Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on November 06, 2022, 08:32:43 PM
-
1. The universe is it's own sufficient reason
2.God raised Jesus from the dead
3. The universe popped out of No where
4. God is the sufficient reason for the universe
5. The Dalai Lama is a reincarnated person
6.Anybody can encounter the risen Christ
Please leave an evaluation on each e.g. the likelihood of each or your emotional reaction to each or whatever.
-
1. The universe is it's own sufficient reason
2.God raised Jesus from the dead
3. The universe popped out of No where
4. God is the sufficient reason for the universe
5. The Dalai Lama is a reincarnated person
6.Anybody can encounter the risen Christ
Please leave an evaluation on each e.g. the likelihood of each or your emotional reaction to each or whatever.
Probability is a naturalist concept. Given the lack of a methodology to evaluate supernatural claims, your use of the term in the above post is meaningless.
I have no idea what you mean when you refer to an 'emotional reaction' to the claims. It's not clear that any of the claims are meaningful due to the lack of definition and agreement of terms.
-
1. The universe is it's own sufficient reason
2.God raised Jesus from the dead
3. The universe popped out of No where
4. God is the sufficient reason for the universe
5. The Dalai Lama is a reincarnated person
6.Anybody can encounter the risen Christ
Please leave an evaluation on each e.g. the likelihood of each or your emotional reaction to each or whatever.
Smashing - now all you need do is provide a methodolody that covers the above 6 points, and then we can get on with the evaluating bit. If you can't then all you've succeeded in doing is demonstrating your trademark impulsive naivity: try thinking before posting, Vlad.
-
Probability is a naturalist concept. Given the lack of a methodology to evaluate supernatural claims, your use of the term in the above post is meaningless.
I have no idea what you mean when you refer to an 'emotional reaction' to the claims. It's not clear that any of the claims are meaningful due to the lack of definition and agreement of terms.
Thank you but you never left an evaluation. Strange from someone purportedly interested in the evaluation of supernatural events.
I only invite people to put anything down and put some examples of what they could.
If emotional responses aren't satisfactory for you and you demand a more academic approach I would you recommend you consult the plethora of web info on academic theology.
A word of warning though, miracles form but a part of the stock of christianity and I would move, other religions as well and thus you have little warrant to make it a ''big thing''.
-
Smashing - now all you need do is provide a methodolody that covers the above 6 points, and then we can get on with the evaluating bit. If you can't then all you've succeeded in doing is demonstrating your trademark impulsive naivity: try thinking before posting, Vlad.
You never left an evaluation.
-
That you refuse to evaluate rather points out that an evaluation can be made.
-
That you refuse to evaluate rather points out that an evaluation can be made.
Stop being stupid: if you've concluded that an evaluation can be made in respect of the proposition that "5. The Dalai Lama is a reincarnated person" then you should set out the steps required.
-
1. The universe is it's own sufficient reason
The universe, so far as we can tell, had a start point and so it seems likely that there was a cause - the broader reality in which our universe sits could be infinite, I don't see a logical or philosophical problem with that.
2.God raised Jesus from the dead
Seems unlikely to me. None of the other claims of magic from antiquity are borne out, why should this one be different?
3. The universe popped out of No where
It emerged from something, it's not just not something that we have the current capacity to adequately describe or define.
4. God is the sufficient reason for the universe
Given that I don't see a justification for the claim of 'God' I'd have to say I think that's unlikely.
5. The Dalai Lama is a reincarnated person
The idea that something of us exists separate from our physical form to be reincarnated isn't something that I see any rational justification for.
6.Anybody can encounter the risen Christ
Seems unlikely.
O.
-
The universe, so far as we can tell, had a start point and so it seems likely that there was a cause - the broader reality in which our universe sits could be infinite, I don't see a logical or philosophical problem with that.
Seems unlikely to me. None of the other claims of magic from antiquity are borne out, why should this one be different?
It emerged from something, it's not just not something that we have the current capacity to adequately describe or define.
Given that I don't see a justification for the claim of 'God' I'd have to say I think that's unlikely.
The idea that something of us exists separate from our physical form to be reincarnated isn't something that I see any rational justification for.
Seems unlikely.
O.
And there you have it. A systematic evaluation of supernatural claims.
-
And there you have it. A systematic evaluation of supernatural claims.
No, that's a systematic rejection of supernatural claims, largely on the basis that you've not provided a system by which they can be evaluated.
O.
-
That you refuse to evaluate rather points out that an evaluation can be made.
Piffle, not even making it to drivel.
-
No, that's a systematic rejection of supernatural claims, largely on the basis that you've not provided a system by which they can be evaluated.
O.
No...They were all supernatural claims, impervious to naturalistic methodology and yet you managed an evaluation.
I might disagree with terms but you have evaluated with a system and shown your methods...well done you.
-
No...They were all supernatural claims, impervious to naturalistic methodology and yet you managed an evaluation.
I might disagree with terms but you have evaluated with a system and shown your methods...well done you.
So we've learnt, what? That you can refute supernatural claims... we knew that, anyway. What we've not seen is a reason to accept them.
O.
-
So we've learnt, what? That you can refute supernatural claims... we knew that, anyway. What we've not seen is a reason to accept them.
O.
You can't refute supernatural claims because you can't evaluate supernatural causes. You can refute methodological naturarist claims.
-
You can't refute supernatural claims because you can't evaluate supernatural causes. You can refute methodological naturarist claims.
