bold) of the sentence out, is doing the same sort of dishonest approach as Vlad. The wiki is essentially unclear and contradictory.
-
Hope,
So a Christian apologist former detective decides to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith, and undeterred by the category error concludes that the contradictory accounts of the latter are not dissimilar to the contradictory accounts you sometimes find after the former.
And that's meant to demonstrate what exactly?
Its seems to demonstrate 2 things, bhs. Firstly that you can't read - I expressly pointed out in the OP that he was a 'former atheist homicide detective' who set out to 'disprove the basis of Christianity once and for all' fact that that totally ignore in your response. Secondly, that your confirmation bias encourages you to claim something untrue - that he didn't 'decide(s) to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith' unless you are referring to his then faith - atheism - with that last phrase.
-
Seem to remember that the advertising agent who wrote 'Who Moved the Stone' (Albert Henry Ross, aka Frank Morison) followed a similar route.
and of of this is entirely pointless, since I could quote numbers of people who gave up their faith on investigating it further. That this has happened in both directions is factual. Had it only happened in one direction, it wouldn't amount to an argument for truth.
If you want to make an argument read the books and tell us the arguments. They are what matter.
-
NS,
And again to quote
'In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35, after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus'
This sentence in wiki clearly states Vlad's position. Denying it and, note when quoting it in your post for the first time, you carefully edited the second part (in bold) of the sentence out, is doing the same sort of dishonest approach as Vlad. The wiki is essentially unclear and contradictory.
No it doesn't, and I didn't "carefully edit out" anything. The issue under discussion was the application of the "cold case" methods of criminology. I commented on its inappropriateness, Vlad said that he did it before he converted, and I showed him that (according to the article) Wallace did no such thing.
We can discuss the "investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts" part too if you want to, but that's not the part I referenced in my original post and it's not the part Vlad responded to therefore.
Vlad is notorious for his dishonesty here. Please don't tar me with the same brush.
-
Rightly or wrongly, the Wiki article says that he did this after his conversion. He may well have "investigated the gospels" to his heart's content before then, but the application of the methods of criminology we're told came later.
You must be reading a different edition or version of wikipedia to me, bhs. As has been pointed out by others, wikipedia says "In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35, after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus". I think the timeline is pretty clear that the conversion came after (and therefore as a result of, the investigation). Certainly the grammar of the sentence would suggest that.
I appreciate that folk on your side of the fence don't like to admit that it is perfectly legitimate for people, who were once fellow-travellers with you, to change their opinions on proper investiagtion of the material.
-
Its seems to demonstrate 2 things, bhs. Firstly that you can't read - I expressly pointed out in the OP that he was a 'former atheist homicide detective' who set out to 'disprove the basis of Christianity once and for all' fact that that totally ignore in your response. Secondly, that your confirmation bias encourages you to claim something untrue - that he didn't 'decide(s) to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith' unless you are referring to his then faith - atheism - with that last phrase.
'Pointed out' means asserted here. You have missed what bluehillside is saying based on the wiki that you put up that the books are things he worked on 17 years or so after converting. The wiki is unclear and confused, and it looks to me contradictory as explained in earlier posts.
Atheism is not a faith, any more than aunicornism, please stop with this useless illogical canard. Given the number of years and hundreds of times you have be asked for a non naturalistic method, during whivpvh you have provided nine and consistently lied about doing so, I suggest ypi read the books and see if you can help you with something that will stop you doing that.
-
... I commented on its inappropriateness, Vlad said that he did it before he converted, and I showed him that (according to the article) Wallace did no such thing.
Which is in direct contradiction to what the wiki does say, bhs.
Vlad is notorious for his dishonesty here. Please don't tar me with the same brush.
I'd be careful that you don't make it so easy to tar you with the same brush, blue.
-
NS,
No it doesn't, and I didn't "carefully edit out" anything. The issue under discussion was the application of the "cold case" methods of criminology. I commented on its inappropriateness, Vlad said that he did it before he converted, and I showed him that (according to the article) Wallace did no such thing.
We can discuss the "investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts" part too if you want to, but that's not the part I referenced in my original post and it's not the part Vlad responded to therefore.
Vlad is notorious for his dishonesty here. Please don't tar me with the same brush.
You quoted a sentence, part of which obviously undermines your position, and you left that bit out and that isn't 'carefully editing it out'?
Two words, both positive. Aye, right!
-
Hope,
Its seems to demonstrate 2 things, bhs. Firstly that you can't read...
Charming.
...- I expressly pointed out in the OP that he was a 'former atheist homicide detective' who set out to 'disprove the basis of Christianity once and for all' fact that that totally ignore in your response.
I ignored it because the article you linked to says no such thing. All it says is: "after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus". If you think that he did that to disprove something, then you need to tell us why you think that.
Secondly...
Secondly? Anyways...
...that your confirmation bias encourages you to claim something untrue - that he didn't 'decide(s) to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith' unless you are referring to his then faith - atheism - with that last phrase.
Perhaps you're the one who should learn to read? The article says perfectly clearly that only after his conversion did he begin "applying the principles of cold-case homicide investigation to Christian apologetics."
Why is this confusing for you?
-
'Pointed out' means asserted here. You have missed what bluehillside is saying based on the wiki that you put up that the books are things he worked on 17 years or so after converting. The wiki is unclear and confused, and it looks to me contradictory as explained in earlier posts.
Yet the wiki makes it clear that he converted in 1996 AFTER following the investigative proces that he outlines in the book, NS. Your suggestion of unclearness and confusion isn't very convincing.
Atheism is not a faith, ...
I appreciate that you don't like to have atheism deemed a faith, but in view of the timeline so clearly laid out in the wiki article, I was simply pointing out to blue that, at the time of initiating the investiagtion, Wallace was a self-proclaimed atheist and therefore if - as blue said - he was applying 'the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith' blue must have been referring to his atheism in this comment.
-
Hope,
Which is in direct contradiction to what the wiki does say, bhs.
No it isn't. Try again.
I'd be careful that you don't make it so easy to tar you with the same brush, blue.
Again, try reading what the article actually says rather than what you'd like it to say.
-
NS,
No it doesn't, and I didn't "carefully edit out" anything. The issue under discussion was the application of the "cold case" methods of criminology. I commented on its inappropriateness, Vlad said that he did it before he converted, and I showed him that (according to the article) Wallace did no such thing.
We can discuss the "investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts" part too if you want to, but that's not the part I referenced in my original post and it's not the part Vlad responded to therefore.
Vlad is notorious for his dishonesty here. Please don't tar me with the same brush.
I'm afraid reply 25 is the smoking Gun Hillside it's those three little Dot's...
-
and of of this is entirely pointless, since I could quote numbers of people who gave up their faith on investigating it further. That this has happened in both directions is factual. Had it only happened in one direction, it wouldn't amount to an argument for truth.
If you want to make an argument read the books and tell us the arguments. They are what matter.
Yes, indeed. E.g. Bart Ehrman
-
NS,
You quoted a sentence, part of which obviously undermines your position, and you left that bit out and that isn't 'carefully editing it out'?
Two words, both positive. Aye, right!
It didn't undermine my position at all - it was irrelevant to it. My point concerned the use of the naturalistic cold-case investigation techniques of criminology to the non-naturalistic conjectures of his faith. He did that we're told after his conversion, ergo Vlad was wrong about the point actually under discussion.
-
I'm afraid reply 25 is the smoking Gun Hillside it's those three little Dot's...
The mystery for me is still Nearly Sanes simultaneous defence of the quoting of the problem of induction and his suggestion that history as methodologically naturalistic rules out the claims of Christianity........
perhaps the mystery of that is that once again it's a misrepresentation, Vlad. I have never said anything about ruling out non naturalistic claims. And indeed have said that I don't see any way you can rule them in or out with our current methods. I've corrected you specifically on that multiple times. So once again please stop lying about what people say.
-
NS,
It didn't undermine my position at all - it was irrelevant to it. My point concerned the use of the naturalistic cold-case investigation techniques of criminology to the non-naturalistic conjectures of his faith. He did that we're told after his conversion, ergo Vlad was wrong about the point actually under discussion.
Sorry Hillside but you are the victim of your own turd polishing.
All you have is that after his conversion he applied methods to Christian apologetics. So what? He wouldn't have applied them to Christian apologetics as an atheist would he?
-
perhaps the mystery of that is that once again it's a misrepresentation, Vlad. I have never said anything about ruling out non naturalistic claims. And indeed have said that I don't see any way you can rule them in or out with our current methods. I've corrected you specifically on that multiple times. So once again please stop lying about what people say.
I'm sorry but I don't understand your continuing appeals to methodological naturalism nor the significance of history being studied in a methodological naturalistic way, whatever that means.
A description of former detective and former atheist's book is available to all via the internet. So I don't understand your demands from Hope or myself.
The big clue NS was in my choice of the word mystery.
-
I think the exchanges on here underline that it's the arguments that matter from the books. Until they are presented, that there are such books, is not conducive to any conclusions
-
No Body, no DNA, no witnesses to interrogate, no proof the guy even existed!
I think all the cases this detective had dealings with should be reinvestigated immediately.
-
I'm sorry but I don't understand your continuing appeals to methodological naturalism nor the significance of history being studied in a methodological naturalistic way, whatever that means.
A description of former detective and former atheist's book is available to all via the internet. So I don't understand your demands from Hope or myself.
The big clue NS was in my choice of the word mystery.
I see you are avoiding the mid representation you made, I presume in that ignoring it people might miss out the continued lying. If you want to get into more detail on the subject above, which I have explained to you before, then I want an apology for your lying about what I have said.
-
Hope,
No it isn't. Try again.
Having read the article several times I can come to no other conclusion than my previous one. I realise that the book wasn't published till 2013 and we're not given a writing date, but the sentence both I and NS have quoted is pretty clear as to the timeline of investigation and conversion, something that I'd even referenced in my OP.
What you seem to be referring to is the sentence in the subsequent paragraph - "After his conversion, Wallace began applying the principles of cold-case homicide investigation to Christian apologetics".
Again, try reading what the article actually says rather than what you'd like it to say.
I could suggest the same of you.
-
Having read the article several times I can come to no other conclusion than my previous one. I realise that the book wasn't published till 2013 and we're not given a writing date, but the sentence both I and NS have quoted is pretty clear as to the timeline of investigation and conversion.
I could suggest the same of you.
In the end, this is as already pointed out, pointless. That all we have is wiki, which even were it clear, is not any use as an argument, is useless. Do you have any arguments that he makes?
-
No Body, no DNA, no witnesses to interrogate, no proof the guy even existed!
Welcome to ancient history.
-
Yes, indeed. E.g. Bart Ehrman
But how did Bart pull it off?
Did he find that naturalism arbitrarily rules out the supernatural? So none of the supernatural claims could be true?
-
No Body, no DNA, no witnesses to interrogate, no proof the guy even existed!
I think all the cases this detective had dealings with should be reinvestigated immediately.
Sadly, for your argument, there is sufficient independent (non-Biblical) evidence to indicate that someone of the name and actions reported in the Gospels existed - possibly more than for many other person of the time. The sticking point is the supernatural element of the story. By the way, there woul;d seem, according to Wallace, enough eye-witnesses to interrogate - and he did so.
