Science and spirituality

[Gordon]

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.

You wouldn't know a non sequitur if you tripped over one!

So, if you believe the resurrection actually happened is your belief a matter of fact or a matter of faith?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.
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.

No it was you who mentioned the ebionites and indeed suggested that the early Christian Church was ebionite in nature.
And if I have it right, you are now suggesting that they may not have been a thing. If as you suggested the early church was ebonite they would hardly consider themselves as heretical would they. Apostolic christianity also at that time was not some kind of huge magisterial that could squash doctrinal dissent anyway.


I thought you might be a GCSE man. I'm a "history boy" having passed A Level history. I didn't do it at degree level but my degree dissertation was supervised by the history department .

[Nearly Sane]

No it was you who mentioned the ebionites and indeed suggested that the early Christian Church was ebionite in nature.
And if I have it right, you are now suggesting that they may not have been a thing. If as you suggested the early church was ebonite they would hardly consider themselves as heretical would they. Apostolic christianity also at that time was not some kind of huge magisterial that could squash doctrinal dissent anyway.


I thought you might be a GCSE man. I'm a "history boy" having passed A Level history. I didn't do it at degree level but my degree dissertation was supervised by the history department .

https://youtu.be/NK5-2fPyCjA

[Alan Burns]

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

There is a profound difference between the spread of faiths of other religions and Christianity.
From what I know, the propagation of other faiths were not ignited by such a miraculous event as the resurrection of Jesus, son of God. 
From the NT, it is clear that the early disciples, (most of whom were fishermen), were inspired not only by knowledge of the resurrection, but by the power of the Holy Spirit as celebrated in the great feast of Pentecost.

[Maeght]

There is a profound difference between the spread of faiths of other religions and Christianity.
From what I know, the propagation of other faiths were not ignited by such a miraculous event as the resurrection of Jesus, son of God. 
From the NT, it is clear that the early disciples, (most of whom were fishermen), were inspired not only by knowledge of the resurrection, but by the power of the Holy Spirit as celebrated in the great feast of Pentecost.

The NT was written decades after the event by people who believed Jesus was the Son of God and had been resurrected. Where is the supporting evidence for the stories told?

[Outrider]

There is a profound difference between the spread of faiths of other religions and Christianity.

Which is what?

From what I know, the propagation of other faiths were not ignited by such a miraculous event as the resurrection of Jesus, son of God.

Muslims will point to Mohammed's ascension without dying, as I understand it. Hindus have their own 'miracles', religions that died off long ago had their stories of magic and wonder - Christianity does not appear much different in this regard.

From the NT, it is clear that the early disciples, (most of whom were fishermen), were inspired not only by knowledge of the resurrection, but by the power of the Holy Spirit as celebrated in the great feast of Pentecost.

From the New Testament - all of which was written at least decades after the event, and then was selectively truncated much later to remove 'unorthodox' content. The New Testament is not a particularly robust historical work, and certainly not of the period it claims to be telling the story of.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The NT was written decades after the event by people who believed Jesus was the Son of God and had been resurrected. Where is the supporting evidence for the stories told?

I'm not sure I would put the epistles in the category of storytelling. They are more like the memos of the early church often taking for granted the existence of an orthodoxy. It provides a snapshot set of how the Church is doing and the issues it is dealing with at the time.

[Maeght]

I'm not sure I would put the epistles in the category of storytelling. They are more like the memos of the early church often taking for granted the existence of an orthodoxy. It provides a snapshot set of how the Church is doing and the issues it is dealing with at the time.

Yes, that's true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You wouldn't know a non sequitur if you tripped over one!

So, if you believe the resurrection actually happened is your belief a matter of fact or a matter of faith?

In terms of belief I believe my encounter and subsequent experience with Christ to be a matter of fact. As far as history goes and in the light of my experience where it is shared by first century Christians I believe intellectually on balance that it confirms the resurrection as having happened. This is reinforced by inadequate alternative history on the part of those objecting.

[Gordon]

In terms of belief I believe my encounter and subsequent experience with Christ to be a matter of fact. As far as history goes and in the light of my experience where it is shared by first century Christians I believe intellectually on balance that it confirms the resurrection as having happened.

Then it's a faith belief you have - since you have no facts, and even if your experience felt very real to you it existed only within the confines of your skull unless you can demonstrate some fact(s) about your experience that are external to you - I'd say that what you felt may be akin to a vivid dream, and is equally subjective but can feel very real - you'd have to exclude this risk of course before claiming your experience as 'fact'.