I should add for clarification that if I make a claim to read minds in some supernatural fashion but can be found to be doing it by chearing natiralistically that would refute the claim. If I could not be shown to be doing it naturalistically then it would not be evidence of the supernatural claim.
If I was to claim God chooses the time of death of every living creature, there is no way to refute that.
-
1. The universe is it's own sufficient reason
What does that mean? Why does everything need a reason?
2.God raised Jesus from the dead
Seems unlikely
3. The universe popped out of No where
It's a possibility
4. God is the sufficient reason for the universe
What is the sufficient reason for God?
5. The Dalai Lama is a reincarnated person
Nope.
6.Anybody can encounter the risen Christ
Certainly anybody can come to believe they have encountered the risen Christ. But how can they tell the encounter was was real?
-
1. The universe is it's own sufficient reason
Why should anything require a reason?
2.God raised Jesus from the dead
Presumes that Jesus was dead and then not dead, which isn't proven, so this point it completely moot until the premise on which it is based is proven.
3. The universe popped out of No where
For something to have 'popped' out from somewhere or 'no-where' implies that time and space exist outside of that entity. Until or unless it is demonstrated that time and space can and do exist beyond the universe this is a non question.
4. God is the sufficient reason for the universe
See answer to question 1.
5. The Dalai Lama is a reincarnated person
Without defining reincarnation this question cannot be answered.
6.Anybody can encounter the risen Christ
In a subjective 'true for me' manner - sure, why not. However in an objective manner this question is moot until or unless you first demonstrate that Jesus was dead and then not dead, which isn't proven - see question 2.
So overall Vlad - a mish-mash of poorly defined question which, in many cases require you to prove something else before the questions become even relevant. You presumptive bias that these unproven things are somehow proven or self evident is very telling Vlad.
-
Without defining reincarnation this question cannot be answered.
Are you kidding? Reincarnation is the rebirth of a dead person in another person (or animal according to some religions). The answer Vlad's question is unequivocally no.
-
Are you kidding? Reincarnation is the rebirth of a dead person in another person (or animal according to some religions). The answer Vlad's question is unequivocally no.
It depends upon whether we are talking about a physical reincarnation or a metaphorical one. Of course the answer to the former is 'no', but unless what is meant by reincarnation then we can get into definitional issues. So there are plenty of examples where reincarnation is used to mean a rejuvenation of a spirit or attitude rather than a physical reincarnation. So we might describe the spirit of the recent BLM movement to be the reincarnation of the black power movement of the 60s.
So in terms of the question Vlad asked - it could be that the Dalai Lama is a reincarnated person means that the person in that role now adopts the spirit and approaches of their predecessors - i.e. metaphorical reincarnation. Or it could mean a physical reincarnation. Without being clear it isn't possible to answer and in a metaphorical sense a new Dalai Lama may well be the reincarnation of their predecessors, being considered to be a continuity in spirit and approach. However in a physical sense they aren't reincarnated.
-
It depends upon whether we are talking about a physical reincarnation or a metaphorical one.
You mean whether we are talking about reincarnation or some other process that is being compared as an analogy?
Of course the answer to the former is 'no'
So why didn't you just say no?
but unless what is meant by reincarnation then we can get into definitional issues. So there are plenty of examples where reincarnation is used to mean a rejuvenation of a spirit or attitude rather than a physical reincarnation. So we might describe the spirit of the recent BLM movement to be the reincarnation of the black power movement of the 60s.
People use "resurrection" in similar contexts. Would you have any hesitation in denying Vlad's claim that Jesus was resurrected?
So in terms of the question Vlad asked - it could be that the Dalai Lama is a reincarnated person means that the person in that role now adopts the spirit and approaches of their predecessors - i.e. metaphorical reincarnation. Or it could mean a physical reincarnation. Without being clear it isn't possible to answer and in a metaphorical sense a new Dalai Lama may well be the reincarnation of their predecessors, being considered to be a continuity in spirit and approach. However in a physical sense they aren't reincarnated.
A metaphorical reincarnation is not reincarnation. The clue is in the word "metaphorical".
You don't half make it hard for yourself sometimes. We are talking about the Dalai Lama: the context is actual reincarnation, not some metaphor.
-
You mean whether we are talking about reincarnation or some other process that is being compared as an analogy?
So why didn't you just say no?
People use "resurrection" in similar contexts. Would you have any hesitation in denying Vlad's claim that Jesus was resurrected?
A metaphorical reincarnation is not reincarnation. The clue is in the word "metaphorical".
You don't half make it hard for yourself sometimes. We are talking about the Dalai Lama: the context is actual reincarnation, not some metaphor.
Actually defining things clearly is incredibly important, and those wanting to make claims often hide behind imprecise definitions.
So we are talking about reincarnation here - but also people have claimed that someone having a vision of Jesus is evidence of resurrection, which might be the case if we aren't talking specifically about physical resurrection.
And actually many definitions of reincarnation include the 'metaphorical' as well as the 'physical' hence:
"embodiment again in a new form, as of a principle or idea"
"a new version of something from the past"
-
None of these claims are falsifiable, mainly due to definitional or linguistic problems that render them meaningless.
Is the Dalai Lama a person? How can you decide if the next Dalai Lama the same "person" or not?
-
None of these claims are falsifiable, mainly due to definitional or linguistic problems that render them meaningless.
Is the Dalai Lama a person? How can you decide if the next Dalai Lama the same "person" or not?