As for opening the cases again, it wouldn't have been him alone - he was part of a team as far as the other cases are concerned so anything out of the ordinary that he might have come up with would have been double- perhaps even triple-checked already.
-
By the way, there woul;d seem, according to Wallace, enough eye-witnesses to interrogate - and he did so.
Perhaps I'm reading this wrong: these alleged eye-witnesses have been dead for around 2,000 years so interrogating them is out of the question (unless super-sleuth has also developed personal time-travel).
-
Sadly, for your argument, there is sufficient independent (non-Biblical) evidence to indicate that someone of the name and actions reported in the Gospels existed - possibly more than for many other person of the time. The sticking point is the supernatural element of the story. By the way, there woul;d seem, according to Wallace, enough eye-witnesses to interrogate - and he did so.
As for opening the cases again, it wouldn't have been him alone - he was part of a team as far as the other cases are concerned so anything out of the ordinary that he might have come up with would have been double- perhaps even triple-checked already. :-*
There is very little ex biblical anything about the existence of Jesus, and astoundingly little about his actions but before we get involved in the bait and switch of questioning this approach being portrayed as mythism, can you present any of his actual arguments, rather than using him as an authority, simply on the basis of a confusedly written wiki page. And BTW that isn't questioning his authority on his job.
.
-
Perhaps I'm reading this wrong: these alleged eye-witnesses have been dead for around 2,000 years so interrogating them is out of the question (unless super-sleuth has also developed personal time-travel).
I'm presuming Hope is using this figuratively to mean read the gospels as if they were eye witnesses. It underlines though that all thus is based on an analogy, that doesn't really hold up. Until we get someone to present some ofbtgese arguments this discussion has run aground.
-
I'm presuming Hope is using this figuratively to mean read the gospels as if they were eye witnesses. It underlines though that all thus is based on an analogy, that doesn't really hold up. Until we get someone to present some ofbtgese arguments this discussion has run aground.
Yikes - if so I'd like to know how this guy assessed the risks of mistakes or lies as he re-read these anecdotal accounts (with his police hat on).
-
Yikes - if so I'd like to know how this guy assessed the risks of mistakes or lies as he re-read these anecdotal accounts (with his police hat on).
again, I don't think we can make much progress based on the limits of a wiki page written in an openly confusing manner. Until Hope or someone else wants to do some detailed investigation, we seem stuck. I haven't seen anything so far that gives me any reason to spend money in what is so far only a baf analogy.
-
I was reading this discussion following Hope's OP and wondered if this might be a part of the long overdue evidence that Hope thinks he has and nobody has seen?
ippy
-
Perhaps I'm reading this wrong: these alleged eye-witnesses have been dead for around 2,000 years so interrogating them is out of the question (unless super-sleuth has also developed personal time-travel).
Who are we talking about The 'Christian turned atheist' or the atheist turned christian'? Probably the latter as I would imagine that as far as atheist experts are concerned Gordon, the tongue tends ''southwards''.
-
There is very little ex biblical anything about the existence of Jesus, and astoundingly little about his actions but before we get involved in the bait and switch of questioning this approach being portrayed as mythism, can you present any of his actual arguments, rather than using him as an authority, simply on the basis of a confusedly written wiki page. And BTW that isn't questioning his authority on his job.
.
But why the insistence on ''ex biblical''?
-
But why the insistence on ''ex biblical''?
Because that's what Hope raised when he talked about non-biblical.
-
If this goes back decades ago then yes, as I heard about someone (a book) who went out to disprove the Gospels and found themselves finding no substantial flaws and became a Christian. However, if I have to become a copper to actually find out what the truth is then I'm stuffed.
-
I haven't read the book, but the Wikipedia entry says
Allegedly he is a homicide detective and yet he can't see that the gospels are not eye witness accounts. I hope he is more scrupulous in his day job.
I wonder if he interviewed them to verify their accounts?
-
But how did Bart pull it off?
Did he find that naturalism arbitrarily rules out the supernatural? So none of the supernatural claims could be true?
Don't even know what you mean by 'did Bart pull it off?'
Pull what off?(the mind boggles)
On the second part, the answer is no. What he did come to the conclusion on, was that the Bible doesn't seem to be the inspired innerant word of God, but much more likely the musings of human beings, and subject, throughout its history, to all kinds of alterations.
As he said in his introduction to "Misquoting Jesus" :
The Bible began to appear to me as a very human book. Just as human scribes had copied, and changed, the texts of scripture, so too had human authors originally written the texts of scripture. This was a human book from beginning to end. It was written by different human authors at different times and in different places to address different needs.
And:
It is a radical shift from reading the Bible as an inerrant blueprint for our faith, life, and future to seeing it as a very human book, with very human points of view, many of which differ from one another and none of which provides the inerrant guide to how we should live.
His approach to his understanding and study of the Bible changed him from being an evangelistic Christian, to being a much more liberal Christian and leading him eventually to being an agnostic atheist.
-
Don't even know what you mean by 'did Bart pull it off?'
Pull what off?(the mind boggles)
On the second part, the answer is no. What he did come to the conclusion on, was that the Bible doesn't seem to be the inspired innerant word of God
But that's the point Enki. How did Bart pull off finding that the bible was not divinely inspired?
-
I wonder if he interviewed them to verify their accounts?
All he could do is to make an informed opinion on whether the New Testament was more reportage than a work of fiction. Then he could only make an informed opinion on whether there was any conspiracy going on given differences in the account.
Given many atheists claim a fourth century christian conspiracy that would I imagine be the point at which many today think the trail goes cold.
I did find a website outlining the areas of study in his book. It looks quite interesting and methodical.
-
All he could do is to make an informed opinion on whether the New Testament was more reportage than a work of fiction. Then he could only make an informed opinion on whether there was any conspiracy going on given differences in the account.
Given many atheists claim a fourth century christian conspiracy that would I imagine be the point at which many today think the trail goes cold.
I did find a website outlining the areas of study in his book. It looks quite interesting and methodical.
which makes the entirety of the cold case stuff irrelevant since that isn't what this is. Sorry that you pissed on Hope's bonfire.
-
which makes the entirety of the cold case stuff irrelevant since that isn't what this is. Sorry that you pissed on Hope's bonfire.
But it isn't conclusively mythology or fourth century conspiracy either and let's face it atheists have an opinion on it including the unevidenced claim that it is a fiction written centuries after.
That this is an of the cuff claim is exemplified in the fact that the New testament would have to be the greatest work of fiction written but of course that admission would go against the thick bronze age goatherders theory beloved of thick modern antitheist shiteherders .
-
But it isn't conclusively mythology or fourth century conspiracy either and let's face it atheists have an opinion on it including the unevidenced claim that it is a fiction written centuries after.
That this is an of the cuff claim is exemplified that the bible would have to be the greatest work of fiction written but of course that admission would go against the thick bronze age goatherders theory beloved of thick modern antitheist shiteherders .
and again no one has said that -Vlad goes for his own record of plying - he only needs another 13 lies today on the board to make his own individual record of 106 in a day
-
and again no one has said that -Vlad goes for his own record of plying - he only needs another 13 lies today on the board to make his own individual record of 106 in a day
That's a damned lie.
-
That's a damned lie.
I counted them all out, and I counted them all back in again
-
I counted them all out, and I counted them all back in again
All that shows is you can't count.
-
All that shows is you can't count.
You can't handle the count!
-
You can't handle the count!
I am The Count.
-
I am The Count.
only one letter too many there for you.
-
only one letter too many there for you.
rsehole.
-
rsehole.
see now you have gone to one to few to describe yourself
-
only one letter too many there for you.
"Cont"??
-
Vlad,
Sorry Hillside but you are the victim of your own turd polishing.
All you have is that after his conversion he applied methods to Christian apologetics. So what? He wouldn't have applied them to Christian apologetics as an atheist would he?
The trouble with dealing with someone of near pathological dishonesty is that, no matter what I actually say, you'll just re-invent it for your own purposes.
Not that anyone cares much, here's what happened nonetheless.
First, Hope posted a (not very interesting) link to a Wiki article about a Christian detective.
Second, the article told us that he'd converted back in 1996 after some "investigations". It also told us that after his conversion he'd applied some cold case criminology techniques to the biblical claims which, by that time, he had decided anyway were true (presumably because of his unspecified prior "investigations").
Third, as the part about "investigations" was so vague as to be meaningless (who knows - maybe he finally came up with an answer to the question that you and Hope always run away from about how to distinguish your claims from just guessing) it didn't pique my interest, but a subsequent part about applying cold case techniques after his conversion did. Why? Because that's an expressly naturalistic method, so I posted about the irrelevance of applying that naturalistic method to non-naturalistic conjectures.
Fourth, you then made a post addressed to me that quoted verbatim the relevant part of what I'd said (about the use of cold case methods) and told us that he'd done "all that" - ie, the cold case bit - before his conversion.
Fifth, I corrected you on that - if the article is to be believed he did no such thing. That is, the bit that was relevant, the bit that I commented on, and the bit that you responded to all happened after his conversion. If instead you'd intended to make a general comment about the content of the article as a whole you could have done so, but you didn't do that at all.
Suck it up and move on.
-
"Cont"??
as they say in Somerset
-
Hope,
Having read the article several times I can come to no other conclusion than my previous one. I realise that the book wasn't published till 2013 and we're not given a writing date, but the sentence both I and NS have quoted is pretty clear as to the timeline of investigation and conversion, something that I'd even referenced in my OP.
No doubt, but it's not the sentence that I commented on as an example of the mistake of applying naturalistic methods to non-naturalistic conjectures, and nor is it the part Vlad erroneously commented on.
What you seem to be referring to is the sentence in the subsequent paragraph - "After his conversion, Wallace began applying the principles of cold-case homicide investigation to Christian apologetics".
Yes, because that's the bit I quoted and commented on.
I could suggest the same of you.
Then you'd suggest wrongly. See above.
-
Hope,
No doubt, but it's not the sentence that I commented on as an example of the mistake of applying naturalistic methods to non-naturalistic conjectures, and nor is it the part Vlad erroneously commented on.
Yes, because that's the bit I quoted and commented on.
Then you'd suggest wrongly. See above.
But the second sentence is not the original issue, whist the first - as far as any timeline is concerned - is. Remember that applying Cold Case techniques to the gospels is very different to applying them to Christian Apologetics.
-
But the second sentence is not the original issue, whist the first - as far as any timeline is concerned - is. Remember that applying Cold Case techniques to the gospels is very different to applying them to Christian Apologetics.
None of which distinction is covered in your OP. So given that and multiple questions on the thread, put forward an argument that he makes.
-
None of which distinction is covered in your OP. So given that and multiple questions on the thread, put forward an argument that he makes.
I agree, but then my OP was a 'starter for ten' (as are most OPs) which wasn't designed to provide the full story but to get peope discussing. So, one of his arguments is that the gospels fulfill all the necessary requirements, all the characteristics one would expect to find in eye-witness evidence when following through a cold-case investigation.
-
I agree, but then my OP was a 'starter for ten' (as are most OPs) which wasn't designed to provide the full story but to get peope discussing. So, one of his arguments is that the gospels fulfill all the necessary requirements, all the characteristics one would expect to find in eye-witness evidence when following through a cold-case investigation.
that's not an argument, that's an assertion
-
Hope,
But the second sentence is not the original issue, whist the first - as far as any timeline is concerned - is. Remember that applying Cold Case techniques to the gospels is very different to applying them to Christian Apologetics.
