Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #141

    Nov 9, 2021, 02:06 PM
    Yes, "probability" is a better word than proof, and in historical study it's what we have.
    Good point. Probability is a better word. Of course there are degrees of probability. I would contend the resurrection is a high degree given the amount of evidence.

    I think the writing of Caesar is a good example. He contends, for instance, that the Romans built a bridge several hundred meters across the Rhine River in only ten days starting from scratch. That would seem to be an absolutely incredible feat, and yet it is generally accepted as true.
    dwashbur's Avatar
    dwashbur Posts: 1,456, Reputation: 175
    Ultra Member
     
    #142

    Nov 9, 2021, 05:18 PM
    jlisenbe
    Yes, "probability" is a better word than proof, and in historical study it's what we have.
    Good point. Probability is a better word. Of course there are degrees of probability. I would contend the resurrection is a high degree given the amount of evidence.

    I think the writing of Caesar is a good example. He contends, for instance, that the Romans built a bridge several hundred meters across the Rhine River in only ten days starting from scratch. That would seem to be an absolutely incredible feat, and yet it is generally accepted as true.
    The double standard for other ancient works vs. the New Testament continues to fascinate me.

    Is this acceptable? Don't we need to start fighting about something??? :)
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #143

    Nov 9, 2021, 05:25 PM
    Is this acceptable? Don't we need to start fighting about something??? :)
    It is terribly concerning. Just seems kind of unnatural, doesn't it? (<:
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #144

    Nov 9, 2021, 06:10 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
    You dismiss the gospels
    Wow - what a bad start! I have NOT "dismissed the Gospels". I have asked for the claimed evidence that the resurrection occurred.

    All history was written with certain things in mind. They were written within the lifetimes of those who were there and purport to be written by people who were there. Simply dismissing them because they include miraculous events isn't good history.
    I have NOT dismissed "all history" because "they include miraculous events". I don't know of any history that has proven miraculous events.

    As for dismissing 10 out of hand, sorry, can't do that. We have written records saying that they ordered the guards to lie about what happened.
    By "written records" are you referring to the Gospel? If not, please cite the written records.

    Under ordinary circumstances, if those guards had really let someone come steal the body, their lives would have been forfeit.
    True. So they lied disproving the resurrection occurred. However, as you claim, if the guards HAD seen the resurrection isn't it far more plausible they would have been completely and totally astounded at witnessing the most important and impressive miracle of all time accompanied by midday darkness and by an angel coming down from heaven. Surely, they would have been immediately converted. But no, they return to the Jewish elders and accept a bribe to deny the miraculous event.

    So we know the Jewish leaders understood SOMETHING happened that they couldn't explain.
    And you are claiming this SOMETHING was the resurrection. A SOMETHING that was so unimpressive to the witnessing guards that they accepted a bribe to deny it. Not bloody likely.

    And when the disciples started talking about what did happen, the leaders panicked. They started arresting them, jailing them, killing them, anything to suppress the message.
    But not because the Jewish leaders knew the resurrection occurred. Obviously, they did not believe that. If they HAD believed it, they would have run through the streets declaring the arrival of the Messiah!

    As as historian that tells me something important. They knew.
    Please explain how, as an historian, they KNEW the resurrection happened and then went around killing those who, like themselves, believed it. I must admit, I've never heard anything so unconvincing on this issue. Matthew's story is dismissed by a majority of scholars.

    Caesar's Gallic Wars is accepted as fairly accurate and the manuscripts we have are fairly correct, the ones we have are thousands of years after the fact and there's less than a handful of them.
    Nowhere in Caesar's Gallic Wars does Caesar claim that a man was resurrected from the dead. I should know, I spent a year translating him. The point I have been trying to make is that a man rising from the dead requires a burden of proof equal to the fantastic claim. Comparing the resurrection to other ordinary historical events is a non-sequitur.

    With the NT we have over 5000 manuscripts, parts of manuscripts, bits and pieces, some dating to less than 100 years after the events. So we have good records. The only question is what one does with them.
    5000 manuscripts, parts of, bits and pieces all writing that a man rose from the dead is not proof of a man rising from the dead. I should not have to say that to an historian.

    The historical probability is that the resurrection happened.
    No, that is a matter of faith. And if it's a "probability", then it's not 100% "historical". That's what I've been saying all along.

    There have been no truly valid alternatives suggested over 2000 years.
    There were no truly valid alternatives suggested to explain the earth's orbit for hundreds of thousands of years.

