Jesus

[Nearly Sane]

It's not a historical fact. It didn't happen. I am as certain of that as I am as certain that Rome was not founded by two twins who were raised by a wolf or that St George didn't fight a dragon.
The term "supernatural" is incoherent. As soon as somebody provides a method for establishing as supernatural claims, those claims become natural.

Conversely, if somebody says "for God, all things are possible", then all history immediately becomes meaningless. We would no longer be able to reliably investigate what happened in the past because God, could have made up everything.

I don't think we're really disagreeing but your certainty that something did not happen is as useful as Alan's certainty that it did happen in determining anything. You may well have other better arguments at your disposal.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's quite difficult to work out what you are trying to say here. So let's start with:
Are you saying the resurrection was not a supernatural event?

I'm not keen on the term 'supernatural' partially because on this forum some atheists have had the natural perform the supernatural. There is also the problem of separating the improbable from the supernatural.

What I am saying is that if a resurrection happened the evidence would be empirically a living person so pigeon holing this event into "The supernatural" isn't entirely satisfactory.

Saying these things never happen seems problematic as does these things can't happen...for the reason that if life is merely an epi phenomenon of the arrangement of matter then a sophisticated technology could change a dead organism into a live one. Any objection here then is argument from atheism ultimately in my opinion.

As for the methodology, I couldn't tell you. That does not necessarily mean there isn't one, just that I might not be your man.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not keen on the term 'supernatural' partially because on this forum some atheists have had the natural perform the supernatural. There is also the problem of separating the improbable from the supernatural.

What I am saying is that if a resurrection happened the evidence would be empirically a living person so pigeon holing this event into "The supernatural" isn't entirely satisfactory.

Saying these things never happen seems problematic as does these things can't happen...for the reason that if life is merely an epi phenomenon of the arrangement of matter then a sophisticated technology could change a dead organism into a live one. Any objection here then is argument from atheism ultimately in my opinion.

As for the methodology, I couldn't tell you. That does not necessarily mean there isn't one, just that I might not be your man.

So if you don't have a methodology for any clsims of miracles, I can only see that we have naturalist methodoligies to use. Under any such methodology, I am aware of, there is in no sense any evidence that the resurrection happened.

Further even were you to establish enough evidence, by your own position you've removed any ability to say anything other than it happened, so the claims made about it by Christianity are in your view worthless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So if you don't have a methodology for any clsims of miracles, I can only see that we have naturalist methodoligies to use. Under any such methodology, I am aware of, there is in no sense any evidence that the resurrection happened.

Further even were you to establish enough evidence, by your own position you've removed any ability to say anything other than it happened, so the claims made about it by Christianity are in your view worthless.

You can only see naturalistic methodologies? Oh well...that must be conclusive then.

[Nearly Sane]

You can only see naturalistic methodologies? Oh well...that must be conclusive then.

This is the same position that you said you had. Are you saying you are now aware of supernatural methodologies?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is the same position that you said you had. Are you saying you are now aware of supernatural methodologies?

What I am saying is that if a naturalist observed a resurrected person he would be forced either to accept a supernatural explanation or stretch his naturalism to accommodate it. That would be the case if what you are now saying is that History is what ever happens irrespective of anyone's philosophy.
Historically speaking then there is no reason specially to reject even the miraculous aspects of the gospels.
Methodological naturalism though also has issues with history namely as far as we know the same circumstances are not repeated or repeatable. In fact that is why we have science.

[Nearly Sane]

What I am saying is that if a naturalist observed a resurrected person he would be forced either to accept a supernatural explanation or stretch his naturalism to accommodate it. That would be the case if what you are now saying is that History is what ever happens irrespective of anyone's philosophy.
Historically speaking then there is no reason specially to reject even the miraculous aspects of the gospels.
Methodological naturalism though also has issues with history namely as far as we know the same circumstances are not repeated or repeatable. In fact that is why we have science.

History is studied in a methodological naturalist manner. 

And given we remain between the 2 of us absent of a supernatural methodology, the claim of resurrection in Chrustianity is worthless.

[jeremyp]

I don't think we're really disagreeing but your certainty that something did not happen is as useful as Alan's certainty that it did happen in determining anything. You may well have other better arguments at your disposal.

The point is that nothing is absolutely certain in history but somethings are so unlikely to have happened we can take it effectively as certain that they didn't.

Dead men don't come alive again, wolves don't suckle human babies and dragons don't exist. Technically, we should say these things are highly improbable but we use certainty as a short hand.