Indeed, and was Phineas Gage the same 'person' pre and post railway spike?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage
Are we all just Trigger's Brooms from second to second? Is there such a thing as a person? Did you write the Book of Love? And do you have faith in God above?
-
Indeed, and was Phineas Gage the same 'person' pre and post railway spike?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage
Are we all just Trigger's Brooms from second to second? Is there such a thing as a person? Did you write the Book of Love? And do you have faith in God above?
Interesting story.
Neurological cognitive continuity does seem important in defining a person.
-
Interesting story.
Neurological cognitive continuity does seem important in defining a person.
And 'we' take a lot for granted on what that means. Alan Burns often talks on here that 'his' experience is of being a unitary consistent continuous personality, and argues that is evidence for such a thing being real. 'My' experience is nothing like that - how do 'we' even talk of that coherently?
-
Actually defining things clearly is incredibly important, and those wanting to make claims often hide behind imprecise definitions.
Agreed and I provided you with a definition.
So we are talking about reincarnation here - but also people have claimed that someone having a vision of Jesus is evidence of resurrection, which might be the case if we aren't talking specifically about physical resurrection.
A vision of resurrection is not resurrection. I'm quite happy to concede that Paul had a vision of the resurrection.
And actually many definitions of reincarnation include the 'metaphorical' as well as the 'physical' hence:
"embodiment again in a new form, as of a principle or idea"
"a new version of something from the past"
But we are not talking about a metaphor, we are talking about an alleged (well several alleged) reincarnation(s).
-
None of these claims are falsifiable, mainly due to definitional or linguistic problems that render them meaningless.
Is the Dalai Lama a person? How can you decide if the next Dalai Lama the same "person" or not?
You might as well ask if the Dread Pirate Roberts was reincarnated.
-
Agreed and I provided you with a definition.
You did indeed - but other people may work to a different definition. So when discussing matters of this nature you either need to agree on a definition or at the least be clear as to the differing definitions each of you are using.
A vision of resurrection is not resurrection. I'm quite happy to concede that Paul had a vision of the resurrection.
But for another person Paul didn't have a vision of a resurrection but was a witness to the resurrection. Hence the need for clarity on definitions. Otherwise those who want to be disingenuous (e.g. Vlad) may use your acceptance of Paul's claim in the NT as evidence that you accept this to be a resurrection encounter and therefore that the resurrection was real.
But we are not talking about a metaphor, we are talking about an alleged (well several alleged) reincarnation(s).
But the definitions I provided for reincarnation are not in a box marked 'metaphorical' - nor are the more traditional definitions in a box marked 'physical', 'real' or just 'resurrection'. Nope these are simply various definitions of 'resurrection' - so unless we are clear about the definition being used then all sorts of confusion or disingenuity may arise.
-
A vision of resurrection is not resurrection. I'm quite happy to concede that Paul had a vision of the resurrection.
Are you? I think Paul likely had a vision of Jesus - that is not the same as Paul having a vision of the resurrection.
-
Bart Erhman talks about how historians dal with Jesus here.
https://ehrmanblog.org/why-do-historians-treat-jesus-differently-from-every-other-historical-figure/
-
Bart Erhman talks about how historians dal with Jesus here.
https://ehrmanblog.org/why-do-historians-treat-jesus-differently-from-every-other-historical-figure/
An interesting read - but what is missing is how the likes of him deal with the spedific miracle claims that don't really fly: walking on water or not staying dead etc.
-
Are you? I think Paul likely had a vision of Jesus - that is not the same as Paul having a vision of the resurrection.
But Paul was contemporary and had met with witnesses to the resurrection to discuss matters of orthodoxy.
They would have been familiar with his account and able accept or deny Paul's claims of witness to the resurrection.
-
You mean whether we are talking about reincarnation or some other process that is being compared as an analogy?
So why didn't you just say no?
People use "resurrection" in similar contexts. Would you have any hesitation in denying Vlad's claim that Jesus was resurrected?
A metaphorical reincarnation is not reincarnation. The clue is in the word "metaphorical".
You don't half make it hard for yourself sometimes. We are talking about the Dalai Lama: the context is actual reincarnation, not some metaphor.
Metaphorical reincarnation?
This is another example of the professor working from his own definitions rather than the actual claim being made.
He does this when talking about conversions.
-
Bart Erhman talks about how historians dal with Jesus here.
https://ehrmanblog.org/why-do-historians-treat-jesus-differently-from-every-other-historical-figure/
If you mention Bart Ehrman to me my immediate response is"he is one historian"
-
If you mention Bart Ehrman to me my immediate response is"he is one historian"
Absolutely, but the post was about methods historians use, rather than the conclusions he reaches and since the discussion (on the other thread which spawned this one) was about historian's methodologies I thought it useful. I understand not all historians agree with him :) but he is a generally well respected historian I think.
He does say elsewhere that historians are unable to consider supernatural events though since, if I recall correctly, they have to go on limited evidence to conclude what most probably happened and supernatural events are not probable. Other historians do disagree on this - though he suggests that those are mostly historians who have a faith and who work in religious seminars where that approach is taught.
-
Absolutely, but the post was about methods historians use, rather than the conclusions he reaches and since the discussion (on the other thread which spawned this one) was about historian's methodologies I thought it useful. I understand not all historians agree with him :) but he is a generally well respected historian I think.
He does say elsewhere that historians are unable to consider supernatural events though since, if I recall correctly, they have to go on limited evidence to conclude what most probably happened and supernatural events are not probable. Other historians do disagree on this - though he suggests that those are mostly historians who have a faith and who work in religious seminars where that approach is taught.