Nope. The "original issue" is what you decided it would be in your OP. Here in fact:
Has anyone read this book by a former atheist homicide detective (James Warner Wallace) who used the same methodology on the gospels as on a number of other 'cold' cases. In the course of this process, initiated in order to disprove the basis of Christianity once and for all, he became convinced of its validity. He even points out that the 'contradictions' match what you would expect to find from witnesses in any such case.
Note that "who used the same methodology on the gospels as on a number of other 'cold' cases". I replied about that "original issue" to the effect that in that case he was committing a category error.
Vlad then replied to me by name and quoted what I'd said about this "original issue" and expressed his opinion that Wallace had begun "all that" - ie, my point to which he was replying - before his conversion.
If the Wiki article is to believed Vlad was wrong about that, and I explained why.
Subsequently there was discussion about the article also referring to his conversion before unspecified "investigations", but that wasn't your original issue, it wasn't the issue I commented on, and it wasn't the relevant part when Vlad went off the rails when he referred to my post and mistakenly said that its contents concerned something Wallace had done before his conversion.
As for your original point, what we have is someone who apparently is already a committed Christian deciding to apply his policing experience of cold cases and finding that it confirms (or doesn't disconfirm) the faith position he held anyway.
There are lots of problems with that, not least the risk of confirmation bias and the fact that the objections to the resurrection story being true are many and various - that the Chinese whispers effect may have corrupted the consistency of the subsequent narratives is the least of it.
Apart from all that though...
-
......turd polishing.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=post;quote=636643;topic=12525.600;last_msg=636690
-
Has anyone read this book by a former atheist homicide detective (James Warner Wallace) who used the same methodology on the gospels as on a number of other 'cold' cases. In the course of this process, initiated in order to disprove the basis of Christianity once and for all, he became convinced of its validity. He even points out that the 'contradictions' match what you would expect to find from witnesses in any such case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Warner_Wallace notes his credentials.
I haven’t read the book, but the approach used is interesting. Since I’ve been on this forum, I’ve seen it asked on numerous occasions as to what method the non believer should apply when investigating claims of a potentially supernatural nature? Well, here it is...an inductive one! :)
A key property of the inductive process is that it has to be falsifiable. Starting with the evidence can lead to truth, but it is not guaranteed to lead to truth. With an inductive approach, faith has to be applied because certainty is not guaranteed, and in fact can never be guaranteed!
The detective may have set out with the intention of disproving the basis of Christianity, but the fact that he changed his mind showed that his worldview was falsifiable. He used the same techniques that were part of his job. Secular philosophies do not have a monopoly on inductive techniques; they are there for all.
In order not to take this thread off-topic, I’ll be starting a separate thread to expand on some of these themes...
-
But that's the point Enki. How did Bart pull off finding that the bible was not divinely inspired?
Because of all the very many alterations and mistakes throughout its history, suggesting that it is a very human collection of documents. So, if it was the inerrant word of God, why did He allow it to be changed so often? If, on the other hand, as Ehrman found so many discrepancies because of these very human mistakes, he took the view that it was a collection of documents that had human origins, rather than being God inspired.
I'm not saying that other arguments aren't applicable(although I, obviously tend to sympathise with Ehrman) but he is a clear example of what Nearly suggested(I could quote numbers of people who gave up their faith on investigating it further'), which was precisely the point that I was responding to.
-
Sword,
I haven’t read the book, but the approach used is interesting. Since I’ve been on this forum, I’ve seen it asked on numerous occasions as to what method the non believer should apply when investigating claims of a potentially supernatural nature? Well, here it is...an inductive one! :)
Why do you think a naturalistic method like this is appropriate for the investigation of claims of the non-natural?
A key property of the inductive process is that it has to be falsifiable. Starting with the evidence can lead to truth, but it is not guaranteed to lead to truth. With an inductive approach, faith has to be applied because certainty is not guaranteed, and in fact can never be guaranteed!
What relationship do you think faith to have to the determination of probabilistic truth values?
The detective may have set out with the intention of disproving the basis of Christianity,...
So far at least we only have Hope's word for that. With respect to the use of cold case methods though that seems unlikely because (according to the article) he was already a Christian when he started using them.
... but the fact that he changed his mind showed that his worldview was falsifiable.
It's not a fact - or at least it's not yet been shown to be a fact. So far it's just an assertion by Hope.
He used the same techniques that were part of his job. Secular philosophies do not have a monopoly on inductive techniques; they are there for all.
I'm not sure what you mean by "secular philosophies" here (and nor I suspect are you) but no-one says they do. You're going to struggle though to explain why you think the naturalistic idea of falsifiability is relevant to claims of the non-natural.
In order not to take this thread off-topic, I’ll be starting a separate thread to expand on some of these themes...
Oh good.
-
The detective may have set out with the intention of disproving the basis of Christianity,...
So far at least we only have Hope's word for that. With respect to the use of cold case methods though that seems unlikely because (according to the article) he was already a Christian when he started using them.
Here's some information from Reference [6] on the Wikipedia article referred to in the opening post (*1)
When the author came to realize that the Gospel can be looked at much like the cold cases he solved as a homicide detective, he applied his skill to the assertions of the New Testament. In a preview of Cold-Case Christianity, Wallace says that he came to the "startling realization" that Christianity is as a convincing case as any of the ones he worked on as a detective.
which supports this statement in the Wikipedia article:
In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35, after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus
I think he hits the proverbial nail right on the head with this honest confession (emphasis mine)
Much of my skepticism as an atheist was rooted in the fact I had a presuppositional bias that prevented me from following the evidence where it led: I was a committed naturalist. I refused to accept the possibility that anything supernatural or miraculous could occur or exist. I was being unfair with the investigation from the onset. In essence, I was trying to answer the question, "Does God (a supernatural Being) exist?" by starting with the premise that nothing supernatural exists. It was an exercise in circular reasoning. I rejected any reasonable inference that pointed to God's supernatural existence because I rejected the supernaturalism foundationally.
(*1) 'Cold-Case Christianity:' The Gospel Through a Homicide Detective's Lens (http://www.christianpost.com/news/cold-case-christianity-the-gospel-through-a-homicide-detectives-lens-95382/)
-
I haven’t read the book, but the approach used is interesting. Since I’ve been on this forum, I’ve seen it asked on numerous occasions as to what method the non believer should apply when investigating claims of a potentially supernatural nature? Well, here it is...an inductive one!
Why do you think a naturalistic method like this is appropriate for the investigation of claims of the non-natural?
Because the aim is to try and establish what is true when certainty cannot be guaranteed. We use inductive processes elsewhere when this is the case and as the detective has shown, he has merely adapted his approach for specific supernatural claims.
-
Sword,
Here's some information from Reference [6] on the Wikipedia article referred to in the opening post (*1)
So we have a reference not in the article at all then, but rather somewhere else that the article linked to? OK...
"When the author came to realize that the Gospel can be looked at much like the cold cases he solved as a homicide detective, he applied his skill to the assertions of the New Testament. In a preview of Cold-Case Christianity, Wallace says that he came to the "startling realization" that Christianity is as a convincing case as any of the ones he worked on as a detective."
which supports this statement in the Wikipedia article:
Quote
In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35, after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus
No it doesn't, and nor does it support Hope's claim that he set out to disprove the gospel accounts. The article says that he converted in 1996, that he only began to apply cold case techniques after that, and that the book you reference wasn't published until several years later. His "investigations" before then may or may not have involved his experience of cold case techniques but that's a matter for speculation.
I think he hits the proverbial nail right on the head with this honest confession
"Much of my skepticism as an atheist was rooted in the fact I had a presuppositional bias that prevented me from following the evidence where it led: I was a committed naturalist. I refused to accept the possibility that anything supernatural or miraculous could occur or exist. I was being unfair with the investigation from the onset. In essence, I was trying to answer the question, "Does God (a supernatural Being) exist?" by starting with the premise that nothing supernatural exists. It was an exercise in circular reasoning. I rejected any reasonable inference that pointed to God's supernatural existence because I rejected the supernaturalism foundationally."
I don't. Leaving aside for now the definitional problems with "supernatural", "miraculous" etc, the untenable position that you can dismiss a prori the phenomenon of unknown unknowns, and the absence of any supporting argument for this supposed "reasonable inference" (which you cannot derive from accounts, consistent or otherwise), he still has the problem of applying naturalistic techniques to claims of the non-natural. As I said before, that's akin to using a Geiger counter to decide whether a ballet is any good.
The best - the very best - he could arrive at is that inconsistent accounts do not of themselves rule out the possibility of the claimed event being true. If he'd asked me, I could have told him that in the first place and saved him a lot of work.
-
he still has the problem of applying naturalistic techniques to claims of the non-natural. As I said before, that's akin to using a Geiger counter to decide whether a ballet is any good.
But it is not a problem if you change your approach!
I used a mathematical analogy last week: If I claimed that 1+1=10, then there is no way to prove this to be a true statement if base 10 is used. However if base 2 (binary) is used, the statement is correct.
You are not prepared to change your approach so you will not get anywhere. Establishing whether or not something is true transcends any talk of naturalistic techniques If one is trying to ascertain whether or not something is true
- Mathematical truth
- Scientific truth
- Historical truth
- Spiritual truth
The starting point is the same and one uses either a deductive approach (if one can be certain about the conclusion) or an inductive one (if one cannot be certain about the conclusion, meaning that faith is used).
-
Sword,
Because the aim is to try and establish what is true when certainty cannot be guaranteed. We use inductive processes elsewhere when this is the case and as the detective has shown, he has merely adapted his approach for specific supernatural claims.
No he hasn't - he's adopted them with reference to inconsistencies in the non-contemporaneous accounts of these claims.
More to the point though, these claims concern the supposed supernatural. What use therefore do you think techniques that are entirely naturalistic to be even if they were applied to these claims? The most they could achieve would be to say something like, "I can't find a natural explanation for this claim" but that's just a big "so what?" It would say nothing whatever to the truthfulness or otherwise of the supernatural claim.
And that's your problem here.
-
Sword,
But it is not a problem if you change your approach!
I used a mathematical analogy last week: If I claimed that 1+1=10, then there is no way to prove this to be a true statement if base 10 is used. However if base 2 (binary) is used, the statement is correct.
But that's a bad analogy because both answers are rationally obtained. Change the starting conditions and you get different answers, but they're both rational. Rationalism is though a naturalistic method - the whole point about religious faith on the other hand is that it dispenses with rationalism in favour of - well, what exactly?
You are not prepared to change your approach so you will not get anywhere. Establishing whether or not something is true transcends any talk of naturalistic techniques If one is trying to ascertain whether or not something is true
Mathematical truth
Scientific truth
Historical truth
Spiritual truth
What do you think "spiritual truth" to be, and how would you propose to identify it in the absence of a non-natural method to test the claim?
The starting point is the same and one uses either a deductive approach (if one can be certain about the conclusion) or an inductive one (if one cannot be certain about the conclusion, meaning that faith is used).
Again, what relationship do you think "faith" to have to the probabilistic determination of truths?
