Science and spirituality

[jeremyp]

He made a positive assertion that the resurrection was not a historical fact. No attempt at turdpolishing this by you relieves him of the burden of proof.

No. He denied your assertion that it is a historical fact.

Nevertheless his denial has some pretty strong evidence behind it.

1 dead people do not come alive again

2 all of the accounts of the resurrection date from decades after the event

3 none of the accounts are by eye witnesses

Point 1 is so strong that any evidence you want to present must be equivalently strong, but all you have actually got is some stories of unknown providence. If this was any other religion than the one you follow, you'd dismiss the claims without a second thought.

[jeremyp]

No I'm just saying christianity presents the resurrection as a historical fact.

I've seen TV programmes in which the Moon Landing Hoax was presented as historical fact.

I've seen "documentaries" in which fictional pop groups Spinal Tap, Bad News and the Rutles were presented as historical fact.

I watched the BBC's Ghostwatch, in which ghosts were presented as historical fact (far too successfully, unfortunately).

But if you say it isn't you have to present a concrete copper bottom alternative and you have a burden of proof by making the positive assertion.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. OK, so your evidence isn't zero, but it barely registers given that you are claiming an extraordinary event.

I think we have established via materialism that if life is dependent on the arrangement of matter then the technology to rearrange dead matter into living matter is not an impossibility. There is also the issue of induction.

So it is your claim that Jesus got reanimated by random chance. Interesting interpretation of events. Unfortunately, after a day or too, Jesus' body would have decomposed so far that the random chance of it reassembling itself into a functional human is close enough to impossible that we can dismiss it.

[jeremyp]

Actually what is in the epistles tells you more about Paul than it does about any historicity around Jesus - it is all about him, down to the climax of the story being Jesus appearing to him. Hmmm.

Paul only wrote seven of the epistles (according to most scholars) and there are twenty-one in all. It's not all about him.

That said, Paul's epistles are the only ones that allude to Jesus' real life and they do spend a lot more time describing Paul, his ministry and his travels than they do talking about the life of Jesus. The bit about the 500 and the twelve seeing the resurrected Jesus is now thought to be an earlier creed. I don't know how much earlier, but accepting the christian date of Jesus' death as historical, it had about twenty years to get going before Paul wrote it down. That's plenty of time. A lie can get half way round the World before the truth gets its boots on.

[Outrider]

If you hadn’t noticed Christians and other faiths denounce some of the views of their co religionists. Disagreement is common in all domains.

I'm not sure if you realise that you're making my point for me or not...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. He denied your assertion that it is a historical fact.

No. He asserted it wasn't then I responded to him challenging him to honour the burden of proof his statement landed him with

Nevertheless his denial has some pretty strong evidence behind it.

alas he needs copper bottom indisputable proof for a positive assertion

1 dead people do not come alive again

You aren't considering the problem of induction here. Also you've compounded the situation by making a positive assertion of your own......You know what you have to do.

2 all of the accounts of the resurrection date from decades after the event

That's true for most history

3 none of the accounts are by eye witnesses

Histories often aren't written by the people who were actually there. If you argue that the authors are unknown then you cannot justify an assertion that they weren't eyewitnesses.

Point 1 is so strong that any evidence you want to present must be equivalently strong, but all you have actually got is some stories of unknown providence. If this was any other religion than the one you follow, you'd dismiss the claims without a second thought.

That is unjustified patronising presumption on your part.
Point 1 is not a historical point it is your opinion. Which you are prepared to put greater store of than an account written 2 millenia nearer to the events described.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've seen TV programmes in which the Moon Landing Hoax was presented as historical fact.

I've seen "documentaries" in which fictional pop groups Spinal Tap, Bad News and the Rutles were presented as historical fact.

I watched the BBC's Ghostwatch, in which ghosts were presented as historical fact (far too successfully, unfortunately).

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. OK, so your evidence isn't zero, but it barely registers given that you are claiming an extraordinary event.