Yes and of course if Bart can get people thinking and talking in an informed way that must be a positive thing.
But to be fair the historical concensus comes out with the sincerely believed analysis of the Christian claim.
-
If you mention Bart Ehrman to me my immediate response is"he is one historian"
Bart Ehrman isn't a historian.
Which is rather the point - historians don't tend to study the historical Jesus, precisely because there is far too little evidence that is credible in academic historical terms to go on.
Historians may, however study the early history of the christian church, then historical development of texts and scripture, or as Ehrman does study the linguistic aspects of early christian texts. But the latter is the academic field of textual linguistics, not of a historian.
-
Are you? I think Paul likely had a vision of Jesus - that is not the same as Paul having a vision of the resurrection.
Sorry, a vision of the resurrected Jesus.
-
Sorry, a vision of the resurrected Jesus.
How can you tell whether he had a vision of the resurrected Jesus, rather than a vision of the pre-resurrected Jesus or a post-resurrected Jesus.
If I have a dream (a vision) of my dead father - is that a vision of my father, a vision of my dead father, or a vision of my resurrected father (as in the vision he appears to be alive again).
I think Paul had a vision of Jesus - from what I can see there is nothing to suggest that vision to be of the resurrected Jesus.
-
Sorry, a vision of the resurrected Jesus.
Another point on Paul's claimed encounter, or vision.
As far as I'm aware there is no suggestion that Paul ever met Jesus, although he may have met people who had themselves met Jesus.
Given that he'd never actually encountered the real, live Jesus how could he be so sure that a vision was of someone he'd never met. Had he encountered a physically resurrected Jesus, how could he know that this was Jesus, given that he'd never met him before.
-
Another point on Paul's claimed encounter, or vision.
As far as I'm aware there is no suggestion that Paul ever met Jesus, although he may have met people who had themselves met Jesus.
Given that he'd never actually encountered the real, live Jesus how could he be so sure that a vision was of someone he'd never met. Had he encountered a physically resurrected Jesus, how could he know that this was Jesus, given that he'd never met him before.
He recognised him from the photofit the Roman authorities had circulated in their documented desperate attempts to find the body they had 'lost', obviously!
-
But Paul was contemporary and had met with witnesses to the resurrection to discuss matters of orthodoxy.
Possibly, although we cannot be certain who met whom. But why does this have any relevance to his purported encounter with the post-resurrected Jesus.
They would have been familiar with his account and able accept or deny Paul's claims of witness to the resurrection.
But we have nothing from those people - we only know their claims etc via third parties, for example the (unknown) authors of the gospels and possibly Paul.
But actually this doesn't help your cause. Paul's claimed vision seems to be just that - a vision. Indeed there seems to be a complete disinterest in a physically resurrected Jesus from Paul. So if this early claim reflects those of the disciples etc then we are dealing not with any sort of physical resurrection at all. Merely some sort of visionary experiences, which is very different from a physical resurrection.
The notion of a physical resurrection seems to come along much later - nothing from Paul, nothing from the earliest gospel Mark (in its non-doctored form), only in the later gospels.
So, actually we see an evolution over time - from the 'resurrection' being simply a visionary experience largely amongst the disciples and close contacts of Jesus (plus the 'me too, look at me, look at me' Paul) through to the much later claim of a physical resurrection.
The interesting historical question isn't whether there was a resurrection (that is a faith claim not a historical claim), but why the early church felt that they needed to morph the story from something which isn't particularly super-natural (a vision/dream of a dead person - happens all the time) to a supernatural physical resurrection.
An obvious answer is that once the narrative had moved beyond those there at the time a mere vision/dream experienced by someone else didn't seem significant enough and the classic exaggeration and hyperbole kicks in this people feeling the need to ramp up the claims to make them more impressive. Also the audience - I think there is an argument that once the early church had moved beyond attracting jews (which had largely failed) that to attract non jewish audiences some more significant spectacular claims were needed.
-
Bart Ehrman isn't a historian.
Which is rather the point - historians don't tend to study the historical Jesus, precisely because there is far too little evidence that is credible in academic historical terms to go on.
Historians may, however study the early history of the christian church, then historical development of texts and scripture, or as Ehrman does study the linguistic aspects of early christian texts. But the latter is the academic field of textual linguistics, not of a historian.
Ehrman's take on that.
https://ehrmanblog.org/can-biblical-scholars-be-historians/ (https://ehrmanblog.org/can-biblical-scholars-be-historians/)
-
Ehrman's take on that.
https://ehrmanblog.org/can-biblical-scholars-be-historians/ (https://ehrmanblog.org/can-biblical-scholars-be-historians/)
Yup - I think his view is pretty similar to mine.
-
Possibly, although we cannot be certain who met whom. But why does this have any relevance to his purported encounter with the post-resurrected Jesus.
But we have nothing from those people - we only know their claims etc via third parties, for example the (unknown) authors of the gospels and possibly Paul.
But actually this doesn't help your cause. Paul's claimed vision seems to be just that - a vision. Indeed there seems to be a complete disinterest in a physically resurrected Jesus from Paul. So if this early claim reflects those of the disciples etc then we are dealing not with any sort of physical resurrection at all. Merely some sort of visionary experiences, which is very different from a physical resurrection.
The notion of a physical resurrection seems to come along much later - nothing from Paul, nothing from the earliest gospel Mark (in its non-doctored form), only in the later gospels.