    So they were telling the truth as they knew it.
    That has never been in contention here.

    It happened. Like it or not, it happened.
    Your enthusiasm is noted. Enthusiasm is not evidence.

    The very rise of the Christian message and the vicious opposition to it, as well as the other evidence, say it happened.
    I'm sorry, but none of what you say is evidence. It's faith. Nothing wrong with faith. It's the core of all religion, including Christianity and the resurrection.

    I put it out there and people can do what they want with the evidence.
    Repeating the word "evidence" is not evidence.

    You can lead a person to eternal life, but you can't make them drink of it.
    This sounds vaguely like a threat. Please don't go that route, DW. We like you too much.

    We know what little we do about the Sumerians, for example, because of the accident of a fire in a clay tablet library. But we have no idea how much of what we read is true and how much might be someone's Great Sumerian Novel. Ugaritic gives us the story of King KRT who went through all kinds of gyrations to win the hand of Lady HRY, how 'El helped him and all kinds of stuff. Is the story true? Were KRT and HRY real people, and the writer threw in the religious elements? Or is it an epic poem? We don't know, because all we have is the circumstantial evidence of the writings.
    It's an epic poem. Do you seriously think all that talk of gods and goddesses is true?

    If we write off even the vast majority of "circumstantial evidence" we're left with nothing but pretty artifacts that can tell us nothing.
    Nothing could be further from the truth. Historical study has given us tremendous amounts of information about the past - especially ancient history. I admit to being shocked to read such a statement coming from the pen of a self-proclaimed historian. "If we write off even the vast majority of "circumstantial evidence" we're left with nothing but pretty artifacts that can tell us nothing." I trust you don't really believe that.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #145

    Nov 9, 2021, 09:02 PM
    Nothing could be further from the truth. Historical study has given us tremendous amounts of information about the past - especially ancient history. I admit to being shocked to read such a statement coming from the pen of a self-proclaimed historian. "If we write off even the vast majority of "circumstantial evidence" we're left with nothing but pretty artifacts that can tell us nothing." I trust you don't really believe that.
    Can you give some examples of ancient history largely based on direct evidence?
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #146

    Nov 10, 2021, 12:56 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
    The double standard for other ancient works vs. the New Testament continues to fascinate me.
    I'm always surprised when the New Testament is compared to other ancient works by saying the NT is not given the credence of those other works - a double standard.

    The answer for that is simplicity itself. The other ancient works do not make a claim similar to the NT that God himself came to earth in the person of a human being, performed miracles, rose from the dead, and ascended bodily into heaven.

    Because it is believed as true that Caesar conquered Gaul based on ancient writings, the NT must therefore be also true since it too is based on ancient writings. Must I point out that the one doesn't prove the other?

    If it were true that the resurrection was provable, what need for faith?
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #147

    Nov 10, 2021, 05:37 AM
    You still have not outlined what evidence would be needed to satisfy you.

    Faith is not based upon blind acceptance. Faith is very much evidence based. Hence Paul went about telling people that the resurrected Christ had been seen by more than five hundred people.

    When did the disciples believe, before they saw the resurrected Christ, or afterwards?

    Can you give some examples of ancient history largely based on direct evidence?
    Does your non-answer mean "no"?
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #148

    Nov 10, 2021, 08:44 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    You still have not outlined what evidence would be needed to satisfy you.
    More than once now, I have told you that the responsibility for providing evidence lies with you since you are the one making the claim.

    Faith is not based upon blind acceptance. Faith is very much evidence based.
    Faith is the assent to an idea for which complete evidence is lacking. Christianity requires a strong faith. That is not in dispute.

    Hence Paul went about telling people that the resurrected Christ had been seen by more than five hundred people.
    This is as poor an example as is possible. It is hearsay. In any case, how many of those 500 believed Paul? How many did not? (Rhetorical - neither you nor I know the answer).

    When did the disciples believe, before they saw the resurrected Christ, or afterwards?
    How could anyone possibly know when the Apostles believed what they did?

    Can you give some examples of ancient history largely based on direct evidence?
    Does your non-answer mean "no"?
    No.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #149

    Nov 10, 2021, 09:36 AM
    More than once now, I have told you that the responsibility for providing evidence lies with you since you are the one making the claim.
    And more than once I have replied that claiming evidence does not meet some standard without being able to define that standard just doesn't make sense. If you don't know what the standard is, then how could you possibly know it has not been met?