Why so coy given that this goes to the heart of you position?
-
Inductively dead people stay dead
-
NS,
Inductively dead people stay dead
How about deductively dead ones?
-
NS,
How about deductively dead ones?
lol, dodos too
-
that's not an argument, that's an assertion
It may be coming from me as rapporteur, but in view of his original purpose in doing the investigation - namely to prove that the material wasn't up to scratch, his argument as a result of his investigation is that it does. He s therefore arguing with 1) his own preconceived ideas and 2) with those of others who hold similar ideas.
-
It may be coming from me as rapporteur, but in view of his original purpose in doing the investigation - namely to prove that the material wasn't up to scratch, his argument as a result of his investigation is that it does. He s therefore arguing with 1) his own preconceived ideas and 2) with those of others who hold similar ideas.
But what you presented even if directly from him would still be an assertion, and still not an argument
-
Hope,
It may be coming from me as rapporteur, but in view of his original purpose in doing the investigation - namely to prove that the material wasn't up to scratch, his argument as a result of his investigation is that it does. He s therefore arguing with 1) his own preconceived ideas and 2) with those of others who hold similar ideas.
Just out of interest, what makes you think that was his "original purpose"?
And if you fancy offering a BOGOF, what relevance do you think the finding that inconsistent narratives also happen in murder cases has to the truth or otherwise of the gospel stories?
-
It may be coming from me as rapporteur, but in view of his original purpose in doing the investigation - namely to prove that the material wasn't up to scratch, his argument as a result of his investigation is that it does. He s therefore arguing with 1) his own preconceived ideas and 2) with those of others who hold similar ideas.
Very nice I'm sure: but, and since you cited him I'm assuming you know the detail, how sound are his conclusions methodologically speaking?
That he and his similarly inclined acquaintances are convinced isn't in itself convincing unless we know the basis for them being so convinced and that this basis stands scrutiny - after all they could be mistaken.
So far all I can see is assertion.
-
Hope,
Nope. The "original issue" is what you decided it would be in your OP. Here in fact:
Has anyone read this book by a former atheist homicide detective (James Warner Wallace) who used the same methodology on the gospels as on a number of other 'cold' cases. In the course of this process, initiated in order to disprove the basis of Christianity once and for all, he became convinced of its validity. He even points out that the 'contradictions' match what you would expect to find from witnesses in any such case.
It is interesting how you have chosen to decide what was my thinking behind the OP, blue If anything, my point was encapsulated in the sentences that follow the one you have highlighted. That said, since it was meant to start a debate - which it has done - I'm not sure that I had any particular 'issue' in mind. It is you who have picked up on a particular sentence, not me.
Note that "who used the same methodology on the gospels as on a number of other 'cold' cases". I replied about that "original issue" to the effect that in that case he was committing a category error.
But I have yyet to see any evidence in support of that claim, blue. As it stands, its just your opinion.
Vlad then replied to me by name and quoted what I'd said about this "original issue" and expressed his opinion that Wallace had begun "all that" - ie, my point to which he was replying - before his conversion.
If the Wiki article is to believed Vlad was wrong about that, and I explained why.
And I subsequently pointed out that a reasonable reading of the English language used in the article would suggests that Vlad was correct, not you.
Subsequently there was discussion about the article also referring to his conversion before unspecified "investigations", but that wasn't your original issue, it wasn't the issue I commented on, and it wasn't the relevant part when Vlad went off the rails when he referred to my post and mistakenly said that its contents concerned something Wallace had done before his conversion.
I think the problem is your assertion that - despite what the article says - Wallace made his investigations post-conversion, when the article makes it pretty clear that they came before the conversion.
As for your original point, what we have is someone who apparently is already a committed Christian deciding to apply his policing experience of cold cases and finding that it confirms (or doesn't disconfirm) the faith position he held anyway.
And I pointed out that the only 'faith position' it could confirm or otherwise was - at the time of the investigations - his atheism.
There are lots of problems with that, not least the risk of confirmation bias and the fact that the objections to the resurrection story being true are many and various - that the Chinese whispers effect may have corrupted the consistency of the subsequent narratives is the least of it.
When one sets out to prove that X is a pack of untruths, only to find that one's investigations suggest the opposite, I'm not sure that that can be deemed to be confirmation bias. On the other hand, your insistence that the timeline is different to that indicated in the wiki doers smack of confoirmation bias.
As for " ... the fact that the objections to the resurrection story being true are many and various ... ", I'm afraid that this can be argued about just about anything if one is determined enough to do so. It doesn't mean that one's argument is correct.
-
Hope,
It is interesting how you have chosen to decide what was my thinking behind the OP, blue If anything, my point was encapsulated in the sentences that follow the one you have highlighted. That said, since it was meant to start a debate - which it has done - I'm not sure that I had any particular 'issue' in mind. It is you who have picked up on a particular sentence, not me.
Make your mind up! Either you had an original point or you did not - you can't first claim that it was ignored and then tell us that you didn't have one!
But I have yyet to see any evidence in support of that claim, blue. As it stands, its just your opinion.
No, the category "naturalistic" and the category "supernatural" are different categories. You cannot therefore just assume that an investigatory method that is naturalstic will also work for the supernatural.
And I subsequently pointed out that a reasonable reading of the English language used in the article would suggests that Vlad was correct, not you.
"Claimed", not "pointed out". You cannot "point out" something that is demonstrably wrong. The part I quoted, the part I commented on and the part that Vlad responded to was (we're told) begun after his conversion.
I think the problem is your assertion that - despite what the article says - Wallace made his investigations post-conversion, when the article makes it pretty clear that they came before the conversion.
Read it again. He made some "investigations" of an unspecified nature before his conversion. He used his cold case techniques after his conversion. Now it could be that some of his pre-conversion "investigations" also involved cold case techniques but that would be just speculation.
And I pointed out that the only 'faith position' it could confirm or otherwise was - at the time of the investigations - his atheism.
Perhaps if you tried reading the article you wouldn't keep screwing up about this? His unspecified investigations were before his conversion; his use of cold case techniques came after his conversion.
When one sets out to prove that X is a pack of untruths, only to find that one's investigations suggest the opposite, I'm not sure that that can be deemed to be confirmation bias.
This "setting out to prove" bit is - so far at least - just your assertion, and even if it turns out to be true it's irrelevant because there's no way for naturalistic cold case methods either to prove or to disprove supernatural claims.
On the other hand, your insistence that the timeline is different to that indicated in the wiki doers smack of confoirmation bias.
Please stop lying about this - it's getting dull.
As for " ... the fact that the objections to the resurrection story being true are many and various ... ", I'm afraid that this can be argued about just about anything if one is determined enough to do so. It doesn't mean that one's argument is correct.
No it can't. The arguments against claims of the supernatural do not necessarily transfer as arguments against claims of the natural.
-
Because of all the very many alterations and mistakes throughout its history, suggesting that it is a very human collection of documents. So, if it was the inerrant word of God, why did He allow it to be changed so often? If, on the other hand, as Ehrman found so many discrepancies because of these very human mistakes, he took the view that it was a collection of documents that had human origins, rather than being God inspired.
But Ehrman is in error here isn't he......
Firstly we are talking about divinely inspired thus recognising a role for the human writer.....Ehrman and yourself are confusing divine inspiration with divine dictation.
Secondly, the inerrent word of God business...Ehrman should have recognised that there are human authors inspired by God. The bible is inerrant in it's message about the relationship between God, individuals, and human institutions through different genres of writing. Encyclopedic or arithmetical inerrancy is a notion of fundamentalism and new atheism.
A very human collection of documents? We have loads of them? How many continue to inspire 2000 years after the event.
The works of Harold Robbins are a very human collection of documents....past copies of the sun are very human documents. Something which proposes that only the son of God can reconnect us with God rather than technique is a rarity.
I have every sympathy with Bart Ehrman but I suppose it shows that you can be in the thick of something.....and still get the wrong end of the stick.
-
Vlad,
A very human collection of documents? We have loads of them? How many continue to inspire 2000 years after the event.
On this point specifically, several do but - even if the Christian documents were unique in this respect - what relationship do you think there to be between "continue to inspire" and truth?
-
Vlad,
On this point specifically, several do but - even if the Christian documents were unique in this respect - what relationship do you think there to be between "continue to inspire" and truth?
You can be inspired to and by the truth Hillside.
or you can continue to be inspired to and by ''stuff''.
-
Vlad,
You can be inspired to and by the truth Hillside.
or you can continue to be inspired to and by ''stuff''.
No doubt you can be, but the question concerned why you think being inspired by something has anything to say to whether or not it is true.
-
Vlad,
No doubt you can be, but the question concerned why you think being inspired by something has anything to say to whether or not it is true.
Several million years ago certain spirits fell from heaven and were incarnated at various times. You are one, Einstein might be one, Dawkins, Dennett and Sam Harris definitely are. Now, these spirits have a passion for finding out just what is true and they have the gift of scientism, or is that science?...when you are around I never can tell the difference.....which mean that only they are willed and indeed will find the truth.
They are inspired, in their trousers, by science or should that be scientism?........they are enjoying the garden without the fairies in the only true and righteous inspiration......Did not Prof Cox not say....the universe is wonderful and inspiring?
......And that my dear Hillside is BUT ONE EXAMPLE of how inspiration can lead one to truth.
-
As Hillside would say you have committed a Bourne imperative here.
This homicide detective has looked at the Gospels and determined that they do indeed contain reportage and literature that is recognisably ''witness statement''.
But anybody can see they manifestly do not. Not only that, but it is pretty obvious that there was effectively collusion between the authors.
-
But anybody can see they manifestly do not. Not only that, but it is pretty obvious that there was effectively collusion between the authors.
Manifestly do not? I don't think that is true.
In terms of collusion....There's plenty of antitheists who swear blind the inconsistences between the accounts prove things never happened.....You seem to be pissing all over your brethren on this one.
-
Manifestly do not? I don't think that is true.
Witnesses tend to talk in the first person. Witness statements could not credibly include narrative about incidents at which the witness was not present. Witness statements are made by people who were witnesses. If the statement is anonymous, it has no real credibility.
In terms of collusion....There's plenty of antitheists who swear blind the inconsistences between the accounts prove things never happened.....You seem to be pissing all over your brethren on this one.
It's well established that Matthew and Luke had Mark as a source. It's also possible that John had at least one of the three synoptics as a source.
-
Hope,
Make your mind up! Either you had an original point or you did not - you can't first claim that it was ignored and then tell us that you didn't have one!
No, the category "naturalistic" and the category "supernatural" are different categories. You cannot therefore just assume that an investigatory method that is naturalstic will also work for the supernatural.
"Claimed", not "pointed out". You cannot "point out" something that is demonstrably wrong. The part I quoted, the part I commented on and the part that Vlad responded to was (we're told) begun after his conversion.
Read it again. He made some "investigations" of an unspecified nature before his conversion. He used his cold case techniques after his conversion. Now it could be that some of his pre-conversion "investigations" also involved cold case techniques but that would be just speculation.
Perhaps if you tried reading the article you wouldn't keep screwing up about this? His unspecified investigations were before his conversion; his use of cold case techniques came after his conversion.