So it is your claim that Jesus got reanimated by random chance. Interesting interpretation of events. Unfortunately, after a day or too, Jesus' body would have decomposed so far that the random chance of it reassembling itself into a functional human is close enough to impossible that we can dismiss it.

Can't put my finger on it but I think starting with an acknowledged hoax seems to be muddying the waters and/or begging the question.
The defence against your accusation is that the bigger the conspiracy the more rapidly it falls particularly if there are religious and political advantages to exposing it as a hoax.

Let me reiterate my position on this topic

1. History takes us so far...but further than any atheist on this thread is prepared to travel with it before peeling off to their own world view  (return from death impossible)
2. The accounts of the resurrection and the encounter with the risen Jesus chime with my own experience.

3. Where history takes us on this is certainly going to leave us all with things that are ''Believe it or not''

4. The earliest christians declared publicly that the resurrection actually took place.

[Gordon]

No. He asserted it wasn't then I responded to him challenging him to honour the burden of proof his statement landed him

The nonsense continues: you asserted that the 'resurrection' of Jesus was taken as a historical fact by early Christians, and no doubt later ones, and I noted that it isn't accepted as a historical fact and isn't taught as such (see the link in my earlier post) - it seems that only Christian apologists take it seriously.

I declined to accept your assertion, since it is patent nonsense, but then the burden of proof is another thing you don't understand. If it is a fact then you'll have a methodology that will confirm the details of how it actually happened - the CCTV would be handy (provided we check for any technical tampering) - and will resolve any doubts about mistakes, bias or lies.

You probably aren't even aware that in moving from 'faith' to 'fact' in your assertion you are actually undermining the very basis of Christianity (not that I'm unduly bothered if you do). 

[jeremyp]

No. He asserted it wasn't then I responded to him challenging him to honour the burden of proof his statement landed him with

What? This is the first time you have ever made the assertion that Jesus' resurrection is historical?

alas he needs copper bottom indisputable proof for a positive assertion

No you don't. You need evidence to swing the balance of probabilities in your favour. Otherwise, nobody would be able to claim anything in the field of history. The problem for you is that dead people don't come alive again which puts the needle hard over on the "it didn't happen side". You therefore need some pretty strong evidence to shift it beyond there 50% mark and you don't have it.

You aren't considering the problem of induction here. Also you've compounded the situation by making a positive assertion of your own......

Please describe in your own words what you think "induction" means in this context and why it might be a problem.

That's true for most history Histories often aren't written by the people who were actually there.

Indeed, and funnily enough, historians will treat such histories with a degree of caution.

If you argue that the authors are unknown then you cannot justify an assertion that they weren't eyewitnesses.

You can if they were written a generation or two after the events and if there is no evidence that they were written by eye witnesses. Looking at the gospels, none of them claim to be eye witness accounts and Luke specifically disclaims it. None of them are written in the first person. The earliest was probably written in the 60's or 70's.

Point 1 is not a historical point it is your opinion.

It's observational fact. There has never been any reliable case of a dead person coming alive again. Not only that but people have observed the effects of death on people and have observed that the brain of somebody who has been dead for two days is well beyond repair.

Which you are prepared to put greater store of than an account written 2 millenia nearer to the events described.

The Iliad was written nearly three millennia nearer the Siege of Troy. Was Achilles really made invulnerable by being dipped in the River Styx?

[jeremyp]

Can't put my finger on it but I think starting with an acknowledged hoax seems to be muddying the waters and/or begging the question.

How do you know the gospel writers weren't starting with an acknowledged hoax?

The defence against your accusation is that the bigger the conspiracy the more rapidly it falls particularly if there are religious and political advantages to exposing it as a hoax.

For decades, virtually nobody in the Roman Empire believed Jesus rose from the dead. It wasn't a big hoax when it started.

1. History takes us so far...but further than any atheist on this thread is prepared to travel with it before peeling off to their own world view  (return from death impossible)
2. The accounts of the resurrection and the encounter with the risen Jesus chime with my own experience.

Why are you even trying to argue the historical point then? Why don't you just say "I have my faith" and not engage any further. Why do you have this need to justify the resurrection in purely historical terms? Why does the fact that you can't eat you up so badly.

