Resurrection of Christ: Historical or History Making?







I affirm the literal resurrection of Christ, as I affirm the Nicene creed. Unfortunately, affirming it and proving it are two different things. Many apologists try to use the Resurrection as proof in itself that Jesus was the Son of God. The problem is, the event itself has to be proven, and is of equal dispute to the claims of Christ deity. Thus, I doubt that it makes a great tool for verifying the claims of the faith, since it is itself such a claim. On the other hand, let us ask ourselves, "was the true purpose of the resurrection as a proof of Jesus validity?" I think not. I think the true purpose was not to offer modern scientific "courtroom evidence" of the event (they did not have that standard), but to confirm in a religious way, for insiders, by provision of an important symbol. Tillich says that a symbol participates in the thing it symbolizes. Thus a bull fighter dying young is a symbol of darning courage going awry, but a non specific figure like the American flag is not a symbol but an emblam. Thus the resurrection of Christ can be a theological symbol and still be a real event! Thus the true importance of the event is its theological significance and not its market place value as an apologetic tool. 

Atheists have argued, but more importantly historians have argued, that a view like that of the resurrection of Christ can't be understood as a historical event, thus can't be proved by historical evidence because history is intrinsically naturalistic. Historians must make naturalistic assumptions thus a miracle can't play role in history. The first thing to notice about this argument is that far from contradicting what I've said, it supports my position in that I argue that atheist's only have ideological objections to the resurrection. There's no historically based disproof. If untrained non-historian apologists mistakenly argue "this is historical" the atheists objections are not based upon disproving the historically based evidence they are only based upon ideological assumptions. Evoking the rules of history is also ideological assumption.

Secondly, I don't say "O I'm going to prove the resurrection historically." In the heat of argument I may have said words to that effect, but my actual position is not "yes we definitely prove the resurrection." There is no way to prove something that happened 2000 years ago, at least not to the point of making it indubitable. The only way to do that would be to go back in time and watch it happen. It's as unfair a requirement that it be "historical" as it is to say we are going to prove it historically. Either way is an unfair requirement barbecue it's not something that can be proved. The prohibition on supernatural evidence in history not withstanding it's unrealistic, and therefore, unfair, to expect it to be proved. Be that as it may be all is not lost for the historically minded apologist. There is still a good argument to be made for the resurrection and it involves historically-based evidence.
The better decision making paradigm is not "proof," that is unrealistic, but "warrant." If we don't claim we proving historical events but rather that understanding an event in a certain way (as true) is warranted by the evidence, then we are not imposing the unrealistic burden of proof nor are we evoking the category of "history" to explain it thus we are not transgressing historical protocols. Rather we are finding that the placing of confidence in a hypothesis for private belief is warranted by the evidence. Toward this end we need to see text as an artifact. So rather than say "this is true because so and so says it,"we are saying "this is what the early community of faith believed as evidence by their texts. To the extent that we can trust their testimony we can place confidence in the hypothesis that this belief may communicate a truth. Thus private belief that this is the case is warranted. Thus the resurrection, not put in the cattery of "historical fact" is nevertheless understood as both a religious symbol and a likely event.

Religious Symbol and Historical Likelihood.

Be that as it may, the event of Christ's resurrection offers more to the unbeliever and the cause of Christian apologetic than one might think given what I wrote. Rather than give up on it as an argument, we need to put it into a different context: we need to abandon the "court room" model of proof in apologetic s, and take up a historian's perspective. The point is not that we can prove the resurrection "really happened." The importance of historical evidence surrounding resurrection is its possibility as a history making event. By that I mean, it's not as important to prove "conclusively" that it happened, as it is to show that the perimeters shaped by the evidence still leave open the validity of the possibility that such an event occurred, once one clears away the ideological clutter of naturalism. The evidence need only point to the fact that the belief tenet is still "in the running" as a possibility, not that it actually happened, although we believe, as Christians, that it did happen. The event described cannot included as a historical event, because history as a modern social science is constructed upon naturalistic assumptions; but it can be understood as a history making event, one that shaped the nature of our society and culture.

Away with the Court Room Model


So much past apologetics has been based upon the model of a court room debate, then declared to "prove history." We see this most especially in McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict (the classic case). We also see it in the works of a vast array of apologists who say things like, "the man who invented rules for court room evidence (Simon Greenleaf--1783-1953 ) argued for the Resurrection, and he was a smart lawyer, so he must be right." But historians do not "prove" historical 'arguments' by holding courtroom debates! If we are going to make historical claims for the resurrection, we have to think like historians, and not like lawyers. We have to hold the evidence to the perimeters of historical evidence, not to those of jurisprudence.

History is probability. It's not mathematical probably, but it is probabilistic. One cannot go back in time and verify the assumptions of historians, all we can do is argue from extrapolated data as to the most likely conclusion based upon the "facts." But how are these "facts" ascertained? They are not derived from debate, they are not derived from physical artifacts, and they are certainly not given in any kind of absolute certainty. Many skeptics place the level of confirmation they seek on a par with a TV camera recording an event it happens. History is documents! History is not a documentary featuring live footage, although such material is no doubt going to be included in future historical records. But history is the impression we find most likely as a probabilistic guess based upon the data we find available in written documents of the past. Historians do debate documents, but they do not say things like, "would this be accepted in a courts of law?" Historians don't a flying spit wad about what is accepted in a court of law (but one hears that phrase in apologetics quite a bit). Thus, in accessing the prospects for the validity of the resurrection, one cannot worry about courtrooms, or about exact proof as though we could take a TV camera to the tomb and watch the angel move the stone. The best we can ever do is to access the possibility and its place int he likelihood of events, given our world view assumptions vis a vie, supernatural events.

The History Making Concept.