This "setting out to prove" bit is - so far at least - just your assertion, and even if it turns out to be true it's irrelevant because there's no way for naturalistic cold case methods either to prove or to disprove supernatural claims.
Please stop lying about this - it's getting dull.
No it can't. The arguments against claims of the supernatural do not necessarily transfer as arguments against claims of the natural.
Hillside
Enjoying the posts but can't help thinking that what you so want to say is that if this detective had been a true atheist he would never have converted.
That an atheist can convert must be a bit shocking to some I suppose.
Go on Hillside treat yourself to ''the no true atheist fallacy''.............IMHO you know you want to.
-
Witnesses tend to talk in the first person. Witness statements could not credibly include narrative about incidents at which the witness was not present. Witness statements are made by people who were witnesses. If the statement is anonymous, it has no real credibility.
It's well established that Matthew and Luke had Mark as a source. It's also possible that John had at least one of the three synoptics as a source.
Jeremy. Many history books are written which don't directly quote witness in the first person.
Many of the personae mentioned in the Gospels and those contempory with it were still consultable by Paul who wrote some of the epistles. This is why your Christianity myther ideas only gain traction centuries after when mythers can feel comfortable spouting any theory no matter how bad the historical fit.
I believe you are specially pleading here.
-
Hope,
Make your mind up! Either you had an original point or you did not - you can't first claim that it was ignored and then tell us that you didn't have one!
No, the category "naturalistic" and the category "supernatural" are different categories. You cannot therefore just assume that an investigatory method that is naturalstic will also work for the supernatural.
"Claimed", not "pointed out". You cannot "point out" something that is demonstrably wrong. The part I quoted, the part I commented on and the part that Vlad responded to was (we're told) begun after his conversion.
Read it again. He made some "investigations" of an unspecified nature before his conversion. He used his cold case techniques after his conversion. Now it could be that some of his pre-conversion "investigations" also involved cold case techniques but that would be just speculation.
Perhaps if you tried reading the article you wouldn't keep screwing up about this? His unspecified investigations were before his conversion; his use of cold case techniques came after his conversion.
This "setting out to prove" bit is - so far at least - just your assertion, and even if it turns out to be true it's irrelevant because there's no way for naturalistic cold case methods either to prove or to disprove supernatural claims.
Please stop lying about this - it's getting dull.
No it can't. The arguments against claims of the supernatural do not necessarily transfer as arguments against claims of the natural.
But the spectre at your feast here is that science could detect a rising from the dead.
Firstly scientific tests could establish death then scientific tests could establish life.
Those things are undeniable.
What isn't establishable instrumentally is what you quaintly refer to as supernatural cause.
You cannot appeal any more to no such thing as a resurrected man than you can appeal to no black swans because of Nearly Sane and Wigginhall's beloved ''problem of induction''.
Jesus and Thomas pre-empt the hard bottomed materialist empiricist hundreds of years before any walked the Earth when Thomas asks for empirical proof and Jesus
provides it.
Not bad for Bronze aged Goat herders.
-
Jesus and Thomas pre-empt the hard bottomed materialist empiricist hundreds of years before any walked the Earth when Thomas asks for empirical proof and Jesus
provides it.
...allegedly.
-
Vlad,
Enjoying the posts but can't help thinking that what you so want to say is that if this detective had been a true atheist he would never have converted.
That an atheist can convert must be a bit shocking to some I suppose.
Go on Hillside treat yourself to ''the no true atheist fallacy''.............IMHO you know you want to.
Nope. "Not a true atheist" is meaningless - either you follow the logic to its conclusion or you don't.
-
Vlad,
But the spectre at your feast here is that science could detect a rising from the dead.
Firstly scientific tests could establish death then scientific tests could establish life.
Those things are undeniable.
If “science” was available and was applied then yes it would. It would say something lie, “according to the best available tests person X was clinically dead and subsequently was clinically alive.” There’d still be scope for other explanations of course – science doesn’t claim to know everything so could have been mistaken, person X’s twin could have been substituted etc - but within the reality that contemporaneous science could model then that’s what it would say.
So what?
What isn't establishable instrumentally is what you quaintly refer to as supernatural cause.
It’s not my term – raise it with those who claim it
You cannot appeal any more to no such thing as a resurrected man than you can appeal to no black swans because of Nearly Sane and Wigginhall's beloved ''problem of induction''.
No-one does that. You could perhaps point to organ decomposition and the non-availability of a means to restore that, but when you’re in “miracle” territory anything goes. Again, so what? All you’re doing here is pushing at the open door of “anything’s possible.”
Jesus and Thomas pre-empt the hard bottomed materialist empiricist hundreds of years before any walked the Earth when Thomas asks for empirical proof and Jesus provides it.
Not bad for Bronze aged Goat herders.
Really? What “empirical proof” would that be, and why do you think that a book that claims it is true or accurate?
-
And that's your problem here.
Actually, what you said prior to this illustrates the problem!
The most they could achieve would be to say something like, "I can't find a natural explanation for this claim" but that's just a big "so what?" It would say nothing whatever to the truthfulness or otherwise of the supernatural claim.
If you were on a genuine search for truth, you would have said, I can’t find an explanation. The nature of the explanation would be irrelevant!! You would not be prejudicing the search by saying what the nature of the truth should look like.
If the search is for truth, then I have outlined a method, which in the absence of certainty will be an inductive one. Again, you are prejudicing the search by saying that certain techniques can be used for all kinds of truths except those that are claims about the supernatural; a bit similar to this confession.In essence, I was trying to answer the question, "Does God (a supernatural Being) exist?" by starting with the premise that nothing supernatural exists. It was an exercise in circular reasoning.
Except that rather than admitting that circular reasoning is used, you are transferring the so-called burden of proof onto the religious believer to break the circularity, knowing full well that they can’t!
Again, what relationship do you think "faith" to have to the probabilistic determination of truths?
Erm...in your question! :) “faith”, probabilistic. If any action is based on a probabilistic determination, then clearly there is no certainty, so faith is used. The only certainties are if the probability is 1 (certain to happen) or 0 (certain not to happen). For any other probability, faith is required.
-
Inductively dead people stay dead
No, that is a deduction, based on your implied assertion as fact that there are only natural causes and explanations. That is why I keep on challenging it using the same criteria that are applied to religious belief.
-
No, that is a deduction, based on your implied assertion as fact that there are only natural causes and explanations. That is why I keep on challenging it using the same criteria that are applied to religious belief.
No. It's induction. Based on people being dead staying dead. And there is no implied assertion about natural causes or explanations. People may stay dead for non natural causes, just as the sun may rise because Ra turns the earth with his magic farts. Having raised induction, I.e. deriving a rule from a set of observations as some method for determining the non natural you appear to have no understanding of it.
-
Sword,
If you were on a genuine search for truth, you would have said, I can’t find an explanation. The nature of the explanation would be irrelevant!! You would not be prejudicing the search by saying what the nature of the truth should look like.
Flat wrong. Read it again - we were talking about what the methods of science would be capable of doing. Science is naturalistic. That's why all it could say would be, "I can find no scientific explanation for this phenomenon."
If the search is for truth, then I have outlined a method, which in the absence of certainty will be an inductive one. Again, you are prejudicing the search by saying that certain techniques can be used for all kinds of truths except those that are claims about the supernatural; a bit similar to this confession.
No you haven't. You've suggested a naturalistic method - induction - but you've offered no argument to suggest why the supposedly supernatural would be amenable to a naturalistic method of enquiry. What makes you think that claims of the supernatural would be induction apt?
In essence, I was trying to answer the question, "Does God (a supernatural Being) exist?" by starting with the premise that nothing supernatural exists. It was an exercise in circular reasoning.
Who said that?
Except that rather than admitting that circular reasoning is used, you are transferring the so-called burden of proof onto the religious believer to break the circularity, knowing full well that they can’t!
There's nothing to admit because there's no circular reasoning because I haven't started with that premise.
Oh, and the burden of proof problem is still all yours. "God" is your conjecture; it's your job to make an argument for it.
Erm...in your question! :) “faith”, probabilistic. If any action is based on a probabilistic determination, then clearly there is no certainty, so faith is used. The only certainties are if the probability is 1 (certain to happen) or 0 (certain not to happen). For any other probability, faith is required.
Nope. I appear to have a computer in front of me, but "I" could just be an algorithm in a computer game programmed to believe that. The truth "computer" is therefore a probabilistic one.
There could also be invisible tap dancing pixies jumping off the keys just before my fingers reach them. I have no reason to think they're there but I can't disprove it, so the truth "no pixies" is also a probabilistic one.
Should I proceed on the basis that one of them is true, that neither of them is true, or that both of them are true?
Why?
Now swap "pixies" for "God".
-
No, that is a deduction, based on your implied assertion as fact that there are only natural causes and explanations. That is why I keep on challenging it using the same criteria that are applied to religious belief.
Wrong - it is induction.
-
No. It's induction. Based on people being dead staying dead. And there is no implied assertion about natural causes or explanations. People may stay dead for non natural causes, just as the sun may rise because Ra turns the earth with his magic farts. Having raised induction, I.e. deriving a rule from a set of observations as some method for determining the non natural you appear to have no understanding of it.
A very nice post, showing how some theists keep muddling up observations, causes and explanations. This ends up as a kind of mangled nonsense - for example, that observing that someone is dead somehow involves natural or non-natural causes. Not really, as we haven't gone into that yet. It's just the observation that someone is dead, and is still dead.
-
A very nice post, showing how some theists keep muddling up observations, causes and explanations. This ends up as a kind of mangled nonsense - for example, that observing that someone is dead somehow involves natural or non-natural causes. Not really, as we haven't gone into that yet. It's just the observation that someone is dead, and is still dead.
Yes, and I suppose the best indicator of this is the classic inductive issue of the black swan. The inductive belief of there being no black swans because you have only ever seen white swans gives you nothing about causes. It has a disinterest in causes. The connection only happens when you connect two separately inductive rules by observation and the deduce that one is effectively the cause.
The idea that inductively we can say something about causes without a presuppositions, which in science's and history's and police work's cases are all naturalistic presuppositions, misunderstands it completely.
As always rather than talking about this in theory, it would be better if Sword or Hope worked through how they are applying this to back up their claim. Show the working!
-
Wiggs,
A very nice post, showing how some theists keep muddling up observations, causes and explanations. This ends up as a kind of mangled nonsense - for example, that observing that someone is dead somehow involves natural or non-natural causes. Not really, as we haven't gone into that yet. It's just the observation that someone is dead, and is still dead.
I agree. Sword has brought to this board an edifice of an argument that he thinks to be a knock-down one, but it's built on sand. Rather than repeat it endlessly he'd be better advised addressing the arguments that undo him but all we get instead is that we need to change our "world view" (which itself is a straw man). What that different world view should be, why he thinks it would apply to claims of the non-natural, and how it would lead to "God" in any case is anyone's guess but as the burden or proof remains his I guess all we can do is to wait for some answers.
Be nice if he'd sort out his inductive from his deductive for starters though.
-
But the spectre at your feast here is that science could detect a rising from the dead.
Firstly scientific tests could establish death then scientific tests could establish life.
Those things are undeniable.
What isn't establishable instrumentally is what you quaintly refer to as supernatural cause.
You cannot appeal any more to no such thing as a resurrected man than you can appeal to no black swans because of Nearly Sane and Wigginhall's beloved ''problem of induction''.