This is reinforced by inadequate alternative history on the part of those objecting.

Again you don't understand that the burden of proof is yours alone and that those objecting (like me) are not obliged to provide any kind of 'alternative history', which seems like an invitation to just make stuff up.

Take, for example, that possible risk that the 'resurrection' claim is fictitious propaganda for Jesus by his fans (and note that I'm not claiming it is) - how does one propose an 'alternative history' to something that may not be historical in the first place, aside from making more stuff up that is. 

[jeremyp]

But those people wouldn't have been christian as we understand it now

A lot of people at the time who called themselves Christians didn't adhere to what is now canonical doctrine. We only see them now through Paul's eyes.

[jeremyp]

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.

Well, first of all, the hundreds of witnesses is clearly made up.

Secondly, Christianity did gain a foothold. In fact, it's still here.

If you are trying to base an argument on Christianity not being popular in Palestine, it doesn't work because, as Paul tells us, there was a church in Palestine. There's no reason to believe Christianity was any less popular there than in Corinth or Rome.

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.

Stories written forty years later by people who were Christians and who wanted to spread Christianity.

Despite some non-sense exaggeration I suspect the population of Jerusalem and Palestine would have been pretty small in those days

Have you done any research to find out how big the population was in the first century? This link might be a good starting point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem#1st_century_Judea

I think we can probably safely assume there were a few hundred thousand people in the area in which Jesus operated.

As for "non-sense [sic] exaggeration", Tacitus and Josephus both seem to have exaggerated their figures by an order of magnitude. Has it not occurred to you that the Gospel authors could easily have done the same?

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.

I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make. Christians everywhere were a tiny, obscure and largely ignored group for a couple of decades after Jesus died. There was a church in Jerusalem during the time Paul was operating and even he seems to consider that it was the centre of the Christian world. Its disappearance is easily explained by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE by the Romans.

[jeremyp]

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.

It's unlikely that they did have the body. As an executed criminal, Jesus would have been tossed in a mass grave. Chances are that, by the time Christianity had become popular enough to become a threat, nobody knew where the body was and, if they did, it wouldn't have been recognisable.

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.

Do you have any evidence that they even looked for evidence? I don't know if you were aware but Pilate's MO did not really involve careful weighing of evidence. He was considered quite brutal even by the Romans.

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.

Do you agree that Joseph Smith made up all the stuff about the Book of Mormon? If so, shouldn't it have been easy to quash all traces of Mormonism?

I'll remind you that this discussion is taking place in the science and technology section. You need evidence, not stories.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then it's a faith belief you have - since you have no facts, and even if your experience felt very real to you it existed only within the confines of your skull unless you can demonstrate some fact(s) about your experience that are external to you - I'd say that what you felt may be akin to a vivid dream, and is equally subjective but can feel very real - you'd have to exclude this risk of course before claiming your experience as 'fact'.

Again you don't understand that the burden of proof is yours alone and that those objecting (like me) are not obliged to provide any kind of 'alternative history', which seems like an invitation to just make stuff up.

Take, for example, that possible risk that the 'resurrection' claim is fictitious propaganda for Jesus by his fans (and note that I'm not claiming it is) - how does one propose an 'alternative history' to something that may not be historical in the first place, aside from making more stuff up that is.

Gordon, you asked me what I believed and I told you and you are now accusing me of making belief statements.
I think that would go down as entrapment.

As I have pointed out you have problems telling the difference between beliefs and knowledge.

We only have the evidence of the documents of the church and of the early Christian communities which are of a commensurate historical nature of other ancient data. In fact much Christian documentation is closer to events than that for universally accepted history. Historical documentation contradicting the Christian claim or for it being a hoax is lacking.

So any objections cannot be primarily historical.

When you positively assert it is myth and stories therefore you cannot and have never been able to establish the truth of your positive statement that the resurrection is not historical fact but myth and story.

As for me I have never said there was any more evidence than what there is.

Any dismissal by you is based on your own world view I.e.a faith position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again you don't understand that the burden of proof is yours alone and that those objecting (like me) are not obliged to provide any kind of 'alternative history', which seems like an invitation to just make stuff up.

No, you have the burden of proof  by positively asserting the resurrection is not a historical fact and you have an extra burden since you have said it was myth and story.