In his great ground breaking work, Theology of Hope (1964) [1] Jurgen Moltmann did something radical. It suited Moltmann to be radical because he was one of the major influences upon radical theology of the 60s, including liberation theology. Being German Moltmann took the structures of historical scholarship very seriously. He knew that historiography of the nineteenth century had ruled out any but naturalistic assumptions in the category of "historical." Moltmann argues, the rules of history exclude the miraculous. This is because historians, as heirs to the enlightenment, automatically exclude the supernatural. For this reason the resurrection cannot be seen as historical, a priori, for the rules of making history are set by an ideology of metaphysical assumptions which dogmatically exclude anything miraculous. History must be predicated upon the assumption of a coherent natural world, therefore, the supernatural cannot be part of history (176). Yet he felt it was important to make a place for the resurrection in modern thought. So he argued for changing the rules. Rather than calling the resurrection "historical" he calls it "history making." The belief itself has shaped the outline of historical event. This is apart from the question of its truth content, the fact of belief in it made history what it is. This introduces the concept of understanding the belief as history making thus the evidence that supports the belief is also history making. His solution: change the rules. We wont call it "historical" but "history making."

"The resurrection of Christ does not mean a possibility within the world and its history, but a new possibility altogether for the world, for existence, and for history. Only when the world can be understood as contingent creation out of the freedom of God...does the rising of Christ become intelligible as nova create [new creation]. ...it is necessary to expose the profound irrationality of the rational cosmos of the tech scientific world." (179)

"The resurrection of Christ is without prattle in the history known to us. But it can be for that very reason regarded as a 'history making event' in the light of which all other history is illumined, called into question and transformed." (180)

Skeptics are too quick to argue that the resurrection is not historical fact. Before they jump into this fray, they should first ask themselves about the nature of historical facts. Most historical "facts" are not proven. "History" (whatever that is) says that Davy Crockett died at the Alamo, yet evidence indicates he did not.* History, like science is a social construct, and is determined by those with the clout to write history. In modernity we have gained an anti-supernatural bias, and so the believer is forced to ask rhetorical questions like "did Jesus raise form the dead?" and then to answer them rhetorically. The German Theologian Jurgen Moltmann changes the rules. Rather than ask if the resurrection is "historical" he merely argues that it doesn't have to be, it is history making. We change the rules of the debate because predicated upon the preaching of the resurrection is one of the most profound developments of world history; the growth of the Christian faith which has shaped the entire Western tradition. We view the Resurrection of Christ as history making because the belief in it did change history, the doctrine of it has made history, and belief today shapes the basis of all Christian doctrine. We put aside the hypocritical skepticism of naturalistic circular arguments and allow ourselves to accept the verdict of a history that has been made by faith in the event, in light of the fact that there is enough there to base faith upon. (see Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, 1968).[2]

The doctrine furnishes the basis for hope, when grasped in faith, that offers a much more profound answer to any of questions about life and death than any form of skepticism or pride in confusion ever could. Rather than merely declare a rules change, I will argue that this rules change is warranted based upon the evidence. In other words, not that the resurrection can be "proven" in the same sense that any other aspect of historical research can be proven, but that the resurrection evidence is credible enough that one can feel confident in asserting its truth as a tenet of faith. The actual case can never be proven, or disproved, but the evidence allows one to believe with impunity.

In keeping with my policy of enlightening the reader about my sources, I must point out that I do lean heavily upon two major evangelical sources here: F.F. Bruce, and William Lane Craig. Bruce is, however, one of the most highly respected Evangelical scholars, even among the liberal camp, and Craig is renown as a highly credible and effective apologist. The other sources such as D. E. H. Whiteley, Stephen Neil, Gaalyah Cornfeld, and Luke Timothy Johnson are basically liberal or moderate.A few major liberal theologians, such as Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg have defended faith in the resurrection.


Historical Verdict Reversed


"The real case for skepticism of the resurrection of Christ was actually developed by 19th century liberal theology, and though they don't know it, the objections of most Internet skeptics today are echoes of those arguments. But in the postwar era even major liberal theologians began to defend the resurrection. Ernst Kasemann, student of Bultmann, at Marburg in 1953 argued that Bultmann's skepticism toward the historical Jesus was biased and Kasemann re-opened a new Quest for the historical Jesus. The great modern liberal theologian Wolfheart Paennberg argued for the resurrection of Jesus. Hans Grass argued that the resurrection cannot be dismissed as mere myth, and Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen defended the historical credibility of Jesus empty tomb." (in William Lane Craig, "Contemporary Scholarship and The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Truth, 1 (1985): 89-95. "Equally startling is the declaration of one of the world's leading Jewish theologians Pinchas Lapid, that he is convinced on the basis of the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. Lapide twits New Testament critics like Bultmann and Marxsen for their unjustified skepticism and concludes that he believes on the basis of the evidence that the God of Israel raised Jesus from the dead." (Craig, Ibid.)

"According to Jakob Kremer, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb" and he furnishes a list, to which his own name may be added, of twenty-eight prominent scholars in support. I can think of at least sixteen more names that he failed to mention. Thus, it is today widely recognized that the empty tomb of Jesus is a simple historical fact. As D. H. van Daalen has pointed out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." But assumptions may simply have to be changed in light of historical facts.:"(Ibid.)

Before the apologist can even posit the turth of the resurrection, his truth is refuted by the very nature of historical "facts" as modern thought construes them; supernatural events cannot be part of history. But Moltmann turns this around on the nature of modern thought by arguing that before modern thought can posit a naturalistic history, the content of history is already shaped by supernatural claims.



In response to the issue that history must make naturalistic assumptions, thus miracles must be excluded.


Yes but that's just a simple matter of you not understanding my argument. I"m not saying "this is true because they say it is." I'm saying:

(1) Gospels are historical artifact that ques us in to a historically validated set of readigns that can be understood as even older artifacts.