4. The earliest christians declared publicly that the resurrection actually took place.

So what? People declare publicly that the Moon Landings were fake or that the Earth is flat. It doesn't make them right.

[Outrider]

Let me reiterate my position on this topic

1. History takes us so far...but further than any atheist on this thread is prepared to travel with it before peeling off to their own world view  (return from death impossible)

That you think the resurrection story is established as history is problematic.

2. The accounts of the resurrection and the encounter with the risen Jesus chime with my own experience.

Except that we don't have accounts of the resurrection; we have third or fourth hand claims, selectively edited and then poetically translated from a fundamentally different language and culture.

3. Where history takes us on this is certainly going to leave us all with things that are ''Believe it or not''

History is not a list of absolute facts. It is a series of accounts and claims, and the work of historians is not to just document those claims but to establish the likely veracity of them, determine what (if any) vested interests the claimants might or might not have, whether the accounts are first, second, third-hand or worse. As such, you'll rarely find a serious work of history which attempts to validate the claims of Jesus' resurrection, given the dearth of independent accounts, the questionable provenance of the accounts we do have, and the well-documented tampering with the accounts through their history.

4. The earliest christians declared publicly that the resurrection actually took place.

And the earliest Christians whose accounts we have post-date the events by at least fifty years, are part of an established attempt to foster a new religious cult, and are at best second hand accounts.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

4. The earliest christians declared publicly that the resurrection actually took place.

Isn't that a circular argument - the very notion that they described themselves as early christians means that, by definition, they likely would have considered that the resurrection took place.

I'm actually interested in the broader opinion of those around at the time and place where this is purported to have happened. And by and large these people did not think the resurrection took place as christianity did not gain any major foothold in mid 1stC Palestine. Broadly christianity was adopted far from its origins involving people who weren't around at the time and in the place. That, I think, is significant as it suggests that those most likely to be influenced by the purported events, if they actually happened, weren't. Which suggest to me that ... err ... they didn't actually happen.

[jeremyp]

Isn't that a circular argument - the very notion that they described themselves as early christians means that, by definition, they likely would have considered that the resurrection took place.

Don't forget that the earliest writings we have about Christianity are those of Paul and they are considered to have been written in the 50's. One of his letters contains a defence of the resurrection, which suggests that not all of the earliest Christians believed Christ was raised.

I'm actually interested in the broader opinion of those around at the time and place where this is purported to have happened. And by and large these people did not think the resurrection took place as christianity did not gain any major foothold in mid 1stC Palestine. Broadly christianity was adopted far from its origins involving people who weren't around at the time and in the place. That, I think, is significant as it suggests that those most likely to be influenced by the purported events, if they actually happened, weren't. Which suggest to me that ... err ... they didn't actually happen.

The vast majority of people in First Century Palestine probably had no idea about Christianity even existing. They probably would have had no opinion on the resurrection, having not heard of Jesus. Paul claims there was a Christian community in Jerusalem but he doesn't say how big it was and it probably ceased to exist when the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70.

[ProfessorDavey]

Don't forget that the earliest writings we have about Christianity are those of Paul and they are considered to have been written in the 50's. One of his letters contains a defence of the resurrection, which suggests that not all of the earliest Christians believed Christ was raised.

But those people wouldn't have been christian as we understand it now - they'd have been a jewish sect that saw Jesus as an important teacher, a prophet, but not the messiah.

[ProfessorDavey]

The vast majority of people in First Century Palestine probably had no idea about Christianity even existing. They probably would have had no opinion on the resurrection, having not heard of Jesus. Paul claims there was a Christian community in Jerusalem but he doesn't say how big it was and it probably ceased to exist when the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70.

Well that depends upon whether you believe the hyperbole in the new testament or not. But my point is 'if' you accept the claims of witnesses in the NT then you actually undermine their credibility, as they suggest hundreds of people to have been eye witnesses to an astonishing miracle, yet christianity didn't gain a foothold. Something doesn't add up.