[Gordon]

No, you have the burden of proof  by positively asserting the resurrection is not a historical fact and you have an extra burden since you have said it was myth and story.

Give it up, Vlad - you sheer stupidy is wearing.

It isn't a historical fact, since if it were you could present the methods used to factually confirm that a dead man didn't stay dead.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Give it up, Vlad - you sheer stupidy is wearing.

It isn't a historical fact,

He's done it again!

[Gordon]

He's done it again!

Yep - I'm rejecting your idiotic assertion because you've failed to substantiate it (that the 'resurrection' is historical fact) - maybe you can cite a secular historian or historical work that refers to the 'resurrection' as historical fact: I doubt you'll find one.

You can wriggle all you like but the burden of proof is yours - and I've already shown you one example of religious education that does not use the term 'fact' in relation to the stories and traditions of Christianity.

Since you can't demonstrate the 'fact' bit I'm free to reject the notion out of hand.

[jeremyp]

He's done it again!

What?

Stated the bleeding obvious?

It's a historical fact that there are a number of stories about the resurrection that almost certainly date from the 1st century. But there's no reason to believe they are true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's a historical fact that there are a number of stories about the resurrection that almost certainly date from the 1st century.

Yes, I think history takes us a bit further to say communities were formed around a genuine belief that this happened

But there's no reason to believe they are true.

I disagree. I think that depends on your own worldview or belief set.

[Maeght]

Yes, I think history takes us a bit further to say communities were formed around a genuine belief that this happened I disagree. I think that depends on your own worldview or belief set.

Clearer following the edit.

I would say that generally just because people believe something happened it doesn't mean it did, regardless of what it was. The resurrection is just one such situation but one which has greater significance to people's life than other things in history.

[Gordon]

Yes, I think history takes us a bit further to say communities were formed around a genuine belief that this happened

'Genuine belief' among certain communities is not the same thing as 'established fact' though: it seems you are struggling with this.

I disagree. I think that depends on your own worldview or belief set.

Nope - for beliefs to be considered as facts/knowledge there needs to be justification that both fits the nature of the belief (some kind of suitable methodology) and that also takes into account the risks of human artifice.

[Maeght]

For something to be seen as an historical fact you ideally need multiple independent verifiable sources about it. This isn't the case with the resurrection. Historians do talk about what is most likely to have happened, based on the available evidence, and so a position that early followers of Jesus came to believe he had been resurrected is reasonable but beyond that historians cannot make a judgement as there is no direct evidence, only supposition (that for people to have believed it must have been true).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For something to be seen as an historical fact you ideally need multiple independent verifiable sources about it. This isn't the case with the resurrection. Historians do talk about what is most likely to have happened, based on the available evidence, and so a position that early followers of Jesus came to believe he had been resurrected is reasonable but beyond that historians cannot make a judgement as there is no direct evidence, only supposition (that for people to have believed it must have been true).

I'm not sure a historian would agree on the notion of independent witness, so I go with the term of historical fact as something which actually occurred. Historians are not scientists since there is an unrepeatability about historical events.
We are then down to best evidence and interpretation and here
Modern atheist or scientismatists clearly show more bias in what they accept as evidence and how they interpret.

Going back to my definition of fact. None of us were there at that pont in history so unless you can demonstrate impossibility....improbability is the best you can hope for.

[Gordon]

I'm not sure a historian would agree on the notion of independent witness, so I go with the term of historical fact as something which actually occurred.

Hopeless - to determine that something occurred you need supporting evidence to scrutinise, which includes witness statements - I suspect that most if not all historian would see independent witnesses as valuable - remember the 'scrutinise' bit though for witness can be mistaken and can lie.

Historians are not scientists since there is an unrepeatability about historical events.

You are confusing yourself -whereas some events aren't repeatable, so we can't re-run, say, the Battle of Trafalgar, we can look to replicate how certain things worked, such as weapons or recipes from history.

We are then down to best evidence and interpretation and here

Evidence and 'interpretation' are not the same thing though.

Modern atheist or scientismatists clearly show more bias in what they accept as evidence and how they interpret.

You mean that some of us are more sceptical than we are gullible.

Going back to my definition of fact. None of us were there at that pont in history so unless you can demonstrate impossibility....improbability is the best you can hope for.

Nope - some things really are impossible as far as we are aware, and 3-day dead people (who were genuinely dead) don't recover from death - ask your local undertaker.