So, actually we see an evolution over time - from the 'resurrection' being simply a visionary experience largely amongst the disciples and close contacts of Jesus (plus the 'me too, look at me, look at me' Paul) through to the much later claim of a physical resurrection.
The interesting historical question isn't whether there was a resurrection (that is a faith claim not a historical claim), but why the early church felt that they needed to morph the story from something which isn't particularly super-natural (a vision/dream of a dead person - happens all the time) to a supernatural physical resurrection.
An obvious answer is that once the narrative had moved beyond those there at the time a mere vision/dream experienced by someone else didn't seem significant enough and the classic exaggeration and hyperbole kicks in this people feeling the need to ramp up the claims to make them more impressive. Also the audience - I think there is an argument that once the early church had moved beyond attracting jews (which had largely failed) that to attract non jewish audiences some more significant spectacular claims were needed.
I didn’t really want to intervene in this thread Davey but where is your historical evidence for your positive assertions about how the claim of a physical resurrection evolved?
-
I didn’t really want to intervene in this thread Davey but where is your historical evidence for your positive assertions about how the claim of a physical resurrection evolved?
The evolution of textual evidence as to how the resurrection was described. The earliest writers, e.g. Paul and Mark don't suggest a physical resurrection - the former is pretty clear that he isn't describing a physical resurrection, more a vision. The latter has no indication of the nature of the resurrection whatsoever in the earliest form. Later writers, e.g. Luke, Matthew, John move in the direction of describing a physical resurrection.
Caution must, as ever, be exercise in analysing the various stories, as we don't have extant versions of any of the texts from anything like the point at which they were written so there is always the possibility of doctoring, altering, interpolation of the original text either in error or deliberately to portray a particular angle. We notably see this very clearly in Mark where a later post resurrection appearance is added.
But this is about looking at historical evidence - in this case the evolution of textural stories, historians (or any person worth the name) won't concern themselves with whether the claims are true, unless there is credible historical evidence for the claim (which in this case there isn't) - their interest is in evolution of the narrative and how, why, when and where people believed in those narrative claims.
-
The evolution of textual evidence as to how the resurrection was described. The earliest writers, e.g. Paul and Mark don't suggest a physical resurrection - the former is pretty clear that he isn't describing a physical resurrection, more a vision. The latter has no indication of the nature of the resurrection whatsoever in the earliest form. Later writers, e.g. Luke, Matthew, John move in the direction of describing a physical resurrection.
if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins” (1 Cor 15:17). I fail to see how this gives no indication of a physical resurrection. Since the soul is a platonic idea Paul is thinking of something different from a spiritual resurrection which even Platonically is a nonsense idea since the spirit or soul is immortal. Of course he is thinking of a resurrection.
Your argument is based on a modern confusion of 1st century philosophies. A physical resurrection then would be most likely a tautology to the likes of Paul.
-
if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins” (1 Cor 15:17). I fail to see how this gives no indication of a physical resurrection. Since the soul is a platonic idea Paul is thinking of something different from a spiritual resurrection which even Platonically is a nonsense idea since the spirit or soul is immortal. Of course he is thinking of a resurrection.
Your argument is based on a modern confusion of 1st century philosophies. A physical resurrection then would be most likely a tautology to the likes of Paul.
Paul claims his encounter with Jesus was as valid as everybody else’s but he also claims his encounter was not with a physical person.
-
Paul claims his encounter with Jesus was as valid as everybody else’s but he also claims his encounter was not with a physical person.
You seem to be saying that a physical encounter with the Risen Christ is more valid than a non physical encounter, although the NT account does talk of a scaling of Paul's cornea in the encounter.
-
You seem to be saying that a physical encounter with the Risen Christ is more valid than a non physical encounter,
No. I.m pointing out that Paul thought his non physical encounter was as valid as everybody else's. Therefore he probably assumed that everybody's encounters were similar to his.
although the NT account does talk of a scaling of Paul's cornea in the encounter.
No it doesn't.
-
No. I.m pointing out that Paul thought his non physical encounter was as valid as everybody else's. Therefore he probably assumed that everybody's encounters were similar to his.No it doesn't.
Yes it does, Acts 9,3-9 Paul is blinded by his encounter with the risen Jesus.Acts 9 13-19 scales fall from his eyes and his sight is regained. This makes a psychosomatic blindness less likely.
-
Yes it does, Acts 9,3-9 Paul is blinded by his encounter with the risen Jesus.Acts 9 13-19 scales fall from his eyes and his sight is regained. This makes a psychosomatic blindness less likely.
Do you think scales literally fell from his eyes? Is there any evidence that his corneas were literally scaled over? Is that even a real thing?
Paul says he was blind. I'm not disputing that, I'm disputing your claim that his corneas literally scaled over.
-
Do you think scales literally fell from his eyes? Is there any evidence that his corneas were literally scaled over? Is that even a real thing?
Paul says he was blind. I'm not disputing that, I'm disputing your claim that his corneas literally scaled over.
No it says in Acts and I have no reason to disbelieve it.
The diagnosis of psychosomatic or post fit blindness was formalised centuries later. Somebody making it up would have to be a genius to weirdly think ''just in case centuries if future they might put this down as psychosomatic i'll put the scales in''. Or there really were scales on the cornea or inner eyelid from the encounter?
-
No it says in Acts and I have no reason to disbelieve it.
So do you believe everything that is written in texts from antiquity Vlad? Sounds like special pleading to me.