As far as Alan is concerned, I can point to a lot of evidence that it is impossible to revive a two day old corpse. All Alan has got is a few anonymous stories and one World religion. Unfortunately for him, it is easy to construct an alternative explanation for all of his evidence (even the World religion) that does not require us to ignore physical law.

[Sriram]

And yet you posted a video of someone doing exactly that, implicitly supporting their stance. Every time we recommend something we are putting ourselves in the position of judging that - all I'm saying is that we need to be cautious with our recommendations.

And when we make recommendations, when we repost or reiterate or advocate, we need to take responsibility for those actions, and the implications of them.

Possibly, yes. Whether Jesus or Krishna are in any way actually real is sort of beside the point here, though - this isn't about whether it's true, this is about how people will react to the stories, how people will take advocacy of their chosen story and run with, how people will utilised well-meaning but benign commentary and use it to reinforce their 'holy' stance. It's not about Jesus, it's about Christians; it's not about Krishna, it's about Hindus. And, unfortunate though it is, it's not really about the majority of those groups, but about the loudest and most obnoxious of the groups.

O.

He is not declaring what should be inspiring and what should not be. He is merely stating that regardless of whether Jesus or anyone else,  is historical or not, their message could still be inspiring. That is all he is saying. And that is true.

[Nearly Sane]

The point is that nothing is absolutely certain in history but somethings are so unlikely to have happened we can take it effectively as certain that they didn't.

Dead men don't come alive again, wolves don't suckle human babies and dragons don't exist. Technically, we should say these things are highly improbable but we use certainty as a short hand.

As far as Alan is concerned, I can point to a lot of evidence that it is impossible to revive a two day old corpse. All Alan has got is a few anonymous stories and one World religion. Unfortunately for him, it is easy to construct an alternative explanation for all of his evidence (even the World religion) that does not require us to ignore physical law.

I did say I thought you might have better argumentd than your certainty. That said hugely improbable events happen all the time. That an argument is hugely improbable leaves us with the possibility with that logic that the resurrection happened.

Supernatural claims aren't don't involve probability. Indeed the idea of the resurrection having power is that it is impossible not improbable. The lack of any method for validating such claims makes it much easier to dismiss them as meaningless.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What I am saying is that if a naturalist observed a resurrected person he would be forced either to accept a supernatural explanation or stretch his naturalism to accommodate it.

No – first he would be forced to examine whether his grounds for believing the person actually to have been resurrected were sound. As he couldn’t for example eliminate definitively the possibility that the subject had a hitherto unknown twin, the most he could conclude would be that he didn’t know. Absent any a priori evidence that there even is such a thing as “the supernatural” or even a definition of that term moreover, he’d also have no logically sound basis just to jump to that option as his conclusion.     

That would be the case if what you are now saying is that History is what ever happens irrespective of anyone's philosophy.

No, “history” as defined is what’s considered reliably to have happened on the basis of various objective tests of historicity.

Historically speaking then there is no reason specially to reject even the miraculous aspects of the gospels.

Yes there is – historically there is every reason to reject the miraculous aspects of the gospels, namely that such claims fail even the most basic objective tests of historicity.   
 

Methodological naturalism though also has issues with history namely as far as we know the same circumstances are not repeated or repeatable. In fact that is why we have science.

Gibberish. Methodological naturalism has no issues with history because the objective tests of historicity do not require that there were, say, two Henry VIIIs – let alone thousands of them. Here they are again for you:

1. Relevance: is the evidence presented really relevant to the claim being made?

2. Validity: is the source what it appears to be or is it a fraud, forgery or mistranslation?

3. Identification: is the source clearly and accurately identified?

4. Expertise: is the source qualified to provide this evidence?

5. Bias: does the source have an interest in the topic of the evidence that might distort the evidence?

6. Internal consistency: does the information align with itself or contradict itself?

You'll note that none of these tests require the historical event to have happened more than once.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Jesus#:~:text=New%20Testament%20scholar%20Bart%20Ehrman,to%20affirm%20or%20deny%20them.

[Nearly Sane]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Jesus#:~:text=New%20Testament%20scholar%20Bart%20Ehrman,to%20affirm%20or%20deny%20them.

Your point?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_on_34th_Street

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Jesus#:~:text=New%20Testament%20scholar%20Bart%20Ehrman,to%20affirm%20or%20deny%20them.