(2) these artifacts testify to the early nature of the empty tomb as a belief of the community.

(3) community contained eye witnesses. so this fact would have been screened out if it as false.

(4) It was spread about from an early time thus we can infer form it that the eye witnesses to the situation approved.

(5)not proof but it is a good reason to assume it's valid as a belief.It has historical verisimilitude.

The standard I set my arguments:The Resurrection was a history making event. Whatever truly happened, the actual events which are make by the claims of witnesses and faith in the veracity of those witnesses, the upshot of it all is that the historical probabilities suggest the likelihood of an event, and that event shaped the nature of history itself. The faith claims cannot be historical claims, but they don't have to be. The faith itself is justified, it cannot be ruled out by history, but instead lies at the base of modern history in some form. We can suggest throughout the strength of the evidence that those actual events were the very events attested to in the Gospels. We cannot prove this claim with absolute certainty, but the warrant provided by the evidence itself is strong enough to make the historical nature of the religious hope valid. Some religious hopes are just ruled out by the facts. For example, the idea that the Native Americans are part of the 10 lost tribes of Israel; this can be dispelled by genetics as well as dentistry. The Resurrection, on the other hand, can be accepted as likely Given the suspension of ideological objections of Naturalism.

*Crockett died at the Alamo the evidence clearly indicates that (I would have to assert it anyway,I am rom Texas). The point is it's not something we can prove. We call it "fact" but it's only assumption based upomn perponderence of the evidence.


[1] Jurgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope:On the Ground and Implication of Christian Eschatology. James W. Leitch, Trans.Augsberg:Fortress press,  SMC Press: 1967

[2]_______________. The Crucified God, Augsberg MN:Fortress Press:   Anv edition (November 1, 2015)



Comments

The Pixie said…
Joe: atheist's only have ideological objections to the resurrection

If we are talking about the resurrection as depicted in the Bible, then my objections are evidential. I do not think we can rule out miracles when it is a miracle we are considering; by objections are not ideological.

Joe: The better decision making paradigm is not "proof," that is unrealistic, but "warrant."

The better approach is to look at what is more like, and to acknowledge our uncertainty. If you can show the resurrection is 60% likely to have happened, then the conclusion is that it is quite like to have happened. It would, on the other hand, be wrong to conclude it definitely happened.

Joe: The evidence need only point to the fact that the belief tenet is still "in the running" as a possibility, not that it actually happened, although we believe, as Christians, that it did happen.

That sounds very reasonable - but rather short of having warrant. I am happy to say the resurrection (in some form) is a possibility. I think the disciple [i]did[/i] see something they thought was the resurrected Jesus

Joe: History, like science is a social construct, and is determined by those with the clout to write history.

Good point. We should look at anything written by the Christian church - those with the clout to write the history - as merely a social construct, and not what actually happened.

Joe: The doctrine furnishes the basis for hope, when grasped in faith, that offers a much more profound answer to any of questions about life and death than any form of skepticism or pride in confusion ever could.

It is true because you want it to be true - which fits with what you said about the gospels being a social construct.

Joe, quoting Craig: "According to Jakob Kremer, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb" and he furnishes a list, to which his own name may be added, of twenty-eight prominent scholars in support. I can think of at least sixteen more names that he failed to mention. Thus, it is today widely recognized that the empty tomb of Jesus is a simple historical fact. As D. H. van Daalen has pointed out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." But assumptions may simply have to be changed in light of historical facts.:"

How many of those 44 scholars are Christians? I would suggest they believe in the Empty Tomb "on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions". Even Lapide had theological reasons to believe in the resurrection. Certainly within Christianity the Empty Tomb is a historical fact, but I doubt that is true for non-Christians.
Joe: atheist's only have ideological objections to the resurrection

PX If we are talking about the resurrection as depicted in the Bible, then my objections are evidential. I do not think we can rule out miracles when it is a miracle we are considering; by objections are not ideological.


then what evidence do you against the resurrection? You are a rare breed

Joe: The better decision making paradigm is not "proof," that is unrealistic, but "warrant."

PX The better approach is to look at what is more like, and to acknowledge our uncertainty. If you can show the resurrection is 60% likely to have happened, then the conclusion is that it is quite like to have happened. It would, on the other hand, be wrong to conclude it definitely happened.

His historical probability is a decision making paradigm, it's also compatible with rational warrant. Yet historical probability is not quantified, 60% is arbitrary. not clear tome how you would measure it.


Joe: The evidence need only point to the fact that the belief tenet is still "in the running" as a possibility, not that it actually happened, although we believe, as Christians, that it did happen.

PXThat sounds very reasonable -

thank you



PX but rather short of having warrant.

It's not all gravy you know


PX I am happy to say the resurrection (in some form) is a possibility. I think the disciple [i]did[/i] see something they thought was the resurrected Jesus

you are a rare breed indeed


Joe: History, like science is a social construct, and is determined by those with the clout to write history.

PXGood point. We should look at anything written by the Christian church - those with the clout to write the history - as merely a social construct, and not what actually happened.

I think that's wrong. Of course I wasn't being negative about historians since I am one, but historians work under a set of rules that arbitrarily purges history of miracles. As a theologian I accept Moltmann;s history making paradigm.It doesn't matter that the res is not historical that is ideological. It is also history making so we can accept it has a tenet of faith and observe that we remake the rules and the the facts argue for it.



Joe: The doctrine furnishes the basis for hope, when grasped in faith, that offers a much more profound answer to any of questions about life and death than any form of skepticism or pride in confusion ever could.

PXIt is true because you want it to be true - which fits with what you said about the gospels being a social construct.

that's naive is representation , the atheists deny it because they don't want God to be real; You stipulate a level of probability then wont examine the facts to see if it can measure up.