    This is as poor an example as is possible. It is hearsay. In any case, how many of those 500 believed Paul? How many did not? (Rhetorical - neither you nor I know the answer).
    The testimonies of Paul, John, and Matthew are direct eye-witness testimony. As to the 500, the point Paul was making was that most of those 500 were still living and could have been asked about it by any skeptic who chose to. It would be an incredibly foolish strategy if those hundreds were not still living and willing to testify. Imagine sending a group to interview those individuals and the group coming back reporting, "They all said it was nonsense. They never saw a resurrected Christ and Paul is an abject liar if he says otherwise."

    How could anyone possibly know when the Apostles believed what they did?
    By reading the several accounts in the Gospels. There is, for instance, John 20:19ff.

    Does your non-answer mean "no"?


    No.
    Sure looks that way. Frankly, this seems to be a problem here. There is an unknown and undefined standard which is nonetheless alleged to be unmet. There is history well established by a preponderance of hard evidence...somewhere...we guess. At some point you have to be willing to deliver the goods.

    Now I'll take a stab at the historical question. There certainly is a great deal of archaeological evidence and it is valuable. It ranges from the Great Pyramids to the ruins of long abandoned cities, but the written historical accounts of individuals such as Luke, Herodotus and Josephus provide far more information. For instance, practically nothing would known of the major military conflicts of ancient times without the written accounts which describe them. And in case you question including Luke in that list, bear in mind that no less an authority than Sir William Ramsay, who was initially an avowed skeptic and unbeliever, said of Luke, "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense...in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians."
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #150

    Nov 10, 2021, 02:03 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    And more than once I have replied
    Solid evidence that you have not understood what I said.

    claiming evidence does not meet some standard without being able to define that standard just doesn't make sense. If you don't know what the standard is, then how could you possibly know it has not been met?
    The evidence required is at least as fantastic as what is being claimed - i.e., God in human form rising from the dead and ascending into heaven! Such a standard for evidence makes eminent good sense. THAT'S the standard you need to meet. Satisfied?

    The testimonies of Paul, John, and Matthew are direct eye-witness testimony.
    They are from the same source (NT) that is the source for the claim of the resurrection (NT). Also - In a courtroom (not a perfect analogy, but it may help you understand), it would be like a witness testifying to the truth of an event by giving his word. More proof than that is required.

    As to the 500, the point Paul was making was that most of those 500 were still living and could have been asked about it by any skeptic who chose to............................etc., etc., etc...............................................roup to interview those individuals and the group coming back reporting, "They all said it was nonsense. They never saw a resurrected Christ and Paul is an abject liar if he says otherwise."
    There is no need to state your personal beliefs on a different issue. We can do Paul some other time. The issue here is evidence for the resurrection.

    By reading the several accounts in the Gospels. There is, for instance, John 20:19ff.
    Proving the Bible by citing the Bible is a no-no.

    Sure looks that way. Frankly, this seems to be a problem here. There is an unknown and undefined standard which is nonetheless alleged to be unmet. There is history well established by a preponderance of hard evidence...somewhere...we guess. At some point you have to be willing to deliver the goods.
    You may try to your heart's content to turn it around. The fact remains, and always will remain, the evidence is UP TO YOU, not others. Another court room analogy - the delivery of evidence is always and only up to the prosecution (you).

    Now I'll take a stab at the historical question. There certainly is a great deal of archaeological evidence and it is valuable. It ranges from the Great Pyramids to the ruins o......................................etc., etc., etc. ......................................stance, practically nothing would known of the major military conf question including Luke in that list, bear in mind that no less an authority than Sir William Ra.........................etc., etc., etc..............................................re his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense...in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians."
    You're going far afield. What is your point? Does any of this prove the resurrection?
    dwashbur's Avatar
    dwashbur Posts: 1,456, Reputation: 175
    Ultra Member
     
    #151

    Nov 10, 2021, 02:12 PM
    I'm always surprised when the New Testament is compared to other ancient works by saying the NT is not given the credence of those other works - a double standard.
    I gave several other examples of ancient literature that claim miraculous events, you didn't comment on them, only on Caesar.

    The answer for that is simplicity itself. The other ancient works do not make a claim similar to the NT that God himself came to earth in the person of a human being, performed miracles, rose from the dead, and ascended bodily into heaven.
    Except I showed you others that make miraculous claims and you haven't mentioned them.