-
So do you believe everything that is written in texts from antiquity Vlad? Sounds like special pleading to me.
Obviously most people believe some of it that's why we have history.
-
No it says in Acts and I have no reason to disbelieve it.
The diagnosis of psychosomatic or post fit blindness was formalised centuries later. Somebody making it up would have to be a genius to weirdly think ''just in case centuries if future they might put this down as psychosomatic i'll put the scales in''. Or there really were scales on the cornea or inner eyelid from the encounter?
Acts was written probably 60 years after Paul's conversion and it was written by an anonymous author and we don't know what his sources were.
It's hardly mind blowing evidence.
-
Acts was written probably 60 years after Paul's conversion and it was written by an anonymous author and we don't know what his sources were.
It's hardly mind blowing evidence.
Histories are often written years after the event Jeremy in fact it’s pretty usual.
-
Histories are often written years after the event Jeremy in fact it’s pretty usual.
Yes, but when they are written by anonymous authors after 60 years and give no indication of who their source was, we treat them with scepticism.
-
Yes, but when they are written by anonymous authors after 60 years and give no indication of who their source was, we treat them with scepticism.
You have to judge whether you are reading a history or reportage or whatever. History has more incidents of uncertain authorship than I think you give it credit for. Have you actually read the book of Acts? Are you a pre frontal lobe epilepsy exponent?
-
You have to judge whether you are reading a history or reportage or whatever. History has more incidents of uncertain authorship than I think you give it credit for. Have you actually read the book of Acts? Are you a pre frontal lobe epilepsy exponent?
Yes I've read it. I've also read some of Paul's letters. Acts and Paul diverge on some salient points of fact, so we know it isn't completely reliable.
-
The evolution of textual evidence as to how the resurrection was described. The earliest writers, e.g. Paul and Mark don't suggest a physical resurrection - the former is pretty clear that he isn't describing a physical resurrection, more a vision. The latter has no indication of the nature of the resurrection whatsoever in the earliest form. Later writers, e.g. Luke, Matthew, John move in the direction of describing a physical resurrection.
Unless Mark was written later than the others and made use of their accounts of the resurrection appearances. That he incorrectly adds "as he said to you" to "there you will see him" in 16:7 (cf. Mk 14:28) would be consistent with Mark having in the back of his mind Matthew's, "he is risen, as he said" and conflating it with Matthew's "Behold, I have told you".
-
Even if the long ending of Mark was written by another author, it is still quite obvious that Mark 16:1-8 is secondary. According to Matthew, Jesus was not in the tomb because he had risen. According to Luke, Jesus was not there but he had risen. According to Mark, the angel said "He is risen, he is not here", which is less natural. It is improbable that Matthew and Luke were quoting from Mark and both changed the order of the two phrases.
That Mark was quoting from Matthew and Luke and reversed the phrases would be consistent with him knowing the phrase "he is risen" as the part of the angel's message which people would have remembered long afterwards.
-
Almost nobody who has studied the matter thinks Mark was written after Matthew and Luke.
-
Almost nobody who has studied the matter thinks Mark was written after Matthew and Luke.
Argumentum ad populum? Can they explain why Mark names the two Marys twice in a row, at 15:47 and 16:1? Markan dependence on Matthew explains it: Matthew necessarily names them twice, before and after mentioning the guards at the tomb, but Mark is copying from Matthew but omitting his section on the guards.
-
Argumentum ad populum? Can they explain why Mark names the two Marys twice in a row, at 15:47 and 16:1? Markan dependence on Matthew explains it: Matthew necessarily names them twice, before and after mentioning the guards at the tomb, but Mark is copying from Matthew but omitting his section on the guards.
Or Matthew is copying from Mark and adding in the guards for effect.
-
Or Matthew is copying from Mark and adding in the guards for effect.
But that doesn't explain Mark's odd repetition of the two names in 16:1.
-
Or Matthew is copying from Mark and adding in the guards for effect.
There is a hypothesis that originally, Matthew began at 3:1 and ended at 28:8, with the women doing as they had been instructed by the angel. If the posting of the guards, as well as the rest from 28:9 onward, were added by an editor, then the repetition of the two Mary's names seems to have occurred in the original, whether Matthew or Mark. Interestingly, however, Luke refers to the women without naming them until a later point.
This hypothesis would mean that Prof was correct that the earliest form of any of the four gospels did not include a resurrection appearance.
-
Argumentum ad populum? Can they explain why Mark names the two Marys twice in a row, at 15:47 and 16:1? Markan dependence on Matthew explains it: Matthew necessarily names them twice, before and after mentioning the guards at the tomb, but Mark is copying from Matthew but omitting his section on the guards.
No. A scholarly consensus.
-
No. A scholarly consensus.
Indeed - scholarly consensus, and I mean proper scholars rather than christian apologists and theologians, is pretty clear that Mark comes first, and also that originally Mark did not include any resurrection appearance.
-
There is a hypothesis that originally, Matthew began at 3:1 and ended at 28:8, with the women doing as they had been instructed by the angel.
This isn't a theory I'm aware of so can you link to some scholarly evidence for this please.
It is, of course, perfectly plausible as we don't have anything earlier than I think about 350 in terms of extant texts. So plenty of opportunity for edits, additions, changes etc. However, unlike the additions to the end of Mark, I don't think we have obvious before/after versions as a smoking gun to demonstrate alteration.