Joe, quoting Craig: "According to Jakob Kremer, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb" and he furnishes a list, to which his own name may be added, of twenty-eight prominent scholars in support. I can think of at least sixteen more names that he failed to mention. Thus, it is today widely recognized that the empty tomb of Jesus is a simple historical fact. As D. H. van Daalen has pointed out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." But assumptions may simply have to be changed in light of historical facts.:"

How many of those 44 scholars are Christians? I would suggest they believe in the Empty Tomb "on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions". Even Lapide had theological reasons to believe in the resurrection. Certainly within Christianity the Empty Tomb is a historical fact, but I doubt that is true for non-Christians.


Ironically Van Dealen is a skeptic. Many of those named are liberal. Your argent is unfair you are just makings kings x to deny evidence form the most qualified, moreover with no expedience dogmatically assert you know they are all biased,

that's no better than me saying all atheists are liars do you like that?


4/08/2019 07:52:00 AM Delete
The Pixie said…
Joe: then what evidence do you against the resurrection? You are a rare breed

I think the disciples did see something that they believed to be the resurrected Jesus. Not as described in the gospels, and not in Jerusalem. We have so little details of the actual sightings in Galilee that really we cannot say what it is. Bright lights, hallucinations, resurrected Jesus, UFOs? We have no idea.

Joe: His historical probability is a decision making paradigm, it's also compatible with rational warrant. Yet historical probability is not quantified, 60% is arbitrary. not clear tome how you would measure it.

Of course 60% is arbitrary. The point is you cannot convert 60% to 100%. If an event is somewhat likely, you cannot then say that it must have happened.

Joe: I think that's wrong. Of course I wasn't being negative about historians since I am one, but historians work under a set of rules that arbitrarily purges history of miracles. As a theologian I accept Moltmann;s history making paradigm.It doesn't matter that the res is not historical that is ideological. It is also history making so we can accept it has a tenet of faith and observe that we remake the rules and the the facts argue for it.

History is written - and preserved - by the winners, and that is definitely the case with Christianity. The gentile Christians survived, and naturally what we have today is the gentile gospels, for example. Texts from that era were only preserved if the church chose to make copies, and it only made copies of texts it felt were worth coping.

In the earliest centuries of Christianity, the church took steps to wipe out heresies, so what we have today is the one surviving view of Jesus as part of the trinity, but there were numerous other views at one time.

Joe: that's naive is representation , the atheists deny it because they don't want God to be real; You stipulate a level of probability then wont examine the facts to see if it can measure up.

But you actually said "The doctrine furnishes the basis for hope ... that offers a much more profound answer to any of questions about life and death". Believing for hope of something is wishful thinking, not evidential.

Joe: Ironically Van Dealen is a skeptic. Many of those named are liberal. Your argent is unfair you are just makings kings x to deny evidence form the most qualified, moreover with no expedience dogmatically assert you know they are all biased,

I am struggling to find much at all about DH Van Daalen, however, it looks like he also published a book called "A Guide to the Revelation" with SPCK, a Christian publisher, and also "The kingdom of God is like this". This review of the latter states he was a minister in the United Reformed Church in Harrington, Cumberland (now Cumbria) in the UK.

Far from being a skeptic, it looks like this guy was a very committed Christian.

Joe: that's no better than me saying all atheists are liars do you like that?

I am accusing them of bias - something you routinely do of atheists - not of lying.
"Skeptic D. H. Van Daalen has pointed out,
it is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.” ~ The Real Resurrection (London:Collins, 1972)"

the source quoted calls him a skeptic

found here https://chab123.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/atheists-and-skeptics-weigh-on-the-death-and-resurrection-of-jesus/
The Pixie said…
Joe: the source quoted calls him a skeptic

found here https://chab123.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/atheists-and-skeptics-weigh-on-the-death-and-resurrection-of-jesus/


Really? You just quoted a random blog, and assumed it was true because you wanted it to be true. I think that tells us a lot... It gives a good insight into how Luke, another self-professed historian, approached the Easter story. If he wanted it to be true, he repeated it without bothering to verify it.
The Pixie said...
Joe: then what evidence do you against the resurrection? You are a rare breed



PXI think the disciples did see something that they believed to be the resurrected Jesus. Not as described in the gospels, and not in Jerusalem. We have so little details of the actual sightings in Galilee that really we cannot say what it is. Bright lights, hallucinations, resurrected Jesus, UFOs? We have no idea.

Of course there is no such thing as "more or less" likely. we just have to guess

Joe: His historical probability is a decision making paradigm, it's also compatible with rational warrant. Yet historical probability is not quantified, 60% is arbitrary. not clear tome how you would measure it.



PX Of course 60% is arbitrary. The point is you cannot convert 60% to 100%. If an event is somewhat likely, you cannot then say that it must have happened.

You are talking about proof and I;m talking about warrant, I didn't say convert 60% to 100% I said it;'s arbitrary. So it;s on or off, Either believe or don;t believe



Joe: I think that's wrong. Of course I wasn't being negative about historians since I am one, but historians work under a set of rules that arbitrarily purges history of miracles. As a theologian I accept Moltmann;s history making paradigm.It doesn't matter that the res is not historical that is ideological. It is also history making so we can accept it has a tenet of faith and observe that we remake the rules and the the facts argue for it.



PX: History is written - and preserved - by the winners, and that is definitely the case with Christianity. The gentile Christians survived, and naturally what we have today is the gentile gospels, for example. Texts from that era were only preserved if the church chose to make copies, and it only made copies of texts it felt were worth coping.

that is an old and ignorant saw that skeptics trade in it has no basis in fact, you can't support it with real docs,It's total BS since there are hundreds of documents from the first four centuries and plenty of Gnostic ms survived, most of those docs did not make it into the canon. There were also opposing orthodox factions, For example the Gospel of John was opposed but made it in.