Jesus and Thomas pre-empt the hard bottomed materialist empiricist hundreds of years before any walked the Earth when Thomas asks for empirical proof and Jesus
provides it.
Not bad for Bronze aged Goat herders.
"What isn't establishable instrumentally is what you quaintly refer to as supernatural cause."
The 'voice from heaven' at Jesus' baptism and transfiguration?
-
"What isn't establishable instrumentally is what you quaintly refer to as supernatural cause."
The 'voice from heaven' at Jesus' baptism ............?
That truly must have happened - I've read it somewhere. John's gospel says John the Baptist said he heard it. And by tradition, Peter told Mark it did. And Matthew and Luke read Mark, so they said it happened as well. (Did someone tell Peter, by the way? Was he a disciple at this point*?)
*Nope, I've just checked - Simon Peter was away casting his nets in the Sea Of Galillee at the time, along with Andrew and co.
-
That truly must have happened - I've read it somewhere. John's gospel says John the Baptist said he heard it. And by tradition, Peter told Mark it did. And Matthew and Luke read Mark, so they said it happened as well. (Did someone tell Peter, by the way? Was he a disciple at this point?)
and again it is so much worse. Because let's say there is a voice, how do we determine it's from heaven (without Spud's begging the question) and not say James Earl Jones in a time machine with a megaphone
-
Vlad,
If “science” was available and was applied then yes it would. It would say something lie, “according to the best available tests person X was clinically dead and subsequently was clinically alive.” There’d still be scope for other explanations of course – science doesn’t claim to know everything so could have been mistaken, person X’s twin could have been substituted etc - but within the reality that contemporaneous science could model then that’s what it would say.
So what?
It’s not my term – raise it with those who claim it
No-one does that. You could perhaps point to organ decomposition and the non-availability of a means to restore that, but when you’re in “miracle” territory anything goes. Again, so what? All you’re doing here is pushing at the open door of “anything’s possible.”
Really? What “empirical proof” would that be, and why do you think that a book that claims it is true or accurate?
Sorry,
But it is your sloppy use of the word supernatural.....applying it to a resurrection which science is more than adequately equipped to measure.
-
Vlad,
But it is your sloppy use of the word supernatural.....applying it to a resurrection which science is more than adequately equipped to measure.
Again, it's not my word. I was just using the term because it's the word generally used by those who believe it to have happened.
Are you suggesting that the resurrection happened instead within the known laws of the universe?
-
Sorry,
But it is your sloppy use of the word supernatural.....applying it to a resurrection which science is more than adequately equipped to measure.
How do you establish that? BTW given that it isn't a one off event according to what you believe, it isn't a miracle.
-
How do you establish that? BTW given that it isn't a one off event according to what you believe, it isn't a miracle.
I think you are salting this with a deal of cod Christianity Nearly Sane.
I don't think Christians are falling over themselves to utter or insert the word miracle with a toothy grin and Macleans sparkle.
I've told you that words such as natural, supernatural and miracle are sloppily vague and used.
What Christianity wants you to grasp is that the resurrection happened. That's why I point out that it is a unique event in the sense that every historical event is unique but special in that it don't usually happen.
As I said to Hillside it looks as though it happened a few times but in this case it's who it happened to.
-
I think you are salting this with a deal of cod Christianity Nearly Sane.
I don't think Christians are falling over themselves to utter or insert the word miracle with a toothy grin and Macleans sparkle.
I've told you that words such as natural, supernatural and miracle are sloppily vague and used.
What Christianity wants you to grasp is that the resurrection happened. That's why I point out that it is a unique event in the sense that every historical event is unique but special in that it don't usually happen.
As I said to Hillside it looks as though it happened a few times but in this case it's who it happened to.
can't help if you define things vaguely, after all it was your definition I used.
-
Vlad,
Again, it's not my word. I was just using the term because it's the word generally used by those who believe it to have happened.
Are you suggesting that the resurrection happened instead within the known laws of the universe?
I'm saying that a person can be declared dead by scientific method and the same person can be declared alive by scientific method whichever order that may come.
Polkinghorne on the other hand might say that resurrection may be an improbable event but would question the explanatory power of the term spontaneous.
-
I'm saying that a person can be declared dead by scientific method and the same person can be declared alive by scientific method whichever order that may come.
Polkinghorne on the other hand might say that resurrection may be an improbable event but would question the explanatory power of the term spontaneous.
so not a one off so not in line with your definition
-
I'm saying that a person can be declared dead by scientific method and the same person can be declared alive by scientific method whichever order that may come.
Polkinghorne on the other hand might say that resurrection may be an improbable event but would question the explanatory power of the term spontaneous.
Super natural doesn't mean 'can't be measured' but refers to being outside of the known laws of nature.
-
Super natural doesn't mean 'can't be measured' but refers to being outside of the known laws of nature.
Actually that is meaningless. It assumes laws of nature that can be defined in some objective fashion. You have one?
-
Hillside
Enjoying the posts but can't help thinking that what you so want to say is that if this detective had been a true atheist he would never have converted.
That an atheist can convert must be a bit shocking to some I suppose.
Go on Hillside treat yourself to ''the no true atheist fallacy''.............IMHO you know you want to.
I would find it hard to see how someone with no faith could become someone of faith (be converted) just by investigating the gospels and concluding that they were the record of eye witnesses. Personally even if I reached that conclusion I would still consider those eye witness accounts to be anecdotal and to reflect the beliefs of the individuals rather than to be accurate records of actually events. It would give me cause for thought of course but would I suddenly believe just because someone 2000 years ago believed and told someone else about it? I don't think I would unless I had some hint of a belief already existing - hence the not a true atheist suggestion I guess. Of course I haven't been in such a position but that's how I see it.
-
Actually that is meaningless. It assumes laws of nature that can be defined in some objective fashion. You have one?
The known laws of nature are those we have determined by physical measurements.
If you consider it to be meaningless perhaps you should talk to the Oxford Dictionary people who define supernatural as
'(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.'
-
so not a one off so not in line with your definition
I think I have talked at length about definitions on the supernatural debate board. Where I defined the supernatural as that which is not governed nor generates any law of nature, nor is explicable by science. I don't recall using the word miracle....I think the terms supernatural and miracle are interchanged.
What I think though is that any definition of the supernatural which contains the word supernatural isn't much cop.
I think the word natural can be wooly or used merely to say ''not''god.
I see trees of green, red roses too, they seem to whisper I love you.
And I say to myself what a wonderful world...........ohhhhhhh yyyyyyyyeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhh.
-
I think I have talked at length about definitions on the supernatural debate board. Where I defined the supernatural as that which is not governed nor generates any law of nature, nor is explicable by science. I don't recall using the word miracle....I think the terms supernatural and miracle are interchanged.
What I think though is that any definition of the supernatural which contains the word supernatural isn't much cop.
I think the word natural can be wooly or used merely to say ''not''god.
I see trees of green, red roses too, they seem to whisper I love you.
And I say to myself what a wonderful world...........ohhhhhhh yyyyyyyyeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhh.
I asked you yesterday, you made one off one of your pillars, undefined but there we are
-
and again it is so much worse. Because let's say there is a voice, how do we determine it's from heaven (without Spud's begging the question) and not say James Earl Jones in a time machine with a megaphone
You read it in context.
-
That truly must have happened - I've read it somewhere. John's gospel says John the Baptist said he heard it. And by tradition, Peter told Mark it did. And Matthew and Luke read Mark, so they said it happened as well. (Did someone tell Peter, by the way? Was he a disciple at this point*?)
*Nope, I've just checked - Simon Peter was away casting his nets in the Sea Of Galillee at the time, along with Andrew and co.
Just as a person who hadn't seen a resurrection would rely on the honesty of the people who scientifically verified it, they would also rely on honesty of those who heard the voice.
-
You read it in context.
and?
-
Jeremy. Many history books are written which don't directly quote witness in the first person.
How many history books have you read? The ones I have read frequently quote witness accounts when they are available. No academic history book would be taken seriously without quotes from and references to the best available sources.
Many of the personae mentioned in the Gospels and those contempory with it were still consultable by Paul who wrote some of the epistles.
Of Jesus' original followers, Paul only claims to have talked to Peter and James the brother of Jesus. He also explicitly denies his gospel comes from talking to other people. He says he received it direct from the hallucination he had of Jesus.
This is why your Christianity myther ideas only gain traction centuries after when mythers can feel comfortable spouting any theory no matter how bad the historical fit.
Why do you mean by "Christianity myther"?
I believe you are specially pleading here.
I believe you don't know what the phrase "special pleading" means.
-
Vlad,
I'm saying that a person can be declared dead by scientific method and the same person can be declared alive by scientific method whichever order that may come.
Well, technically yes – at least for the former, deep coma for example. It’d be a bit harder for “science” to declare someone to be dead when he’s riding a bicycle and playing the flute, but the principle holds.
Your problem here though I’d have thought is that the Christian faith – your faith – requires a resurrection narrative in which Jesus actually was dead, even if only for a bit. You know, properly, pushing up daisies, it doesn’t matter what science says, full on, no holds barred, shuffled of this mortal coil, dead. If instead you’re retrenching to, “OK, maybe he seemed dead according to contemporary (and even to modern if it had been around at the time) science but actually he was just asleep” or similar that’s fine by me but where would that leave the central pillar of your faith?
-
Vlad,
Well, technically yes – at least for the former, deep coma for example. It’d be a bit harder for “science” to declare someone to be dead when he’s riding a bicycle and playing the flute, but the principle holds.Your problem here though I’d have thought is that the Christian faith – your faith – requires a resurrection narrative in which Jesus actually was dead, even if only for a bit. You know, properly,
pushing up daisies, it doesn’t matter what science says, full on, no holds barred, shuffled of this mortal coil, dead. If instead you’re retrenching to, “OK, maybe he seemed dead according to contemporary (and even to modern if it had been around at the time) science but actually he was just asleep” or similar that’s fine by me but where would that leave the central pillar of your faith?
of
No I'm not I'm saying science could examine a resurrected person because it would be capable of declaring the same person dead then declare them alive if that were the case.....and so are you it seems.
I don't know where you are getting the idea I think Jesus was just asleep or in a coma?
-
You read it in context.
And that dies nothing to stop it being James Earl Jones having a laugh in his time machine
-
Vlad,
No I'm not I'm saying science could examine a resurrected person because it would be capable of declaring the same person dead then declare them alive if that were the case.....and so are you it seems.
You'll need to unscramble that for meaning, but your position seemed to be that science sometimes gets things wrong - maybe the dead person wasn't really dead, maybe the live person wasn't really alive etc. No-one disagrees that science gets things wrong sometimes.
So what though? What point do you think you're making?
I don't know where you are getting the idea I think Jesus was just asleep or in a coma?
From you. Why else would you tell us that, even if science had been brought to bear on the resurrection, it could have been mistaken (coma rather than dead for example).
Again, so what?
-
The only certainties are if the probability is 1 (certain to happen) or 0 (certain not to happen). For any other probability, faith is required.
Nope. I appear to have a computer in front of me, but "I" could just be an algorithm in a computer game programmed to believe that. The truth "computer" is therefore a probabilistic one.