This hypothesis would mean that Prof was correct that the earliest form of any of the four gospels did not include a resurrection appearance.
But that doesn't require any alteration to Matthew, as Mark is considered to have been written before Matthew and with the original not containing a resurrection appearance.
-
Indeed - scholarly consensus, and I mean proper scholars rather than christian apologists and theologians, is pretty clear that Mark comes first, and also that originally Mark did not include any resurrection appearance.
It’s worth pointing out that the majority of scholars who have formed this consensus would describe themselves as Christian.
-
It’s worth pointing out that the majority of scholars who have formed this consensus would describe themselves as Christian.
True - but also worth pointing out that to be worthy of the term a scholar needs to derive conclusions from the evidence, not hunt for evidence to support pre-determined conclusions.
That's the challenge - there are so-called "bible scholars" who clearly are simply looking to cherry pick or shoehorn 'evidence' to support their pre-existing religious beliefs. That isn't scholarship as it is hamstrung by confirmation bias.
-
This isn't a theory I'm aware of so can you link to some scholarly evidence for this please.
"The First Gospel" by Harold Riley (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DfiijGB4NJkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) is where I came across it. He seems quite scholarly to me (eg he quotes Greek words in places); there's a chapter at page 69 of the above preview describing what he thinks was in 'Proto-Matthew'.
It is, of course, perfectly plausible as we don't have anything earlier than I think about 350 in terms of extant texts. So plenty of opportunity for edits, additions, changes etc. However, unlike the additions to the end of Mark, I don't think we have obvious before/after versions as a smoking gun to demonstrate alteration.
One possibility (though not as obvious a smoking gun) is that if we accept that Luke used Matthew, and Mark used them both, we an see that the common end point after which Luke and Mark diverge, is Mt 28:8. Also a common beginning before which Luke diverges and Mark says nothing, is the preaching of John the Baptist.
But that doesn't require any alteration to Matthew, as Mark is considered to have been written before Matthew and with the original not containing a resurrection appearance.
From what I have read, the arguments in favour of this can be reversed in favour of Matthew being written first. There is no hard proof of Markan priority.
-
"The First Gospel" by Harold Riley (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DfiijGB4NJkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) is where I came across it. He seems quite scholarly to me (eg he quotes Greek words in places); there's a chapter at page 69 of the above preview describing what he thinks was in 'Proto-Matthew'.
I will have a look.
One possibility (though not as obvious a smoking gun) is that if we accept that Luke used Matthew, and Mark used them both, we an see that the common end point after which Luke and Mark diverge, is Mt 28:8.The 'smoking gun' is that we have early Mark texts without the longer ending and then it suddenly appears in later texts - which strongly suggests the longer ending to be a later addition.
Given that Mark originally ends with nothing further than an empty tomb I'm struggling to see how it could have diverged from either Matthew or Luke which have further narratives.
From what I have read, the arguments in favour of this can be reversed in favour of Matthew being written first. There is no hard proof of Markan priority.
There is no 'hard proof' as you suggest that Mark came first - however there is strong scholarly evidence and a broad consensus amongst serious scholars for that to be the case. There is nothing like as strong evidence nor consensus that Matthew came first. Most of the arguments (and you are a case in point) appear to be based on trying to find evidence to support a pre-judged, and faith-based, conclusion that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John must be the order.
-
"The First Gospel" by Harold Riley (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DfiijGB4NJkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) is where I came across it. He seems quite scholarly to me (eg he quotes Greek words in places); there's a chapter at page 69 of the above preview describing what he thinks was in 'Proto-Matthew'.
But your claim was of a theory that Matthew originally ended at 28:8 - I can't seen anything in the link in support of this - perhaps it isn't in the available chapter.
But on that - his argument seems to be that Mark borrowed not from Matthew, but from some lost proto-Matthew. To which the easy repost is - well if there is a proto-Matthew, surely there will also be a proto-Mark. It seems again like cherry picking.
There must be texts or other forms of narrative that existed before the gospels arose and that were used by various gospel authors alone, or in combination with the earlier gospels. The most obvious being the elusive Q - but we don't have these so this is all conjecture. From what we do have I think there is a consensus around the following:
1. Mark likely came first, with John the latest.
2. What we have from extant versions of the texts is not the original (the so called autograph) and there is amply evidence for numerous major and minor changes to the texts in those earliest extant texts suggesting likely significant change from the autograph to what we consider to be the 'settled' gospel texts.
-
But your claim was of a theory that Matthew originally ended at 28:8 - I can't seen anything in the link in support of this - perhaps it isn't in the available chapter.
True -the chapters available in the preview don't give the full picture. Just to say it is available as an e-book, which is cheaper than the hardback. There are other chapters detailing the specific material Riley thinks was edited in. This includes the story of the guards, and the reference to the mission to all nations in the last few verses of ch.28, which, he says, gives significance to the record of the meeting in Galilee, and therefore must have been an addition because previous references to the mission to the Gentiles and the end of the age (such as in 24:3) also appear to have been additions.
But on that - his argument seems to be that Mark borrowed not from Matthew, but from some lost proto-Matthew. To which the easy repost is - well if there is a proto-Matthew, surely there will also be a proto-Mark. It seems again like cherry picking.
He thinks Mark's copy of Matthew did contain most of the additions, such as the Sermon on the Mount, which Mark omitted.
The first chapter talks about some 17 so-called 'doublets', already documented by another author called Hawkins. Each of these consists of two instances of a sentence or paragraph, with one instance fitting well into its own context and the other not fitting its own context. He supposes that the one that appears not to fit is an insertion into an original, well structured text (which he calls proto-Matthew).