    Because it is believed as true that Caesar conquered Gaul based on ancient writings, the NT must therefore be also true since it too is based on ancient writings. Must I point out that the one doesn't prove the other?
    I never said it did. Please don't put words in my fingers. I gave them as similar examples of how the double standard works.
    See, the vast majority of the New Testament isn't about the miraculous stuff. It's about the new movement trying to find itself and figure out where its footing was. That makes it immensely valuable for history.

    And just as a side note, you poo-poohed the first eight of my bits of evidence because they're only found in the New Testament, but I have to point out that you're setting up a much higher bar than even the most critical of New Testament scholars. I don't know of any who dispute any of those facts, even though they only come from one source. They are the ones who set the bar, and they're okay with the material.
    If it were true that the resurrection was provable, what need for faith?
    Thanks for bringing this up, because "faith" that isn't based on something solid isn't faith at all. The writings themselves say it: we haven't followed carefully crafted fables. We are following what people's eyes saw, ears heard, and hands touched. It's eyewitness testimony. THAT is what faith is. Too many people have tried to define it the Mark Twain way, and it's wrong. Genuine faith has a foundation. And we have a mighty good one.

    Oh yes, one more thing:
    how many of those 500 believed Paul? How many did not?
    I'm afraid you read that sdrawkcab. Paul didn't tell them, they told Paul. They didn't need Paul's testimony, they had their own and shared it with him.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #152

    Nov 10, 2021, 02:36 PM
    The evidence required is at least as fantastic as what is being claimed - i.e., God in human form rising from the dead and ascending into heaven! Such a standard for evidence makes eminent good sense. THAT'S the standard you need to meet. Satisfied?
    Of course not. That is not a standard. It's simply a vague, thoroughly imprecise "moving target" that one imagines will never be met. Perhaps you can give us an example of what would satisfy you.

    They are from the same source (NT) that is the source for the claim of the resurrection (NT). Also - In a courtroom (not a perfect analogy, but it may help you understand), it would be like a witness testifying to the truth of an event by giving his word. More proof than that is required.
    Not even close to being correct. You have asked for direct evidence. Eye-witness testimony, in the actual words of the eye witness, is direct evidence. So in a courtroom, a witness testifying to the truth of an event he actually witnessed is an EYE WITNESS. Do you understand now? You complain about circumstantial evidence, and then you complain about direct evidence. Rather hard to please, aren't we?

    Proving the Bible by citing the Bible is a no-no.
    Nope. You asked how anyone could know when the disciples began to believe in the resurrection. That is a NT story, so quite naturally the answer is to be found...in the NT! Where would you think it would be found?

    You're going far afield. What is your point? Does any of this prove the resurrection?
    The topic was the value of circumstantial evidence to the study of history. You had said that DW's statement about the value of CE was off base. I asked if you knew of ancient history based largely upon direct evidence. You had avoided the question, so I answered it for you.
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #153

    Nov 10, 2021, 02:43 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
    I gave several other examples of ancient literature that claim miraculous events, you didn't comment on them, only on Caesar.
    Except I showed you others that make miraculous claims and you haven't mentioned them.
    I sincerely apologize. I will go look for them now - or you could give me your post #s where they can be found, just so I don't miss them again.

    I never said it did. Please don't put words in my fingers.
    That Caesar reference was directed at Jl who made it. I thought that was obvious. Again, I'll be careful going forward.

    See, the vast majority of the New Testament isn't about the miraculous stuff. It's about the new movement trying to find itself and figure out where its footing was. That makes it immensely valuable for history.
    I have never doubted the immense historical value of the NT. Words-in-mouth this time?

    And just as a side note, you poo-poohed the first eight of my bits of evidence because they're only found in the New Testament,
    I "poo-poohed" nothing. I gave a reasoned analysis re the difficulty of proving the NT events by citing the NT.

    I have to point out that you're setting up a much higher bar than even the most critical of New Testament scholars.
    That is true. The issue of NT scholars can be a tricky one.

    Can you deny that just about every one over the years has come with a built-in prejudice of believing the NT? At least most of it. Much valuable criticism of the NT has come from non-biblical historians. I agree the problem there might be the opposite - a built-in anti-Bible prejudice.

    That is why the arguments pro and con must be examined as closely as possible and using modern-day tools (like your own study of ancient Greek).

    I don't know of any who dispute any of those facts, even though they only come from one source. They are the ones who set the bar, and they're okay with the material.
    They are easy to find. Google the topic and you will find them.

    Thanks for bringing this up, because "faith" that isn't based on something solid isn't faith at all.
    I never said it was (based on nothing).

