Searching for GOD...

[Spud]

No it doesn't: I could have very vivid memories of stuff that happened in Edinburgh 30 odd years ago - and I could still be mistaken.

But you just said you could give a fairly good account of the people and places you knew. So that it would be evident that you knew the place or had spoken to someone who did. That means you would also be able to recall witnessing someone, say, walking on a lake, fairly accurately.

Nope: that story could well be fiction and you can't exclude that, and then there is the unbelievable nature of the claim (of feeding 5000 people using the equivalent of a large packet of fish fingers and a loaf). The problem you have is that you believe this claim as a matter of religious faith and as such you are reluctant, or unable, to consider that it might not be true.

If you're suggesting that the whole story was fictional, how do you explain the corroboration between independent versions of it, since that gives the appearance of non-fiction?

If I told the same story often enough and stressed the points I wanted them to remember then I sure they could - and I've no doubt they would elaborate too. I take it you do understand that people can write incredibly detailed fiction?

Perhaps a story about a miracle could be taught accurately,  but you've still got the problem that someone else told the same miracle story with details that explained something you didn't fully explain.

As Williams says, we can't prove that the miracles happened, but the pattern we find in the accounts is not what we would expect if the stories had been made up or mistold or were 5th or 6th hand accounts.

[Gordon]

But you just said you could give a fairly good account of the people and places you knew. So that it would be evident that you knew the place or had spoken to someone who did. That means you would also be able to recall witnessing someone, say, walking on a lake, fairly accurately.

That I could describe walking across Bristo Square in Edinburgh fairly accurately is one thing, and is quite believable, and you could go there yourself to check. However, if I also said that during a stroll across Bristo Square one day I saw a dragon flying overhead I would not expect you to believe me just because my description of Bristo Square was fairly accurate. 

If you're suggesting that the whole story was fictional, how do you explain the corroboration between independent versions of it, since that gives the appearance of non-fiction?

Because I think these alleged 'independent versions' can be reasonably doubted: plus I think some of the content is probably fictional.

Perhaps a story about a miracle could be taught accurately,  but you've still got the problem that someone else told the same miracle story with details that explained something you didn't fully explain.

Have you considered that they may all have been convinced by the same fictitious propaganda? Then you need to find a way the accurately 'explains' a miracle. I don't have a problem and nor do I need to explain anything - you do though: it's called the 'burden of proof'.

As Williams says, we can't prove that the miracles happened, but the pattern we find in the accounts is not what we would expect if the stories had been made up or mistold or were 5th or 6th hand accounts.

Even if Williams concedes that miracles cannot be proven (since if they could they would cease to be miracles) I'd say that his assumptions suggest he is indulging in special pleading, plus an argument from authority/tradition. In other words, his conclusions are fallacious theobollocks.
 

[ekim]

That means you would also be able to recall witnessing someone, say, walking on a lake, fairly accurately.

... or how about the River Thames ..... https://tinyurl.com/5ck7bx4s

[Maeght]

But you just said you could give a fairly good account of the people and places you knew. So that it would be evident that you knew the place or had spoken to someone who did. That means you would also be able to recall witnessing someone, say, walking on a lake, fairly accurately.If you're suggesting that the whole story was fictional, how do you explain the corroboration between independent versions of it, since that gives the appearance of non-fiction?Perhaps a story about a miracle could be taught accurately,  but you've still got the problem that someone else told the same miracle story with details that explained something you didn't fully explain.

As Williams says, we can't prove that the miracles happened, but the pattern we find in the accounts is not what we would expect if the stories had been made up or mistold or were 5th or 6th hand accounts.

The stories about Jesus would initially have been passed on as oral history before being written down. The original stories would quite likely contain accurate mundane information. With retelling other elements could be woven into those earlier stories. As we don't have the original stories we don't know what has been woven in. Accuracy about mundane details do not mean the supernatural claims are accurate.

[jeremyp]

I'm struggling to understand why a discussion about the development of the early church would not consider the definition of orthodox to be what the early church would consider it to be, rather than what it may have evolved to be defined as in a different language 2000 years later.

Because the label meant nothing to them at the time. They didn't call themselves "the orthodox church" until much later.

[ProfessorDavey]

Because the label meant nothing to them at the time. They didn't call themselves "the orthodox church" until much later.