And reading the stories in the NT Jesus wasn't just teaching to two men and a dog, but literally thousands of people who made the effort to come and see him. Despite some non-sense exaggeration I suspect the population of Jerusalem and Palestine would have been pretty small in those days so thousands of witnesses would have represented a small, but sizeable chunk of the population, sufficient to garner a head of steam through word of mouth. Yet the early christians in Palestine remained a tiny, obscure and largely ignored group - the the majority continuing not to believe in their claims, despite having been the very populace around at the time when all those miracles, including the resurrection were purported to have happened.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But those people wouldn't have been christian as we understand it now - they'd have been a jewish sect that saw Jesus as an important teacher, a prophet, but not the messiah.

No I think you are just taking this of the top of your head now.
There were those who saw Jesus as you have described https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites , there were those who followed the teachings of the apostles and the destination of the epistles tells us that the Christian communities were international. To say the messiah bit came later is you putting a one size history (which let's face it,in your hands is just customised Science ) fits all and could be construed as a bit of ultradarwinianism. Where everything that is has to have evolved.

You don't strike me as having a very extensive grounding in history...GCSE?

Having said that the person I would really like to hear from is Anchorman who is strangely silent.

[Alan Burns]

The Roman governors and the Jewish hierarchy had contrived to ensure that the threat imposed by the Christian following would be quashed by executing their leader.  They had the body.  All but one of His disciples had fled in fear of their own lives.  Job done.

So what happened?

A momentous event which changed the course of human history.  It defined the datum from which history is measured.  It inspired His disciples to regroup and spread His word to the extent that they were willing to be executed for doing so, and most of them were.  The combined efforts of the Roman and Jewish leaders were unable to find evidence to falsify the claim of the resurrection.  The rest is history.

Had it been a mere story it would have been an easy task to trace the culprits and quash all traces of Christianity within days or weeks.  And we would not be in the year 2022.  It would have remained just a tiny fragment of past history unknown to the vast majority.  Yet here we are 2000 years later still contemplating this event.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why are you even trying to argue the historical point then?

To reiterate. All I am interested here is that Gordon made a positive assertion...The resurrection is not a historical fact and is dodging his obligation to justify this. And you are making excuses for him in frankly a naked display of tribalism

It is not only a faith statement. Remember the claim God resurrected Jesus also contains the claim that Jesus came back from the dead.

 It also seems eminently falsifiable so not a faith statement.

I happen to believe the epistoliary accounts of Jesus resurrection but as I have said repeatedly history here only takes us so far but further than atheists are willing to go.

[Gordon]

To reiterate. All I am interested here is that Gordon made a positive assertion...The resurrection is not a historical fact and is dodging his obligation to justify this.

The claim that the 'resurrection is a historical fact is yours: not mine - so which secular history department(s) or historians can you cite that teaches that the 'resurrection' is a fact? I've already posted a link to show you that the syllabus for schools in Scotland does not use the term 'fact' at all - maybe you missed it, or are ignoring it.

The notion that because some early Christians are reported to have believed that the 'resurrection' tale was factually true thereby makes it a historical fact for all time is sheer idiocy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The claim that the 'resurrection is a historical fact is yours: not mine - so which secular history department(s) or historians can you cite that teaches that the 'resurrection' is a fact? I've already posted a link to show you that the syllabus for schools in Scotland does not use the term 'fact' at all - maybe you missed it, or are ignoring it.

The notion that because some early Christians are reported to have believed that the 'resurrection' tale was factually true thereby makes it a historical fact for all time is sheer idiocy.

No my claim is more complex. History takes us so far but certainly not to the statement you made...an emphatic "The resurrection is not historical fact".

Whether I made the claim or didn't is irrelevant in any case you ade the positive assertion. In fact you also asserted that it was a myth and a story.It seems I have to wait in vain for historical proof of that.

If you can find a statement from me where I have said it is a historical fact rather than I believe it to be a historical fact you would do well to declare it's location.

You would also do well to switch from it not being a historical fact to you "believing" it is not a historical fact.

[Gordon]

No my claim is more complex. History takes us so far but certainly not to the statement you made...an emphatic "The resurrection is not historical fact".