    The writings themselves say it: we haven't followed carefully crafted fables. We are following what people's eyes saw, ears heard, and hands touched. It's eyewitness testimony.
    Actually, it's hearsay - third party sourced. It is testimony written down in a book that took centuries to arrive in its present condition. However, let's not get far off the track - the issue here is evidence for the resurrection.

    Oh yes, one more thing: I'm afraid you read that sdrawkcab. Paul didn't tell them, they told Paul. They didn't need Paul's testimony, they had their own and shared it with him.
    A minor point. But it provides you with your ounce of flesh.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #154

    Nov 10, 2021, 02:57 PM
    Because it is believed as true that Caesar conquered Gaul based on ancient writings, the NT must therefore be also true since it too is based on ancient writings. Must I point out that the one doesn't prove the other?
    That was not my point. The issue was probability vs. proof. Caesar's writings were just an example of that distinction.
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #155

    Nov 10, 2021, 03:06 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
    I gave several other examples of ancient literature that claim miraculous events, you didn't comment on them, only on Caesar. Except I showed you others that make miraculous claims and you haven't mentioned them.
    As promised, I went back and looked at each of your posts and not a single one had "other examples of ancient literature that claim miraculous events". As far as Caesar, I can't find you claiming miraculous events by him.

    Homer and Virgil certainly wrote about miraculous events, but I assume you meant miraculous events like the resurrection that are still claimed to be true, not fiction.

    I hope this was just an oversight on your part, and not something devious.
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #156

    Nov 10, 2021, 05:20 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    That is not a standard. It's simply a ....... "moving target" that one imagines will never be met. Perhaps you can give us an example of what would satisfy you.
    Good for you. That's it - precisely. It will "never be met". There is no example that will prove the resurrection. That's the point!

    Eye-witness testimony, in the actual words of the eye witness, is direct evidence. ....... Do you understand now?
    A book written centuries ago is NOT an eye-witness. It is hearsay. Do you understand now? Finally?

    You asked how anyone could know when the disciples began to believe in the resurrection. That is a NT story, so quite naturally the answer is to be found...in the NT! The topic was the value of circumstantial evidence to the study of history. You had said that DW's statement about the value of CE was off base. I asked if you knew of ancient history based largely upon direct evidence. You had avoided the question, so I answered it for you.
    Your deflection is noted. Now how about getting back to the resurrection?
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,354, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #157

    Nov 10, 2021, 05:54 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Athos View Post
    A book written centuries ago is NOT an eye-witness. It is hearsay.
    Let's say Atticus was an eyewitness centuries ago. He wrote a book about his experience. Anyone who reads that book is not an eyewitness. That person's report about it is hearsay.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #158

    Nov 10, 2021, 06:04 PM
    A book written by an eyewitness is eye witness testimony. It is certainly not hearsay.
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,354, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #159

    Nov 10, 2021, 06:29 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    A book written by an eyewitness is eye witness testimony. It is certainly not hearsay.
    Exactly! If you are saying I'm wrong, please reread what I posted.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #160

    Nov 10, 2021, 08:27 PM
    You do realize you are in disagreement with Athos? That's a first!!

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

I just want my girlfriend to love me again, I love her but she doesn't love me anymore [ 34 Answers ]

3 moths ago, I broke up with my girlfriend for no reason at all. And for the past 2 months she tried and tried to make me go back to her. But I didn't give her a chance. That was the biggest mistake in my life. And then as time passes, we just don't get along anymore, and I keep pushing her away...

I love a girl, I found some one is also loving her. I haven't told my love to her, [ 5 Answers ]

I love a girl, I found some one is also loving her. I haven't told my love to her, but he does. One day I saw she scolding him, at that time I was happy. BUT TODAY I FOUND THAT the are talking something secretly, what should I do.

I love a boy who love me earlier but now he hates me but I still love him [ 13 Answers ]

I love a boy who love me earlier but now he hates me but I still love him... Because of some misunderstanding and maybe he got bored.. I myself don't know the real reason ... but I still love him... how can I get him back...

Behind the scenes worker falls in love with a woman competing for a mans love [ 1 Answers ]

What movie is about how a woman competes to win the love of a bachelor on a TV show then falls in love with one of the workers?

Love, understanding love, types of love [ 12 Answers ]

I thought this would be interesting to discuss. We all use love so much, we could say we love someone, then the next moment, we say we love our car, or wed love a big mac. I was watching this interesting video, in which this guy explained that the hebrews had 3 words for love. Raya- friendship...


View more questions Search