Some supernatural claims

[jeremyp]

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).

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Maeght]

Bart Erhman talks about how historians dal with Jesus here.

https://ehrmanblog.org/why-do-historians-treat-jesus-differently-from-every-other-historical-figure/

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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"

[Maeght]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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!

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Maeght]

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/

[ProfessorDavey]

Ehrman's take on that.

https://ehrmanblog.org/can-biblical-scholars-be-historians/

Yup - I think his view is pretty similar to mine.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.