PX: In the earliest centuries of Christianity, the church took steps to wipe out heresies, so what we have today is the one surviving view of Jesus as part of the trinity, but there were numerous other views at one time.

you have understanding of the canonical process,you are just repeating old tales from the skeptical camp. see my old docent from Doxa, this one of the first apologetic docs i wrote

the canonical process

Joe: that's naive is representation , the atheists deny it because they don't want God to be real; You stipulate a level of probability then wont examine the facts to see if it can measure up.



PX: But you actually said "The doctrine furnishes the basis for hope ... that offers a much more profound answer to any of questions about life and death". Believing for hope of something is wishful thinking, not evidential.

Belief is not wishful thinking, it's filling the gap in proof once confidence in a position is warranted

Joe:? Ironically Van Dealen is a skeptic. Many of those named are liberal. Your argent is unfair you are just makings kings x to deny evidence form the most qualified, moreover with no expedience dogmatically assert you know they are all biased,



PX: I am struggling to find much at all about DH Van Daalen, however, it looks like he also published a book called "A Guide to the Revelation" with SPCK, a Christian publisher, and also "The kingdom of God is like this". This review of the latter states he was a minister in the United Reformed Church in Harrington, Cumberland (now Cumbria) in the UK.

that doesn't prove he remained one.


Joe: that's no better than me saying all atheists are liars do you like that?



I am accusing them of bias - something you routinely do of atheists - not of lying.

everyone has bias. you are writing off all those the scholars alluded to in that quote for the surface reason of their faith which is your own bias and it's ignorant and anti intellectual
is Daalean a skeptic?

Joe: the source quoted calls him a skeptic

found here https://chab123.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/atheists-and-skeptics-weigh-on-the-death-and-resurrection-of-jesus/

Really? You just quoted a random blog, and assumed it was true because you wanted it to be true. I think that tells us a lot... It gives a good insight into how Luke, another self-professed historian, approached the Easter story. If he wanted it to be true, he repeated it without bothering to verify it.

Making an argent from analogy based pom gilt by association ,you reason like Skepie

You call it a random website its the only one I found that actually refers to the beliefs of the man directly,why don't you have a quote that says he's a Christian?
The Pixie said…
Joe: You are talking about proof and I;m talking about warrant, I didn't say convert 60% to 100% I said it;'s arbitrary. So it;s on or off, Either believe or don;t believe

Warrant just means it is something to rationalise your existing belief.

If something is quite likely, that is not warrant to believe it happened; the conclusion is that it is quite likely it happened.

Joe: that is an old and ignorant saw that skeptics trade in it has no basis in fact, you can't support it with real docs,It's total BS since there are hundreds of documents from the first four centuries and plenty of Gnostic ms survived, most of those docs did not make it into the canon. There were also opposing orthodox factions, For example the Gospel of John was opposed but made it in.

But we also know there are many documents that we do not have. The church chose to preserve some - surely you do not dispute that. Do you think they chose to preserve heretical works? Marcionism is a great example of a heresy for which we now have no texts, but plenty of texts arguing against it. The orthodox church chose not to preserve the original texts, but did chose to keep the counter arguments.

Joe: Belief is not wishful thinking, it's filling the gap in proof once confidence in a position is warranted

Believing because of what you hope for is indeed wishful thinking.

Joe: that doesn't prove he remained one.

Seriously? You still want to claim van Daalen is a skeptic? This is exactly what I mean by wishful thinking. You want van Daalen to be a skeptic, so you rationalise away any evidence to the contrary.

The quote by van Daalen - which seems to be his only claim to fame, and is all over the apologetics web-o-sphere - comes from his book, Real Resurrection, dated 1972. I have found a copy very cheap on line, so I have ordered it; I am intrigued to find out why this guy is considered such an authority.

Anyway, the review I linked to dates from 1980 (reviewing a book from 1976). So it turns out van Daalen was still an ordained minister AFTER he made that statement. You could have checked that for yourself; you had the link to the review, it only took a few minutes for me to do the rest. Rather than verify the facts, you preferred to assume the blog was was true. Wishful thinking.

Furthermore, as I said before, this shows exactly how things like the Empty Tomb and the Virgin Birth got into the gospels. People wanted them to be true. Just like you, they were were happy to just assume the source was good, rather than take five minutes checking the facts.

Joe: everyone has bias.

Of course.

Joe: you are writing off all those the scholars alluded to in that quote for the surface reason of their faith which is your own bias and it's ignorant and anti intellectual

And yet you have given a perfect demonstration of why those Christians scholars cannot be trusted. They want it to be true, so they just assume their sources are god if it aligns with what they want to hear, and when evidence comes to light to indicate otherwise, they find excuses to ignore it. Exactly as you have done here.

Joe: Making an argent from analogy based pom gilt by association ,you reason like Skepie

I am not saying they are wrong, but I am saying you have illustrated exactly why they are not reliable. Are you saying your reasons here are different in some way?

Joe: You call it a random website its the only one I found that actually refers to the beliefs of the man directly,why don't you have a quote that says he's a Christian?

I linked to a review in the Scottish Journal of Theology, from 1980 that states he was an ordained minister (it is a scan, so I cannot copy-and-paste the text). You think your random website is more authoritative than that?
The Pixie said...
Joe: You are talking about proof and I;m talking about warrant, I didn't say convert 60% to 100% I said it;'s arbitrary. So it;s on or off, Either believe or don;t believe

Warrant just means it is something to rationalise your existing belief.

warrant is areal term used by logicians and in debate,nice Skepie impersonation.



If something is quite likely, that is not warrant to believe it happened; the conclusion is that it is quite likely it happened.

Warrant is a logical step in making an argumnet, it;s the point at which evidene backs a proposition. all you are really saying that it's not proof, no it's not proof, it doesn't have to be. You don;t have to prove something for it's ascent to to be rational.All atheists slogans about belief being stupid and irrational because it's not proven are just ignorant.