There could also be invisible tap dancing pixies jumping off the keys just before my fingers reach them. I have no reason to think they're there but I can't disprove it, so the truth "no pixies" is also a probabilistic one.
Should I proceed on the basis that one of them is true, that neither of them is true, or that both of them are true?
The fact that you have made this up means that it is false by default. Now, you could be honest and admit that you have made it up, in which case you can easily answer your own question.
However, Let’s just assume that you really believe what you wrote!? I’ll demonstrate on your post the inductive process I suggested on the Faith & Belief Induction vs Deduction thread (saves me using it on the Celestial Teapot). I’ll start with this:
There could also be invisible tap dancing pixies jumping off the keys just before my fingers reach them. I have no reason to think they're there but I can't disprove it, so the truth "no pixies" is also a probabilistic one.
1. How are you defining pixies?
2. What are your reasons for claiming that they are invisible?
3. What are your reasons for claiming that they are tap dancing?
4. What are your reasons for claiming that they are jumping off the keys (presumably not at the same time they are tap dancing!) just before your fingers reach them?
-
1. How are you defining pixies?
2. What are your reasons for claiming that they are invisible?
3. What are your reasons for claiming that they are tap dancing?
4. What are your reasons for claiming that they are jumping off the keys (presumably not at the same time they are tap dancing!) just before your fingers reach them?
1. Invisible beings who have a penchant for tap dancing and jumping.
2. Because nobody can see them! To use a comparison - maybe like your God?
3. Because they sometimes communicate with me and tell when they are doing it. Does your God communicate with you? Maybe the process is similar?
4. D'oh, if they didn't then they would be killed or injured. That is fairly obvious isn't it?
-
Sword,
The fact that you have made this up means that it is false by default.
It means no such thing. How would you eliminate the possibility of a lucky guess?
Now, you could be honest and admit that you have made it up, in which case you can easily answer your own question.
You’ve missed it again. I merely said that there “could be” invisible etc pixies. There could be anything. You seem to be implying an epistemic difference between something I’ve “made up” and something you think to be true as an article of “faith”.
Why?
However, Let’s just assume that you really believe what you wrote!?
I do. There could be pixies, just as there could be “God”.
I’ll demonstrate on your post the inductive process I suggested on the Faith & Belief Induction vs Deduction thread (saves me using it on the Celestial Teapot).
Don't forget that you misunderstood the Celestial Teapot argument, but OK...
I’ll start with this:
1. How are you defining pixies?
How are you defining “God”?
2. What are your reasons for claiming that they are invisible?
I can’t see them!
3. What are your reasons for claiming that they are tap dancing?
I didn’t. I just said that they could be. What are your reasons for claiming (insert claimed characteristic of your god of choice here)?
4. What are your reasons for claiming that they are jumping off the keys (presumably not at the same time they are tap dancing!) just before your fingers reach them?
Again, I didn’t. I just said they could be. What are your reasons for claiming (insert claimed characteristic of your god of choice here)?
Are you beginning to see your problem here?
-
Vlad,
You'll need to unscramble that for meaning, but your position seemed to be that science sometimes gets things wrong - maybe the dead person wasn't really dead, maybe the live person wasn't really alive etc. No-one disagrees that science gets things wrong sometimes.
So what though? What point do you think you're making?
From you. Why else would you tell us that, even if science had been brought to bear on the resurrection, it could have been mistaken (coma rather than dead for example).
Again, so what?
I have never said Jesus was in a coma, therefore it must be mere rectal pluck from your good self.
-
Oh, right, we're at the pixie stage. Soon someone will mention Hitler!....... :-[
-
Oh, right, we're at the pixie stage. Soon someone will mention Hitler!....... :-[
.......or leprechauns.
I think we need to keep in mind also that if life is simply a matter of how material is organised then our matter organisational activities merely have to become a bit more sophisticated. It may even turn out to be easier raise (reorganise the material of the dead back to it's living state) than to create new life in the laboratory.
I don't see how the above should not fit in with the stock of belief of anyone who thinks science has all the answers where the organisation of matter is concerned.
-
.......or leprechauns.
I think we need to keep in mind also that if life is simply a matter of how material is organised then our matter organisational activities merely have to become a bit more sophisticated. It may even turn out to be easier raise (reorganise the material of the dead back to it's living state) than to create new life in the laboratory.
I don't see how the above should not fit in with the stock of belief of anyone who thinks science has all the answers where the organisation of matter is concerned.
I'm not totally against you on this point, I don't think matter alone can do it all. It is subject to laws that are by definition non-material.
-
I'm not totally against you on this point, I don't think matter alone can do it all. It is subject to laws that are by definition non-material.
what does that actually mean?
-
Sorry to butt in...but there seems to be a lttle controversy going on about resurrection...and I'm your boy on these spiritual matters.
Jesus was talking about resurrection of his spirit back to the flesh...and he showed us by performing that deed.
His words are important because they boil down to this...you can't do this but I can because I have followed strict righteous laws. If you follow those same laws you can do it as well. But you have to prime your spiritual being to be more than just an electric by-stander...you have to make it a responsive electric person and then...you to will be reborn to a new vessel. Now this is useful because by this method we are passed along the generations and protected from genetic failure...whilst our old, worn out vessel, is put to rest.
The rest have a promise as well...but they will have to wait until the last generation where they will be given one last chance to repent...I wonder when that will be??
No...only joking...the Biblical signs indicate that this is that last generation.
-
Vlad,
I have never said Jesus was in a coma, therefore it must be mere rectal pluck from your good self.
OFFS! It was merely used as an example of how "science" - especially contemporary science such as it was - could have been fooled.
-
Vlad,
I don't see how the above should not fit in with the stock of belief of anyone who thinks science has all the answers where the organisation of matter is concerned.
No-one does think that science has all the answers to anything - that's just your (oft repeated) straw man.
-
what does that actually mean?
It is plain English, what don't you understand?
-
It is plain English, what don't you understand?
The logic. 'Green ideas sleep furiously' is plain English but doesn't have any actual meaning.
-
Vlad,
No-one does think that science has all the answers to anything - that's just your (oft repeated) straw man.
That wasn't Vlad's point.
-
Vlad,
OFFS! It was merely used as an example of how "science" - especially contemporary science such as it was - could have been fooled.
I think they would have been much more familiar with violent death though* and able to identify a dead'un. *That's according to Stephen Pinker.
I think the probability of a misdiagnosis small and that should be important to someone like theeself who often argues from a position of probability.
In other words now you are banking on a mistake. At least though you are at a place where Jesus is diagnosed.
-
Vlad,
I think they would have been much more familiar with violent death though* and able to identify a dead'un. *That's according to Stephen Pinker.
“They” may have been, but absent technology of any kind shock and blood loss-induced coma is certainly one possibility, albeit only one.
I think the probability of a misdiagnosis small and that should be important to someone like theeself who often argues from a position of probability.
No, because your “I think” is just your unqualified opinion on the matter (how would you know that many crucifixion victims weren’t actually alive after they were taken down?), and because in any case probability is only relevant when you have a different probability with which to compare it. How would you calculate an honest to goodness resurrection being less improbable that a different explanation for it? 1,000/1 odds are good when the alternative is 1,000,000/1.
In other words now you are banking on a mistake. At least though you are at a place where Jesus is diagnosed.
I’m “banking” on no such thing. I’m merely pointing out that there are many real world possible explanations, and only one religious faith one whose relative probability you have no means to calculate and that fails to cohere with anything we know about how the universe works.
-
JK,
That wasn't Vlad's point.
Then he shouldn't have made it.
-
Vlad,
“They” may have been, but absent technology of any kind shock and blood loss-induced coma is certainly one possibility, albeit only one.
But can you explain the 'blood and water' scenario, without allowing Jesus to have died?
I’m “banking” on no such thing. I’m merely pointing out that there are many real world possible explanations, and only one religious faith one whose relative probability you have no means to calculate and that fails to cohere with anything we know about how the universe works.
Yet when one takes the different descriptions of the death into account, it is very difficult to see how one of these 'real world' alternatives actually works, blue. For one of them to work, one or more of the various symptoms described would have had to have been invented by someone who wouldn't have had the modern medical knowledge required to know to invent it.
-
Hope,
But can you explain the 'blood and water' scenario, without allowing Jesus to have died?
No. How does that help you?
Yet when one takes the different descriptions of the death into account, it is very difficult to see how one of these 'real world' alternatives actually works, blue.
Not really, especially if they were all drawn from one source. Either way though, how would you calculate the probability of "it is very difficult to see" against that of a bona fide miracle?
For one of them to work, one or more of the various symptoms described would have had to have been invented by someone who wouldn't have had the modern medical knowledge required to know to invent it.
Of course not. The person who decided he was dead might have been wrong about that, there may have been a switcheroo of the bodies, it could have been a conjuring trick, the story could have been heavily exaggerated in later re-telling etc etc. I have no idea how (im)probable these real world options are, but they do have the advantage of consistency with the way the universe observably works. How then would you calculate the odds of an explanation that contradicts the way the universe observably works for comparison purposes?
-
How would you calculate an honest to goodness resurrection being less improbable that a different explanation for it? 1,000/1 odds are good when the alternative is 1,000,000/1.
People tell lies all the time: such as in the police statements involving the Hillsborough disaster,. etc etc etc ad infinitum. Given this would you not think that people telling lies about a resurrection is more likely than an 'honest to goodness' resurrection?
If so, on what basis have you discounted the possibility of lies in respect of the NT resurrection anecdotes?
-
People tell lies all the time: such as in the police statements involving the Hillsborough disaster,. etc etc etc ad infinitum. Given this would you not think that people telling lies about a resurrection is more likely than an 'honest to goodness' resurrection?
If so, on what basis have you discounted the possibility of lies in respect of the NT resurrection anecdotes?
Sorry, Gordon, but that thing about probabilities was something I'd inadvertantly left in from blue's response to Vlad. You'll need to redirect the question above to one or other of them.
-
Sorry, Gordon, but that thing about probabilities was something I'd inadvertantly left in from blue's response to Vlad. You'll need to redirect the question above to one or other of them.
As far as I can see Blue was asking this question of you: all I've done is use the risk of lies as the alternative possibility and asking if you think that lies claiming a resurrection is more likely than an actual resurrection, which seems like a reasonable question.
-
As far as I can see Blue was asking this question of you: all I've done is use the risk of lies as the alternative possibility and asking if you think that lies claiming a resurrection is more likely than an actual resurrection, which seems like a reasonable question.
If that is the case, why does blue's post#178 (or is that 179) start 'Vlad' and go on to quote passages from a post of Vlad's.
-
Hope,
If that is the case, why does blue's post#178 (or is that 179) start 'Vlad' and go on to quote passages from a post of Vlad's.
I'm happy to add "maybe people just lied about it" to the list of possible explanations addressed to you Hopester.
-
If that is the case, why does blue's post#178 (or is that 179) start 'Vlad' and go on to quote passages from a post of Vlad's.
You're right - my apologies. I was perhaps confused by this mistakenly appearing in one of your own posts, now corrected.
Even so, my question stands and is one I have asked of you previously.
-
People tell lies all the time: such as in the police statements involving the Hillsborough disaster,. etc etc etc ad infinitum. Given this would you not think that people telling lies about a resurrection is more likely than an 'honest to goodness' resurrection?