Wrong again - as early as the 2ndC Irenaeus was referring to his communities doctrine as orthodox (which as he was writing in Greek would have meant right, correct, true) and other doctrines as being heretical. Now, of course those people holding other beliefs would have considered their doctrines to be right, correct or true and as they were also using Greek would have considered them orthodox.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong again - as early as the 2ndC Irenaeus was referring to his communities doctrine as orthodox (which as he was writing in Greek would have meant right, correct, true) and other doctrines as being heretical. Now, of course those people holding other beliefs would have considered their doctrines to be right, correct or true and as they were also using Greek would have considered them orthodox.

As I tried to mention earlier what is regarded as incarnations, trinitarian orthodox faith was referred to as apostolic rather than orthodox and this is reflected in the creeds.

I think christian heresies have fallen into a patterned set of main deviations and reoccur in different guises in history.

[jeremyp]

Wrong again - as early as the 2ndC Irenaeus was referring to his communities doctrine as orthodox (which as he was writing in Greek would have meant right, correct, true) and other doctrines as being heretical. Now, of course those people holding other beliefs would have considered their doctrines to be right, correct or true and as they were also using Greek would have considered them orthodox.

Second century is much later.

Other than that, you seem to be just making my point. Whichever sect had won out, its adherents would have regarded it as the "true way" and we would probably have writings by them saying so.

[jeremyp]

As I tried to mention earlier what is regarded as incarnations, trinitarian orthodox faith was referred to as apostolic rather than orthodox and this is reflected in the creeds.

I think christian heresies have fallen into a patterned set of main deviations and reoccur in different guises in history.

Would you like to take a guess as to when the doctrine of the Trinity first rose? I doubt if the earliest Christians would have known what the Trinity is.

[ProfessorDavey]

Second century is much later.

No it isn't - it is smack in the middle of the period where various competing early christian doctrines were vying for dominance. And as these tended to operate in Greek each would have considered themselves orthodox. Only later, when the battle for doctrinal dominance became largely settled (around 4thC) would the winners of that battle have declared themselves and only themselves to be orthodox in a manner that we may consider it now - hence survivorship bias.

Other than that, you seem to be just making my point. Whichever sect had won out, its adherents would have regarded it as the "true way" and we would probably have writings by them saying so.

Of course - but the point is that all of the competing sects (before one of them won) would have equally considered their doctrine as the 'true way' which in the language they were using would have been described as orthodox, meaning true, correct or right.

[jeremyp]

No it isn't

It's much later than the Pauline period and the period where the Jerusalem church was operating. If any church had a claim on "orthodox" in the sense in which you insist on using it, it would be the Jerusalem church.

Of course - but the point is that all of the competing sects (before one of them won) would have equally considered their doctrine as the 'true way' which in the language they were using would have been described as orthodox, meaning true, correct or right.

Duh.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's much later than the Pauline period and the period where the Jerusalem church was operating. If any church had a claim on "orthodox" in the sense in which you insist on using it, it would be the Jerusalem church.

So what - it is perfectly clear from my posts that the discussion was about the early church - which is typically defined as the period up until the Council of Nicaea in CE325.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity

From the article:

'Early Christianity, otherwise called the Early Church or Paleo-Christianity, describes the historical era of the Christian religion up to the First Council of Nicaea in 325.'

So why are you restricting this to just the Pauline period, rather than the period up until CE325, which is clearly what I was referring to.

This is, of course, the period when the key battles over doctrine amongst the various factions in the early church were taking place - in other words the period of debate over what was right, true or correct (which these factions would all have considered to be orthodox, as that's what the word means in Greek) and what was considered to be heterodox or heretical.

So which bit of the following quotes from me:

'But we aren't discussing how the word orthodox might be defined and used now, but how it would have been used in the first few centuries CE - and those people would have defined orthodox as being right, true or correct - because that's what it means in Greek, the very language they would have been using.'

'Orthodoxy, in its original Greek (the language most relevant to the development of the early church) means 'correct' 'true' or 'right' opinion - we might use the word in a slightly different way today, but during the battle for orthodoxy in the early church they would consider orthodox to be correct, true or right.'

'I'm struggling to understand why a discussion about the development of the early church would not consider the definition of orthodox to be what the early church would consider it to be, rather than what it may have evolved to be defined as in a different language 2000 years later.'

Suggest I was discussing just the Pauline period rather than the entire early church period that extended for a few centuries to 325.

[ProfessorDavey]

Duh.

Not the most clear comment JP - does this mean you accepting my opinion that the various factions would have all believed their version of doctrine was true, correct or right - in other words orthodox, the word they would have used as they communicated in Greek.

[ProfessorDavey]

... "orthodox" in the sense in which you insist on using it ...