Joe: that is an old and ignorant saw that skeptics trade in it has no basis in fact, you can't support it with real docs,It's total BS since there are hundreds of documents from the first four centuries and plenty of Gnostic ms survived, most of those docs did not make it into the canon. There were also opposing orthodox factions, For example the Gospel of John was opposed but made it in.

Px:But we also know there are many documents that we do not have. The church chose to preserve some - surely you do not dispute that.

How do you know what those docs are if we don't have them? While you assume we don;t have them because the Orthodox suppressed them how do you explain the fact of documents we don;t have that would have been orthodox? Not having a document is not proof it was suppressed.


Do you think they chose to preserve heretical works? Marcionism is a great example of a heresy for which we now have no texts, but plenty of texts arguing against it. The orthodox church chose not to preserve the original texts, but did chose to keep the counter arguments.

that is not proof that texts were destroyed by suppression



Joe: Belief is not wishful thinking, it's filling the gap in proof once confidence in a position is warranted

Believing because of what you hope for is indeed wishful thinking.

Belief is not predicated hope, hope is predicated upon the point of conversion,the thing that convinced you.

Joe: that doesn't prove he remained one.

Seriously? You still want to claim van Daalen is a skeptic? This is exactly what I mean by wishful thinking. You want van Daalen to be a skeptic, so you rationalize away any evidence to the contrary.

that is not an issue in this discussion it's totally irrelevant what he is, the point is your anti-intellectual refusal to consider facts then to pretend it's the other guy who is biased...btw you have no evidence to the contrary,

No believer can ever be a scholar they are always biased but atheists are never biased,


The quote by van Daalen - which seems to be his only claim to fame, and is all over the apologetics web-o-sphere - comes from his book, Real Resurrection, dated 1972. I have found a copy very cheap on line, so I have ordered it; I am intrigued to find out why this guy is considered such an authority.

I had never heard of him,I don't think he is a big authority

Anyway, the review I linked to dates from 1980 (reviewing a book from 1976). So it turns out van Daalen was still an ordained minister AFTER he made that statement. You could have checked that for yourself; you had the link to the review, it only took a few minutes for me to do the rest. Rather than verify the facts, you preferred to assume the blog was was true. Wishful thinking.


if he did fall away that is not proof that he was not a skeptic when the wrote book in 72, you are assuring it;was a pro apologist book. I would rather assume he is a Christian because the real issue is your anti intellectual refusal to accept believers as valid thinkers and scholars, that attitude indicts itself,nothing can ever count against your view if it does you just wont accept it,


Furthermore, as I said before, this shows exactly how things like the Empty Tomb and the Virgin Birth got into the gospels. People wanted them to be true. Just like you, they were were happy to just assume the source was good, rather than take five minutes checking the facts.

Your refusal to accept believing scholars proves you don't care aboiut the facts

Joe: everyone has bias.

Of course.

Joe: you are writing off all those the scholars alluded to in that quote for the surface reason of their faith which is your own bias and it's ignorant and anti intellectual

And yet you have given a perfect demonstration of why those Christians scholars cannot be trusted. They want it to be true, so they just assume their sources are god if it aligns with what they want to hear, and when evidence comes to light to indicate otherwise, they find excuses to ignore it. Exactly as you have done here.

You are building a big edifice for a philosophy of doubt based upon one simple point that is backed by the consensus of scholarship in the filed, you assume it;s evangelicals instead of real scholars because you can;t accept the facts, if they don't back your ideoloy,
The Pixie said…
Joe: warrant is areal term used by logicians and in debate

Sure, we are all familiar with the Toulmin method, but that uses warrant in quite a different sense. For Toulmin the warrant is the (usually) hidden background assumptions, things that we "know" are true, but should be made clear so others can check that that is so.

You use it for something that might only be plausibly true to support a belief you think is definitely true. Where is it used in that sense outside of apologetics?

Joe: Warrant is a logical step in making an argumnet, it;s the point at which evidene backs a proposition. all you are really saying that it's not proof, no it's not proof, it doesn't have to be. You don;t have to prove something for it's ascent to to be rational.All atheists slogans about belief being stupid and irrational because it's not proven are just ignorant.

What I am objective to is taking something that is of low probability, and then claiming your inference has high probability.

The reality is that if your argument is based on something with a probability, p, the conclusion cannot have a probability greater than p. You do not get to say that the resurrection is plausible, therefore you can invoke the magic of "warrant" and then declare it definitely happened.

Joe: How do you know what those docs are if we don't have them?

Because we do have the documents that responded to them, and in fact for Marcionism, we have almost enough quotes from the originals that we can reconstruct them.

Joe: While you assume we don;t have them because the Orthodox suppressed them how do you explain the fact of documents we don;t have that would have been orthodox? Not having a document is not proof it was suppressed.

So some slipped through the gaps. Compare to the number of orthodox manuscripts we have.

Pix: Do you think they chose to preserve heretical works? Marcionism is a great example of a heresy for which we now have no texts, but plenty of texts arguing against it. The orthodox church chose not to preserve the original texts, but did chose to keep the counter arguments.

Joe: that is not proof that texts were destroyed by suppression

Neither is it a claim that texts were destroyed by suppression. Now, read what I actually said, and address that.
The Pixie said…
Joe: that is not an issue in this discussion it's totally irrelevant what he is, the point is your anti-intellectual refusal to consider facts then to pretend it's the other guy who is biased...btw you have no evidence to the contrary,

Wow, you cannot just admit you made a mistake.

Joe: No believer can ever be a scholar they are always biased but atheists are never biased,

I do not believe that is quite true.

Joe: I had never heard of him,I don't think he is a big authority

Looks like the only thing he is remembered for is that one quote, popularised by Craig, and repeated across hundreds of apologetics web pages.