If so, on what basis have you discounted the possibility of lies in respect of the NT resurrection anecdotes?
Then you take us back into conspiracy theory again Gordon. 500 witnesses are offered in Paul's pastoral epistles.
Also I think pre resurrection Christianity had ended with the crucifixion hadn't it.
It had shuffled off its mortal coil and had ceased to be. Why revive it?
Can you quote another occasion when this happened in any recognisable historical context and wasn't merely a copy of this? It seems there was a huge incentive to massage the truth at Hillsborough.
Also I don't recall the witnesses at the Hillsborough enquiry being threatened with crucifixion or Roman spears.
-
Then you take us back into conspiracy theory again Gordon. 500 witnesses are offered in Paul's pastoral epistles.
So the story goes: how do you know this claim is actually true?
Also I think pre resurrection Christianity had ended with the crucifixion hadn't it.
It had shuffled off its mortal coil and had ceased to be. Why revive it?
People do get very attached to their chosen causes.
Can you quote another occasion when this happened in any recognisable historical context and wasn't merely a copy of this? It seems there was a huge incentive to massage the truth at Hillsborough.
Perhaps his followers wanted to promote the profile of Jesus. Propaganda does happen, so I'd have though it would be important for Christians to exclude this risk before taking the NT claims as being historical fact: to date though it seems they haven't.
Also I don't recall the witnesses at the Hillsborough enquiry being threatened with crucifixion or Roman spears.
The issue here isn't that early Christian weren't sincere even in the face of persecution but whether what they were sincere about was actually true. Bearing in mind we are dealing with post-hoc anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance where the sources could be biased it could be that some elements (say the empty tomb bit) might be fictional propaganda.
That this story is accepted by some/all Christians without them being able to exclude the risks of mistakes or lies just because it features in their preferred holy book smacks of being a fallacious argument from authority.
-
So the story goes: how do you know this claim is actually true?
People do get very attached to their chosen causes.
Perhaps his followers wanted to promote the profile of Jesus. Propaganda does happen, so I'd have though it would be important for Christians to exclude this risk before taking the NT claims as being historical fact: to date though it seems they haven't.
The issue here isn't that early Christian weren't sincere even in the face of persecution but whether what they were sincere about was actually true. Bearing in mind we are dealing with post-hoc anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance where the sources could be biased it could be that some elements (say the empty tomb bit) might be fictional propaganda.
That this story is accepted by some/all Christians without them being able to exclude the risks of mistakes or lies just because it features in their preferred holy book smacks of being a fallacious argument from authority.
The problem is, Gordon, as expressed by your post, that none of it affects you personally...but, I'm afraid it does.
What Jesus was showing you is that there are mechanics, beyond our understanding, that can resurrect each and eveyone of us...and these same mechanics, because Jesus' word can never be altered, also contain the knowledge of everlasting life. By default, that also means he is teaching us a repair process all built around righteousness...or, correct spiritual behaviour.
If we don't believe Jesus...who told us before it happened what would happen, then we have no faith and the alternative to having no faith is to be trapped in the same ether that Jesus snatched the keys to....Oh, I could go on, but I'm afraid I would probably need sign-language.
-
Sparky,
The problem is, Gordon, as expressed by your post, that none of it affects you personally...but, I'm afraid it does.
What Jesus was showing you is that there are mechanics, beyond our understanding, that can resurrect each and eveyone of us...and these same mechanics, because Jesus' word can never be altered, also contain the knowledge of everlasting life. By default, that also means he is teaching us a repair process all built around righteousness...or, correct spiritual behaviour.
If we don't believe Jesus...who told us before it happened what would happen, then we have no faith and the alternative to having no faith is to be trapped in the same ether that Jesus snatched the keys to....Oh, I could go on, but I'm afraid I would probably need sign-language.
No need. Just try finally to make an argument to explain why you think any of this to be true.
-
Sparky,
No need. Just try finally to make an argument to explain why you think any of this to be true.
Jesus Christ made the argument, I'm just supporting his teaching....Most of which is contained in my topic...The Electric/Spiritual Universe of Jesus Christ...but you don't like that either.
-
Sparky,
Jesus Christ made the argument, I'm just supporting his teaching....Most of which is contained in my topic...The Electric/Spiritual Universe of Jesus Christ...but you don't like that either.
You do know that you are not Jesus Christ right? I ask only because, whenever you're asked why you hold the opinions you hold about Jesus/God/the Bible etc you scurry back to your defence of accusing people of disagreeing with Jesus/God/the Bible. Your opinions and conjectures are not though the same thing.
-
So the story goes: how do you know this claim is actually true?
People do get very attached to their chosen causes.
Perhaps his followers wanted to promote the profile of Jesus. Propaganda does happen, so I'd have though it would be important for Christians to exclude this risk before taking the NT claims as being historical fact: to date though it seems they haven't.
The issue here isn't that early Christian weren't sincere even in the face of persecution but whether what they were sincere about was actually true. Bearing in mind we are dealing with post-hoc anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance where the sources could be biased it could be that some elements (say the empty tomb bit) might be fictional propaganda.
That this story is accepted by some/all Christians without them being able to exclude the risks of mistakes or lies just because it features in their preferred holy book smacks of being a fallacious argument from authority.
If it had been propaganda, the first thing Jesus'opponents would have done to disprove it would be to locate the body. The best they could come up with was a report to say the disciples had stolen the body from a sealed tomb under the noses of a company of Roman soldiers. This is very unlikely. Why were they so keen to make up a story? Perhaps Jesus had indeed been a well-known healer and miracle worker whose prominence was a threat to them?
-
So the story goes: how do you know this claim is actually true?
People do get very attached to their chosen causes.
Perhaps his followers wanted to promote the profile of Jesus. Propaganda does happen, so I'd have though it would be important for Christians to exclude this risk before taking the NT claims as being historical fact: to date though it seems they haven't.
The issue here isn't that early Christian weren't sincere even in the face of persecution but whether what they were sincere about was actually true. Bearing in mind we are dealing with post-hoc anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance where the sources could be biased it could be that some elements (say the empty tomb bit) might be fictional propaganda.
That this story is accepted by some/all Christians without them being able to exclude the risks of mistakes or lies just because it features in their preferred holy book smacks of being a fallacious argument from authority.
Sorry Gordon I took your suggestion that the witnesses to the resurrection were lying as the witness to the resurrection were lying.......how silly of me.
It doesn't quite fit with the obvious moral revolution brought in by Christianity after the ministry of Jesus though Gordon and the experience of post resurrection Christians fits with the resurrection experience that is why it has persisted with converts ever since.
-
Sorry Gordon I took your suggestion that the witnesses to the resurrection were lying as the witness to the resurrection were lying.......how silly of me.
It doesn't quite fit with the obvious moral revolution brought in by Christianity after the ministry of Jesus though Gordon and the experience of post resurrection Christians fits with the resurrection experience that is why it has persisted with converts ever since.
saying something is 'obvious' is worthless. Demonstrate the claim.
And I note the begging the question contained in assumption of eye witness and resurrection
-
Vlad,
Sorry Gordon I took your suggestion that the witnesses to the resurrection were lying as the witness to the resurrection were lying.......how silly of me.
All that would be necessary would be for the one person who said there 500 witnesses to by lying - or forgetting, or mis-remembering, or exaggerating, or assuming, or...
-
If it had been propaganda, the first thing Jesus'opponents would have done to disprove it would be to locate the body. The best they could come up with was a report to say the disciples had stolen the body from a sealed tomb under the noses of a company of Roman soldiers. This is very unlikely. Why were they so keen to make up a story? Perhaps Jesus had indeed been a well-known healer and miracle worker whose prominence was a threat to them?
Were it not for the fact that if the resurrection story is indeed propaganda then its recording in what is now the NT occurred decades later. At the time the character referred to as Jesus was reported as having been executed it would have been a routine for the authorities who were involved since they would have been unaware that him not staying dead would become a claim.
If someone wanted to fabricate a resurrection tale to promote Jesus they'd presumably written something along the lines of the one in the NT: so in what way are the features in the NT tale distinguishable from fiction?
-
But the evidence from Matthew's account suggests that the authorities were aware even the day after the crucifixion that the disciples would claim he had risen.
Luke may have written decades after the eventts but he refers to accounts that had already been written.
-
But the evidence from Matthew's account suggests that the authorities were aware even the day after the crucifixion that the disciples would claim he had risen.
Luke may have written decades after the eventts but he refers to accounts that had already been written.
If so, how can you be sure the Matthew account is true?
As a notorious philosopher once said 'he would say that, wouldn't he'.
-
If so, how can you be sure the Matthew account is true?
As a notorious philosopher once said 'he would say that, wouldn't he'.
Jesus said many things that are proving to be true...things like all this invisible energy that builds all the stars is superabundant, indestructible and is a force we can harness if we follow him, accurately.
This is supported by millions who have indeed tried to follow him.
It doesn't take an incredibly clever person to realise that if the universe is carved out of an indestructible force then if we can harness that force in a useful way we become indestructible as well...hence resurrection. The alternative isn't so nice but that is down to the individual that doesn't want loving, caring, upbuilding, righteous laws in their life, and who hide behind the confusion that they themselves create to hide the wonderful teaching that offers us this.
This is why Jesus will not argue with dissenters...he will just allow them to be cut-off by their own insistence that he didn't do what God's Judgment demands we all do as well for our own salvation.
-
Sparky,
Jesus said many things that are proving to be true...things like all this invisible energy that builds all the stars is superabundant, indestructible and is a force we can harness if we follow him, accurately.
You've made this assertion many times now, so it's time to put up or shut up: where exactly does Jesus talk about this superabundant whotsit of yours? As you're fond of telling us that you've studied the Bible, presumably it'll be no effort for you to quote chapter and verse on this.
-
If so, how can you be sure the Matthew account is true?
As a notorious philosopher once said 'he would say that, wouldn't he'.
Hopefully you agree that the gospels are distinguishable from fiction. It is near impossible that the authors and early Christians endured persecution, without attempting to resist (documented in the NT, as well as by early church historians) all for a work of fiction.
One thing to note (though it doesn't prove the truth of the account) is that Matthew purposely includes the priests' claim that the disciples stole the body. Why would he do this if their claim went against, and on the surface, disproved, his claim? The answer must be because he is convinced Jesus rose.
Likewise, Mark seems to anticipate suggestions that Jesus wasn't dead when he was taken off the cross: in Mark 15:45 he uses the word ptoma which means corpse, as opposed to soma (a body, either living or dead).
Luke tells us that Jesus ate something to prove he wasn't a ghost.
So these authors went to great lengths to cover every possible criticism, emphasizing for example that:
Jesus was truly dead
The women went to the right grave
The body was not stolen (tomb sealed and guarded)
The risen Jesus was not a ghost (ate food)
Why were they so confident that some would believe that they went ahead despite persecution and death?
John gives an answer: the (Old Testament) scriptures say that the Messiah had to rise from the dead (John 20:9). For those who could see this, it was basically what the world had been waiting for.
But the main argument for the truth of the gospels is the change effected in the authors by their experience, which becomes evident as you read. The author of Matthew (Matthew) resigning not only his job as a tax-collector, but his identity as a Jew, for example.