From the article you linked to:

"Miracles were widely believed in around the time of Jesus. Gods and demigods such as Heracles (better known by his Roman name, Hercules), Asclepius (a Greek physician who became a god) and Isis of Egypt all were thought to have healed the sick and overcome death (i.e., to have raised people from the dead).[42] Some thought that mortal men, if sufficiently famous and virtuous, could do likewise; there were myths about philosophers like Pythagoras and Empedocles calming storms at sea, chasing away pestilences, and being greeted as gods,[42] and similarly some Jews believed that Elisha the Prophet had cured lepers and restored the dead.[42] The achievements of the 1st century Apollonius of Tyana, though occurring after Jesus's life, were used by a 3rd-century opponent of the Christians to argue that Christ was neither original nor divine (Eusebius of Caesaria argued against the charge).[43]

The first Gospels were written against this background of Hellenistic and Jewish belief in miracles and other wondrous acts as signs—the term is explicitly used in the Gospel of John to describe Jesus's miracles—seen to be validating the credentials of divine wise men.[44]"

Was miracle stories being commonplace at the time of Jesus and therefore likely to fall on credulous ground the point you intended to make?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

From the article you linked to:

"Miracles were widely believed in around the time of Jesus. Gods and demigods such as Heracles (better known by his Roman name, Hercules), Asclepius (a Greek physician who became a god) and Isis of Egypt all were thought to have healed the sick and overcome death (i.e., to have raised people from the dead).[42] Some thought that mortal men, if sufficiently famous and virtuous, could do likewise; there were myths about philosophers like Pythagoras and Empedocles calming storms at sea, chasing away pestilences, and being greeted as gods,[42] and similarly some Jews believed that Elisha the Prophet had cured lepers and restored the dead.[42] The achievements of the 1st century Apollonius of Tyana, though occurring after Jesus's life, were used by a 3rd-century opponent of the Christians to argue that Christ was neither original nor divine (Eusebius of Caesaria argued against the charge).[43]

The first Gospels were written against this background of Hellenistic and Jewish belief in miracles and other wondrous acts as signs—the term is explicitly used in the Gospel of John to describe Jesus's miracles—seen to be validating the credentials of divine wise men.[44]"

Was miracle stories being commonplace at the time of Jesus and therefore likely to fall on credulous ground the point you intended to make?

Now wait a cherry picking moment, Hillside.
The part of the article I want to focus on is the statement that some historians dismiss miracles a priori, Some are not convinced by the reports and some accept them.
Even supposing that somehow we could extend the title of  historian to your good self I wonder if you would be categorised as one who dismisses miracles a priori. Then thre are the opening paragraphs of the article.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your point?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_on_34th_Street

The point is the article gives a different definition of history from yours namely History as a science. At best history might be described in terms of being a social science, but then is that exhaustive?I don’t think so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

From the article you linked to:

"Miracles were widely believed in around the time of Jesus. Gods and demigods such as Heracles (better known by his Roman name, Hercules), Asclepius (a Greek physician who became a god) and Isis of Egypt all were thought to have healed the sick and overcome death (i.e., to have raised people from the dead).[42] Some thought that mortal men, if sufficiently famous and virtuous, could do likewise; there were myths about philosophers like Pythagoras and Empedocles calming storms at sea, chasing away pestilences, and being greeted as gods,[42] and similarly some Jews believed that Elisha the Prophet had cured lepers and restored the dead.[42] The achievements of the 1st century Apollonius of Tyana, though occurring after Jesus's life, were used by a 3rd-century opponent of the Christians to argue that Christ was neither original nor divine (Eusebius of Caesaria argued against the charge).[43]

The first Gospels were written against this background of Hellenistic and Jewish belief in miracles and other wondrous acts as signs—the term is explicitly used in the Gospel of John to describe Jesus's miracles—seen to be validating the credentials of divine wise men.[44]"

Was miracle stories being commonplace at the time of Jesus and therefore likely to fall on credulous ground the point you intended to make?

But all that, Hillside is unsatisfactory history imv it ignores almost completely the attitudes of Jesus main audience, the Jews, to miracles. Paul has an issue amongst the Christian communities with belief in the resurrection. These are not then communities that automatically believe everything that is put in front of them.
What is notable imv though is that diverse communities end up sharing the same view of Christ and even the gnostic and heretical communities are testament to Christ’s contemporary appeal.
Finally people on this board who like to talk about old books, Bronze Age peasants etc. make unconvincing historians imv.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Now wait a cherry picking moment, Hillside.