Joe: if he did fall away that is not proof that he was not a skeptic when the wrote book in 72, you are assuring it;was a pro apologist book. I would rather assume he is a Christian because the real issue is your anti intellectual refusal to accept believers as valid thinkers and scholars, that attitude indicts itself,nothing can ever count against your view if it does you just wont accept it,

The statement that he was an ordained minister was made in an academic article, eight years AFTER he published the book with the quote, and the article is about a book published in 1976, so presumably is van Daalen's status in 1976, just four years later. If he was a skeptic when he made the quote, then he converted to Christianity and became an ordained minister in a period of just four year between 1972 and 1976. It is possible, but very unlikely.

But I suppose that is "warrant" for you to think he was a skeptic.

Joe: Your refusal to accept believing scholars proves you don't care aboiut the facts

Where there is disagreement between scholars, we have to wonder why. One way to explain it is different ideologies. In fact, Habermas admits this is the case:

A second research area concerns those scholars who address the subject of the empty tomb. It has been said that the majority of contemporary researchers accepts the historicity of this event.[39] But is there any way to be more specific? From the study mentioned above, I have compiled 23 arguments for the empty tomb and 14 considerations against it, as cited by recent critical scholars. Generally, the listings are what might be expected, dividing along theological “party lines.” To be sure, such a large number of arguments, both pro and con, includes very specific differentiation, including some overlap.

Christians accept the empty tomb, non-Christians reject it. That makes it very hard to determine who is right.

When you present someone who is apparently a non-Christian saying it is pretty certain it did happen, that becomes quite convincing. When it turns out the guy was actually an ordained minister, and at that a scholar who is only notable for that single quote, his opinion becomes pretty much worthless.

Joe: You are building a big edifice for a philosophy of doubt based upon one simple point that is backed by the consensus of scholarship in the filed, you assume it;s evangelicals instead of real scholars because you can;t accept the facts, if they don't back your ideoloy,

And you are doing exactly the reverse - ignoring those who reject the empty tomb because they do not back your ideology.
Anonymous said…
Some more on van Daalen. He was born in Haarlem, Netherlands, in 1919, and spent some years as a Reformed minister in the Netherlands, then later a Presbyterian minster in England, eventually, in 1970, ending up in Cumbria, where it seems he remained until at least 1980, to judge from the article cited before (though that may just be repeating what it says in the author's biography on the book, as I am doing).

He was definitely a Christian minister when he wrote the book.

Another interesting fact is that he does not say what you claim! Here is your quote:

It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.

Compare to the last paragraph on page 41 (with the differences in bold):

Nevertheless it would be extremely difficult to object to the grave story on purely historical grounds. Even if we assumed that it served the purpose if checking an incipient grave cult, that would not explain how the story arose in the first place.

A Google search for "it is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds" gives 288 hits, compared to zero for the actual quote, which gives an insight into how Christians fail to verify facts. Clearly WL Craig has copied down the quote wrongly, and I imagine has added his own comment at the end, and then later mistakenly added that to the quote, and some 200 Christians, yourself included, have just assumed he got it right, and blindly repeated it.

I appreciate the meaning of the quote is not changed, but good scholarship does require that a quote be an exact copy of the original, not a paraphrase.

Pix
Joe: warrant is areal term used by logicians and in debate

Sure, we are all familiar with the Toulmin method, but that uses warrant in quite a different sense. For Toulmin the warrant is the (usually) hidden background assumptions, things that we "know" are true, but should be made clear so others can check that that is so.

yes but that can always be made explicit

You use it for something that might only be plausibly true to support a belief you think is definitely true. Where is it used in that sense outside of apologetics?

all argument is predicated upon warrant, warrant is the step before proof when you have the reason for believing,it's just a justification argument nothing fancy

Joe: Warrant is a logical step in making an argumnet, it;s the point at which evidene backs a proposition. all you are really saying that it's not proof, no it's not proof, it doesn't have to be. You don;t have to prove something for it's ascent to to be rational.All atheists slogans about belief being stupid and irrational because it's not proven are just ignorant.

What I am objective to is taking something that is of low probability, and then claiming your inference has high probability.

It's not o low probability it's what you have to supply in order to prove high probability it's the point where evidence justifies belief.


The reality is that if your argument is based on something with a probability, p, the conclusion cannot have a probability greater than p. You do not get to say that the resurrection is plausible, therefore you can invoke the magic of "warrant" and then declare it definitely happened.

Obviously it's not about saying it definitely happened it;s saying I have good reason to believe it definitely happened; If it was saying it definatley happened it would be proof



Joe: How do you know what those docs are if we don't have them?

Because we do have the documents that responded to them, and in fact for Marcionism, we have almost enough quotes from the originals that we can reconstruct them.


No we don't. you have that wrong, that's we have enough quotes from the new Testament canonical bools to reconstruct them not from heterodox books.That would not make sense

we have no heterodox books because they destroyed them all but we can reconstruct them through quotes how do you know what they were?


Joe: While you assume we don;t have them because the Orthodox suppressed them how do you explain the fact of documents we don;t have that would have been orthodox? Not having a document is not proof it was suppressed.