And I've posted a document that show that the 'resurrection' claim is not taught as fact - so read it. The only 'history' you have is what it is said early Christians believed - and if you want to claim this 'resurrection' as historical fact you'd better explain the process using a suitable methodology that turns their belief into historical facts.

Whether I made the claim or didn't is irrelevant in any case you ade the positive assertion. In fact you also asserted that it was a myth and a story.It seems I have to wait in vain for historical proof of that.

Evading again I see. This might surprise you, Vlad - but myths don't have historical proofs, which tends to indentify them as myth/legend/exaggeration - else please say hello to Neptune for me next time you go for a swim in the sea.

If you can find a statement from me where I have said it is a historical fact rather than I believe it to be a historical fact you would do well to declare it's location.

You claim that early Christians accepted it as historical fact - so, lets cut to the chase here - do you believe the 'resurrection' claim is historical fact? If not, then why not, and if so then how do you justify your position?

You would also do well to switch from it not being a historical fact to you "believing" it is not a historical fact.

Yoir idiocy is boundless it seems - I reject the notion of historical fact because there is no robust evidence to support the notion that the claim is factual and since outside the thrashing around of Christian apologists it isn't taught as historical fact in schools, as I've demonstrated.

Your are the only person I've ever come across with the ability to simultaneously paint yourself into every available corner.

[ProfessorDavey]

No I think you are just taking this of the top of your head now.
There were those who saw Jesus as you have described https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites , there were those who followed the teachings of the apostles and the destination of the epistles tells us that the Christian communities were international. To say the messiah bit came later is you putting a one size history (which let's face it,in your hands is just customised Science ) fits all and could be construed as a bit of ultradarwinianism. Where everything that is has to have evolved.

Which was rather my point - although I tend not to talk about the specifics of the sects who didn't accept Jesus to be resurrected (for the reasons I will elaborate below), but to focus on the fact that very few of the people around at the time and place where this was supposed to have happened did accept it. By and large those people most likely to be early 'believers' (those around at the time and place) did not believe.

You don't strike me as having a very extensive grounding in history...GCSE?

Err yes, but as an academic I have training in the assessment of source material, which although I'm not an academic historian can readily be applied to a different field. In other word how to assess the quality and strength of a piece of source material. My son has just completed a history degree (achieved a very strong first and one of the highest marks in his dissertation) and I helped him to consider how to assess his sources.

But - and here is the nub - you mention the Ebonites - so let's look as the strength of the information on them from an academic historical perspective. Strong? Weak? Well we know nothing about them directly, everything we know comes from secondary sources, and those sources tend to be groups with a vested interest in not reporting on them objectively - hence the description of them as heretical. So we are relying on so-called early church fathers. So are they contemporary? Nope - the earliest of the early church fathers were around decades later.

But that's OK, we have what they wrote. Err, nope, in most cases we don't have anything they wrote, we have much later again (2-4thC) reports of what they wrote or centuries later copies that are likely to have been highly doctored and interpolated as they come from the era in history when the 'official' history of early christianity was being settled.

So from a historical perspective the sources we have for the Ebonites is very, very weak. As indeed it is for the whole historicity of Jesus, where information is exceptionally weak or totally non-existent. Which is why studies tend not to be consider academically to be 'history' but a different discipline all together 'bible studies', 'divinity' etc.

[Maeght]

The Roman governors and the Jewish hierarchy had contrived to ensure that the threat imposed by the Christian following would be quashed by executing their leader.  They had the body.  All but one of His disciples had fled in fear of their own lives.  Job done.

So what happened?

A momentous event which changed the course of human history.  It defined the datum from which history is measured.  It inspired His disciples to regroup and spread His word to the extent that they were willing to be executed for doing so, and most of them were.  The combined efforts of the Roman and Jewish leaders were unable to find evidence to falsify the claim of the resurrection.  The rest is history.

Had it been a mere story it would have been an easy task to trace the culprits and quash all traces of Christianity within days or weeks.  And we would not be in the year 2022.  It would have remained just a tiny fragment of past history unknown to the vast majority.  Yet here we are 2000 years later still contemplating this event.