As you didn’t bother telling us which bit of the article you wanted to cherry pick, there was no cherry picking in asking you whether one part supported you.

The part of the article I want to focus on is the statement that some historians dismiss miracles a priori, Some are not convinced by the reports and some accept them.

This part of the article is ambiguous, but fortunately footnote 9 isn’t:

“Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer.”

The point here is that some historians may well accept miracle stories as true, but not because they're historians. Why? Because such stories fail the basic tests of academic historicity. 

Even supposing that somehow we could extend the title of  historian to your good self I wonder if you would be categorised as one who dismisses miracles a priori. Then thre are the opening paragraphs of the article.

Yes. Until and unless someone ever came up with a method of verifying miracle stories then as a would-be historian I’d have no choice but to treat them as myth or folklore, but not history.

But all that, Hillside is unsatisfactory history imv it ignores almost completely the attitudes of Jesus main audience, the Jews, to miracles. Paul has an issue amongst the Christian communities with belief in the resurrection. These are not then communities that automatically believe everything that is put in front of them.

But they were communities when miracle stories were commonplace and unremarkable, and they were also communities that lacked the technology we have to establish actual death rather than, say, coma. Just ignoring such matters indicates confirmation bias, not rigorous historicity. 

What is notable imv though is that diverse communities end up sharing the same view of Christ and even the gnostic and heretical communities are testament to Christ’s contemporary appeal.

Notable perhaps as it is with any number of charismatics, but not particularly relevant for the purpose of establishing the historical truth of miracle stories.

Finally people on this board who like to talk about old books, Bronze Age peasants etc. make unconvincing historians imv.

Depends on whether or not such people stop there, or continue the thought to “…and thus they lacked the modern tools and methods of historical enquiry that more robustly establish or falsify miracle stories”.

[ProfessorDavey]

But all that, Hillside is unsatisfactory history imv it ignores almost completely the attitudes of Jesus main audience, the Jews, to miracles.

But Jesus' main audience (as you describe it) were by and large deeply unimpressed with the claimed miracles on the basis that largely they did not follow Jesus' new religious group following his death - they continued to be Jews just as they had been previously, not believing that the messiah had arrived, nor considering that Jesus had been resurrected.

What is notable imv though is that diverse communities end up sharing the same view of Christ and even the gnostic and heretical communities are testament to Christ’s contemporary appeal.

What is notable is Jesus' lack of contemporary appeal. For pretty well all other major religions (struggling to think of an exception) the religion grew to strength in the place and amongst the people who were there when the initial events took place. By constrast Jesus was largely ignored by those around him at the time of his teaching and death - they continued to be Jews just as they had been prior to Jesus.

The question is first why christianity failed to get traction in the place and amongst the people who would have actually encountered Jesus. Secondly why, having failed to establish itself amongst the people in the communities where Jesus lived and taught, did it gain traction in communities geographically and culturally very distinct from 1stC palestine - specifically amongst people who had not connection whatsoever with Jesus.

[Dicky Underpants]

But Jesus' main audience (as you describe it) were by and large deeply unimpressed with the claimed miracles on the basis that largely they did not follow Jesus' new religious group following his death - they continued to be Jews just as they had been previously, not believing that the messiah had arrived, nor considering that Jesus had been resurrected.

What is notable is Jesus' lack of contemporary appeal. For pretty well all other major religions (struggling to think of an exception) the religion grew to strength in the place and amongst the people who were there when the initial events took place. By constrast Jesus was largely ignored by those around him at the time of his teaching and death - they continued to be Jews just as they had been prior to Jesus.

The question is first why christianity failed to get traction in the place and amongst the people who would have actually encountered Jesus. Secondly why, having failed to establish itself amongst the people in the communities where Jesus lived and taught, did it gain traction in communities geographically and culturally very distinct from 1stC palestine - specifically amongst people who had not connection whatsoever with Jesus.

I suppose it depends on the two distinct strands of Jesus' supposed teaching which are evident in the gospels. If you take the view that his main message was summed up in the text "Go not into the way of the Gentiles.. but go only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel", then you would be justified in thinking that Jesus' teaching was just another variant of Judaism, and not likely to make much of an impact beyond the eastern Mediterranean. This is of course the strand of teaching that the Ebionites took up on (St James). Enter Paul, with his "vision", and the view that Jesus was for the whole world. However, that was very much Paul's own Jesus.