The last of these doublets is the angel's instruction to the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee, and the similar instruction by Jesus himself in the next paragraph. After receiving the instruction once, it's surprising that the women would receive it again minutes later.
What I find almost inconsistent about Riley's theory is that on the one hand he says the description of the appearance in Galilee flows naturally from what comes before, but on the other hand he says that the appearance in Galilee appears to be edited in by someone for whom the mission to all nations and the close of the age is his main interest. Whereas the appearance of Jesus to the women looks like an addition, it's hard to know whether he thinks the original had an appearance in Galilee or not.
-
True -the chapters available in the preview don't give the full picture. Just to say it is available as an e-book, which is cheaper than the hardback. There are other chapters detailing the specific material Riley thinks was edited in. This includes the story of the guards, and the reference to the mission to all nations in the last few verses of ch.28, which, he says, gives significance to the record of the meeting in Galilee, and therefore must have been an addition because previous references to the mission to the Gentiles and the end of the age (such as in 24:3) also appear to have been additions.
He thinks Mark's copy of Matthew did contain most of the additions, such as the Sermon on the Mount, which Mark omitted.
The first chapter talks about some 17 so-called 'doublets', already documented by another author called Hawkins. Each of these consists of two instances of a sentence or paragraph, with one instance fitting well into its own context and the other not fitting its own context. He supposes that the one that appears not to fit is an insertion into an original, well structured text (which he calls proto-Matthew).
The last of these doublets is the angel's instruction to the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee, and the similar instruction by Jesus himself in the next paragraph. After receiving the instruction once, it's surprising that the women would receive it again minutes later.
What I find almost inconsistent about Riley's theory is that on the one hand he says the description of the appearance in Galilee flows naturally from what comes before, but on the other hand he says that the appearance in Galilee appears to be edited in by someone for whom the mission to all nations and the close of the age is his main interest. Whereas the appearance of Jesus to the women looks like an addition, it's hard to know whether he thinks the original had an appearance in Galilee or not.
I'm not going to invest in some e-book on the basis that you think somehow it backs up your assertions Spud. If you want to argue this as evidence then you'll need to provide this.
I've also tried, unsuccessfully, find some kind of biography for this chap. You claim he is a serious scholar, but without understanding his biog that it very hard to determine. Certainly the critiques at the end of the ebook edit you linked to don't really suggest we are dealing with a serious and independent scholar, rather than a person tilting to some evangelical necessity for Matthew to be first.
This from Richard W Gilsdorf - Holy Trinity Rector!!!
"He significantly advances the revived assault against the ultimate bastion of modern liberal biblical criticism - the sacrosanct 'dogma' of Markian priority"
-
I'm not going to invest in some e-book on the basis that you think somehow it backs up your assertions Spud. If you want to argue this as evidence then you'll need to provide this.
It makes very interesting reading, if you change your mind. I've bought the book, not the e-book, so I can't copy and paste anything from it here (not sure if that would be legal anyway). I don't know whether his conclusion about later editors is correct. Maybe Matthew is written by one author who edited it himself. If so, the book is still useful for its analysis.
-
It makes very interesting reading, if you change your mind. I've bought the book, not the e-book, so I can't copy and paste anything from it here (not sure if that would be legal anyway). I don't know whether his conclusion about later editors is correct. Maybe Matthew is written by one author who edited it himself. If so, the book is still useful for its analysis.
Why don't you tell me something about the author Spud, as I asked.
You seem to think he is some kind of bone fide serious and independent scholar, but I can't see this from my quick googling. As you seem to be a fan of this guy and consider him to be a serious and independent scholar, perhaps you can provide some evidence for this.
-
Why don't you tell me something about the author Spud, as I asked.
Because there is nothing online about him.
You seem to think he is some kind of bone fide serious and independent scholar, but I can't see this from my quick googling. As you seem to be a fan of this guy and consider him to be a serious and independent scholar, perhaps you can provide some evidence for this.
What is in his books is the only evidence I know of. I decided to buy his first one (the making of Mark) after reading the online preview.
-
Because there is nothing online about him.
So how do we know whether he is a serious scholar or simply an armchair 'expert' with an agenda.
-
So how do we know whether he is a serious scholar or simply an armchair 'expert' with an agenda.
I've just looked up Bernard Orchard, with whom Riley co-authored a book called The Order of the Synoptics: why three synoptic gospels?.Orchard was a serious biblical scholar, according to Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Orchard) This doesn't tell us Riley's credentials, but that they wrote a book together says something about him.
-
I've just looked up Bernard Orchard, with whom Riley co-authored a book called The Order of the Synoptics: why three synoptic gospels?.Orchard was a serious biblical scholar, according to Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Orchard) This doesn't tell us Riley's credentials, but that they wrote a book together says something about him.
Really - looks more like a 'professional' catholic, rather than anyone with credentials as a serious independent scholar. A theologian rather than a proper bible scholar. Pretty notable that the article states "Orchard promulgated, in the face of general scholarly scepticism, the Griesbach hypothesis".
-
Really - looks more like a 'professional' catholic, rather than anyone with credentials as a serious independent scholar. A theologian rather than a proper bible scholar. Pretty notable that the article states "Orchard promulgated, in the face of general scholarly scepticism, the Griesbach hypothesis".
Have to admit that was my least favourite Robert Ludlum book