Any evidence that the Roman and Jewish authorities tried to find evidence to falsify the claim? What is the evidence that most of the followers were executed for spreading 'the word'? Even if they were that just means they had a belief for which they were willing to die for - not that uncommon in history sadly.

To be honest, where is the evidence for your first paragraph? This is the story in the Gospels but we don't know who wrote them - they record events in the third person and don't claim to have been present at the events mentioned but they would have been written down decades after the events. They are records of stories which circulated orally amongst early Christians. We can't take any of them as necessarily factual without evidence which can be objectively verified.

The only fact is that Christianity grew and became a world wide religion and that is evidence for belief not that the events actually happened.

[ProfessorDavey]

Had it been a mere story it would have been an easy task to trace the culprits and quash all traces of Christianity within days or weeks.  And we would not be in the year 2022.  It would have remained just a tiny fragment of past history unknown to the vast majority.  Yet here we are 2000 years later still contemplating this event.

But all this tells you is that people continue to 'believe' the story - it tells us nothing about whether the story is actually true, whether it was a historical fact.

But for the sake of arguments let's assume that the continuation of a belief provides evidence that the belief is true. Were that to be the case then you'd need to also accept that the faith claims of other religions are true, given that there are still people who believe, and in many cases that continuation of belief has lasted much longer than 2000 years. And so you'd need to accept the faith claims of muslims and hindus and buddhists etc etc ... and Jews, including their rather more long-lasting claim that they are still waiting for the messiah and that Jesus was not the messiah nor was resurrected.

So your argument leads you to be required to accept as fact that Jesus was the messiah and was resurrected, and also that Jesus was not the messiah and was not resurrected

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And I've posted a document that show that the 'resurrection' claim is not taught as fact - so read it. The only 'history' you have is what it is said early Christians believed - and if you want to claim this 'resurrection' as historical fact you'd better explain the process using a suitable methodology that turns their belief into historical facts.

Evading again I see. This might surprise you, Vlad - but myths don't have historical proofs, which tends to indentify them as myth/legend/exaggeration - else please say hello to Neptune for me next time you go for a swim in the sea.

You claim that early Christians accepted it as historical fact - so, lets cut to the chase here - do you believe the 'resurrection' claim is historical fact? If not, then why not, and if so then how do you justify your position?

Yoir idiocy is boundless it seems - I reject the notion of historical fact because there is no robust evidence to support the notion that the claim is factual and since outside the thrashing around of Christian apologists it isn't taught as historical fact in schools, as I've demonstrated.

Your are the only person I've ever come across with the ability to simultaneously paint yourself into every available corner.

There is much that is non sequitur here.
I haven't made any bones about believing the resurrection to have actually happened.

The issue seems to be your confusion about what anyone knows and what anyone believes.

A common mistake in those whose atheism is pathological.

[Gordon]

The Roman governors and the Jewish hierarchy had contrived to ensure that the threat imposed by the Christian following would be quashed by executing their leader.  They had the body.  All but one of His disciples had fled in fear of their

own lives.  Job done.

So what happened?

A momentous event which changed the course of human history.  It defined the datum from which history is measured.  It inspired His disciples to regroup and spread His word to the extent that they were willing to be executed for doing so, and most of them were.  The combined efforts of the Roman and Jewish leaders were unable to find evidence to falsify the claim of the resurrection.  The rest is history.

Had it been a mere story it would have been an easy task to trace the culprits and quash all traces of Christianity within days or weeks.  And we would not be in the year 2022.  It would have remained just a tiny fragment of past history unknown to the vast majority.  Yet here we are 2000 years later still contemplating this event.

The story could be utterly false in factual terms but still have societal consequences, especially where it became linked with political power.

There is no evidence that either the Roman or Jewish authorities saw the reported demise of Jesus as being of any great significance at the time, and survivorship bias does not imply that the NT stories and anecdotes are true beyond the trivial (such as there is a place called Jerusalem).