[Spud]

But Jesus' main audience (as you describe it) were by and large deeply unimpressed with the claimed miracles on the basis that largely they did not follow Jesus' new religious group following his death - they continued to be Jews just as they had been previously, not believing that the messiah had arrived, nor considering that Jesus had been resurrected.

What is notable is Jesus' lack of contemporary appeal. For pretty well all other major religions (struggling to think of an exception) the religion grew to strength in the place and amongst the people who were there when the initial events took place. By constrast Jesus was largely ignored by those around him at the time of his teaching and death - they continued to be Jews just as they had been prior to Jesus.

The question is first why christianity failed to get traction in the place and amongst the people who would have actually encountered Jesus. Secondly why, having failed to establish itself amongst the people in the communities where Jesus lived and taught, did it gain traction in communities geographically and culturally very distinct from 1stC palestine - specifically amongst people who had not connection whatsoever with Jesus.

They had also rejected the prophets in the past.
Regarding the Jews' rejection of Jesus, Romans 11:7 says, "What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened". 11:25-26 says "Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel [the elect from the Jews and the Gentiles] will be saved."

[Maeght]

They had also rejected the prophets in the past.
Regarding the Jews' rejection of Jesus, Romans 11:7 says, "What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened". 11:25-26 says "Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel [the elect from the Jews and the Gentiles] will be saved."

And?

[Dicky Underpants]

They had also rejected the prophets in the past.
Regarding the Jews' rejection of Jesus, Romans 11:7 says, "What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened". 11:25-26 says "Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel [the elect from the Jews and the Gentiles] will be saved."

Who are "the Elect"? (Define the precise meaning of the word)
Also note that "were hardened" is in the passive voice. Who did the hardening?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As you didn’t bother telling us which bit of the article you wanted to cherry pick, there was no cherry picking in asking you whether one part supported you.

This part of the article is ambiguous, but fortunately footnote 9 isn’t:

“Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer.”

The point here is that some historians may well accept miracle stories as true, but not because they're historians. Why? Because such stories fail the basic tests of academic historicity. 

Yes. Until and unless someone ever came up with a method of verifying miracle stories then as a would-be historian I’d have no choice but to treat them as myth or folklore, but not history.


But they were communities when miracle stories were commonplace and unremarkable, and they were also communities that lacked the technology we have to establish actual death rather than, say, coma. Just ignoring such matters indicates confirmation bias, not rigorous historicity. 

Notable perhaps as it is with any number of charismatics, but not particularly relevant for the purpose of establishing the historical truth of miracle stories.

Depends on whether or not such people stop there, or continue the thought to “…and thus they lacked the modern tools and methods of historical enquiry that more robustly establish or falsify miracle stories”.

Vlad,

As you didn’t bother telling us which bit of the article you wanted to cherry pick, there was no cherry picking in asking you whether one part supported you.

Why should providing some external input into the discussion bother you so? If I had a focus it would be that the Atheist historian Bart Ehrman reminds us that some historians accept the gospel accounts as history and some do not accept the history and some do not accept it a priori, presumably because it does not coincide with their own world view rather than anything to do with history.
He doesn't then make a no true Scotsmen claim as to whether they can consequently be called historians

This part of the article is ambiguous, but fortunately footnote 9 isn’t:

“Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer.”

The point here is that some historians may well accept miracle stories as true, but not because they're historians. Why? Because such stories fail the basic tests of academic historicity. 

That's not what historian Bart Ehrman suggests or says. Also there are believers who apparently have been convinced by the NT as history, who cannot be included in those who believe a priori.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But Jesus' main audience (as you describe it) were by and large deeply unimpressed with the claimed miracles on the basis that largely they did not follow Jesus' new religious group following his death - they continued to be Jews just as they had been previously, not believing that the messiah had arrived, nor considering that Jesus had been resurrected.

And?

What is notable is Jesus' lack of contemporary appeal. For pretty well all other major religions (struggling to think of an exception) the religion grew to strength in the place and amongst the people who were there when the initial events took place.

Even Buddhism? By constrast Jesus was largely ignored by those around him at the time of his teaching and death - they continued to be Jews just as they had been prior to Jesus.

As you do not tire from telling us, that is due to cultural conditioning and as another here tells us ,survivorship bias. Christianity for it’s first period was considered a another Jewish sect so your view of the period becomes a bit dubious. There were numerous Jewish sects and the unity of Orthodox Judaism seems to appear later and I would say partly in response to competition from Christianity.