But the word is from Greek - I'm not insisting on using it in anything other than how people who spoke Greek (the predominant language of the early church and their writing) would have used it. The suggestion that I'm somehow using in an atypical manner is just bonkers. You might as well complain that Napoleon might have used a French word according to its meaning in ... err ... French.

[Spud]

That I could describe walking across Bristo Square in Edinburgh fairly accurately is one thing, and is quite believable, and you could go there yourself to check. However, if I also said that during a stroll across Bristo Square one day I saw a dragon flying overhead I would not expect you to believe me just because my description of Bristo Square was fairly accurate. 

But if some other person claimed a similar sighting, 30 years ago in the same part of Edinburgh, and on cross-examination you both reported the same colour, shape, size and time that you saw it, we might then believe you.

[Alan Burns]

You do not need to delve into the annals of ancient history to discover the truth of the Gospels.
Join with the millions who have discovered the risen Christ in their daily lives - who's lives have been transformed to discover true meaning and purpose behind their existence.

Jesus lives.  Alleluia 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Would you like to take a guess as to when the doctrine of the Trinity first rose? I doubt if the earliest Christians would have known what the Trinity is.

It's implicit in Jesus being the focus of salvation, his ability to forgive, the peculiar sonship of Christ and the earliest credal statement taken from Paul, Jesus is Lord. There would have been little doctrinal theology on it, Not sure of any tritheistic groups and  not many would have gone around thinking "I'm a trinitarian, but then ,until their nick name stuck, they wouldn't have thought of themselves as Christians

[Gordon]

But if some other person claimed a similar sighting, 30 years ago in the same part of Edinburgh, and on cross-examination you both reported the same colour, shape, size and time that you saw it, we might then believe you.

Just no - dragons aren't real and dead people stay dead: to believe otherwise just because some people said so back in antiquity is foolish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just no - dragons aren't real and dead people stay dead: to believe otherwise just because some people said so back in antiquity is foolish.

But is belief in Jesus just based on the say so of others rather than based on one's own experience of the risen Jesus?

Do you think your standpoint is rather "There is no God, therefore no one can be raised from the dead"?

[Gordon]

But is belief in Jesus just based on the say so of others rather than based on one's own experience of the risen Jesus?

Do you think your standpoint is rather "There is no God, therefore no one can be raised from the dead"?

I haven't said 'there is no God', as you well know. My stance is that there are no good reasons to think that there is such a thing.

Since I see no basis for supernatural agency then I reject miracle claims that are cited as being supernatural along with claims of personally encountering a supernatural agent.

Therefore if you claim you have encountered someone from antiquity I think you are probably mistaken - assuming this guy was once real then he has been dead these last 2,000 years.

[Spud]

But is belief in Jesus just based on the say so of others rather than based on one's own experience of the risen Jesus?

For me, both.

Do you think your standpoint is rather "There is no God, therefore no one can be raised from the dead"?

Definitely. If you believe the world must have been created, then that creator must be able to raise the dead.

[Gordon]

If you believe the world must have been created, then that creator must be able to raise the dead.

Is it possible, Spud, that you could be wrong?

[ProfessorDavey]

If you believe the world must have been created, then that creator must be able to raise the dead.

Firstly there is no evidence that the world must have been created.

But even if you believe so then that doesn't infer that the thing that 'created' the world (presumably you mean the universe) must be able to raise the dead. The creator may just have kick started a self sustaining process, with no further ability to intervene.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I haven't said 'there is no God', as you well know. My stance is that there are no good reasons to think that there is such a thing.

Since I see no basis for supernatural agency then I reject miracle claims that are cited as being supernatural along with claims of personally encountering a supernatural agent.

Therefore if you claim you have encountered someone from antiquity I think you are probably mistaken - assuming this guy was once real then he has been dead these last 2,000 years.

Most interesting points but let's focus on resurrection.
Are you saying it can never happen?
I think that's an assumption too far.

In what I take to be your own viewpoint, Life can be taken as A particular arrangement of matter. It is possible for matter to be manipulated. Therefore there is nothing to prevent a sufficiently developed technique to obtain life from dead material.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly there is no evidence that the world must have been created.

But even if you believe so then that doesn't infer that the thing that 'created' the world (presumably you mean the universe) must be able to raise the dead. The creator may just have kick started a self sustaining process, with no further ability to intervene.

The enormous preponderance and presence of contingent objects would I thought count as evidence.
What example of the uncreated can you offer as evidence?