So some slipped through the gaps. Compare to the number of orthodox manuscripts we have.


that is ludicrous, you have not thought this through, there is not a set number of books that have to be produced so we have 10 heterodox and 44 orthodox that is not proof we would have 44 heterodox if they did suppress the, Heterodox comes after and takes time to produce more docs, we have hundreds of ms many of them heterodox,


PxDo you think they chose to preserve heretical works? Marcionism is a great example of a heresy for which we now have no texts, but plenty of texts arguing against it. The orthodox church chose not to preserve the original texts, but did chose to keep the counter arguments.

that does not prove not was widespread enough to produce more docents. In 17- 18th century England there was a mania for fighting atheism, rhetoricians used to charge that there was a vast atheist movement to frighten them so. but it was suppressed so it did not produce many documents. now historians have accepted they were paranoid. there was no big atheist movement,

joe that is not proof that texts were destroyed by suppression

Neither is it a claim that texts were destroyed by suppression. Now, read what I actually said, and address that.

that is what you said



3:00 AM
Joe: that is not an issue in this discussion it's totally irrelevant what he is, the point is your anti-intellectual refusal to consider facts then to pretend it's the other guy who is biased...btw you have no evidence to the contrary,

Wow, you cannot just admit you made a mistake.


I did not make a mistake, it was reason to infer he was a skeptic since I had source saying he was it was the first pick: wow you can;t admit yor anti intellectual bias


Joe: No believer can ever be a scholar they are always biased but atheists are never biased,

I do not believe that is quite true.

not quite hu? o wow:


Joe: I had never heard of him,I don't think he is a big authority

Looks like the only thing he is remembered for is that one quote, popularised by Craig, and repeated across hundreds of apologetics web pages.

Joe: if he did fall away that is not proof that he was not a skeptic when the wrote book in 72, you are assuring it;was a pro apologist book. I would rather assume he is a Christian because the real issue is your anti intellectual refusal to accept believers as valid thinkers and scholars, that attitude indicts itself,nothing can ever count against your view if it does you just wont accept it,

The statement that he was an ordained minister was made in an academic article, eight years AFTER he published the book with the quote, and the article is about a book published in 1976, so presumably is van Daalen's status in 1976, just four years later. If he was a skeptic when he made the quote, then he converted to Christianity and became an ordained minister in a period of just four year between 1972 and 1976. It is possible, but very unlikely.

But I suppose that is "warrant" for you to think he was a skeptic.

No I think it is more likely the guy who said he was skeptic was wrong, I shoud have dug more on who he was first, I still have two two responses on this issue:

(1) SCREW IT!

(2)SCREW IT! again


Joe: Your refusal to accept believing scholars proves you don't care aboiut the facts

truth be told I don;t really think you are like that

Where there is disagreement between scholars, we have to wonder why. One way to explain it is different ideologies. In fact, Habermas admits this is the case:

keep digging

A second research area concerns those scholars who address the subject of the empty tomb. It has been said that the majority of contemporary researchers accepts the historicity of this event.[39] But is there any way to be more specific? From the study mentioned above, I have compiled 23 arguments for the empty tomb and 14 considerations against it, as cited by recent critical scholars. Generally, the listings are what might be expected, dividing along theological “party lines.” To be sure, such a large number of arguments, both pro and con, includes very specific differentiation, including some overlap.

I agree. how many are really willing to sign on to the res and how many mean by :the event: just the empty tomb and don't say why its emote? I bet there is a stuody or a poll that would tell us

Christians accept the empty tomb, non-Christians reject it. That makes it very hard to determine who is right.

there are non christians who accept it but they don;t draw the same conclusions,

When you present someone who is apparently a non-Christian saying it is pretty certain it did happen, that becomes quite convincing. When it turns out the guy was actually an ordained minister, and at that a scholar who is only notable for that single quote, his opinion becomes pretty much worthless.

if you understood what liberal theologians are the fact that students of Baultann believe the res such as Kasemann that;s the same as unbelievers really.

Joe: You are building a big edifice for a philosophy of doubt based upon one simple point that is backed by the consensus of scholarship in the filed, you assume it;s evangelicals instead of real scholars because you can;t accept the facts, if they don't back your ideoloy,

And you are doing exactly the reverse - ignoring those who reject the empty tomb because they do not back your ideology.

No but that group includes a lot of different people with different rationales so I don;t have just one resonce

4/11/2019 02:1
Anonymous said…
Joe: all argument is predicated upon warrant, warrant is the step before proof when you have the reason for believing,it's just a justification argument nothing fancy

But how can you build an argument based on something that is "somewhat likely"? You say it is "the step before proof", how can it be a "proof" if the step before is merely "somewhat likely"?

This is virtually an admission of:

- the empty tomb is somewhat likely
- therefore we have rational warrant for the empty tomb
- that proves the tomb was empty

The last line is the proof, and the step before is your warrant, right?

Joe: It's not o low probability it's what you have to supply in order to prove high probability it's the point where evidence justifies belief.

Not sure what that means.

Joe: Obviously it's not about saying it definitely happened it;s saying I have good reason to believe it definitely happened; If it was saying it definatley happened it would be proof

Either you can say it definitely happened, and can do the next step to your proof, or you cannot say that.

Joe: No we don't. you have that wrong, that's we have enough quotes from the new Testament canonical bools to reconstruct them not from heterodox books.That would not make sense

From Wiki:

Marcionism was denounced by its opponents as heresy and written against – notably by Tertullian in a five-book treatise, Adversus Marcionem (Against Marcion), in about 208. Marcion's writings are lost, though they were widely read and numerous manuscripts must have existed. Even so, many scholars claim it is possible to reconstruct and deduce a large part of ancient Marcionism through what later critics, especially Tertullian, said concerning Marcion.

Joe: that is what you said

There is a difference between destroying a book and not preserving it. Orthodox texts were preserved by copying them. Heterodox texts were not copied, i.e., not preserved, so now are lost. No one had to burn them or whatever.

Joe: I did not make a mistake, it was reason to infer he was a skeptic since I had source saying he was it was the first pick: wow you can;t admit yor anti intellectual bias

That was a mistake. That your source got it wrong was the reason for your mistake, but it was still a mistake.

Joe: there are non christians who accept it but they don;t draw the same conclusions,

Is this like van Daalen, or are they really non-Christians?

Joe: if you understood what liberal theologians are the fact that students of Baultann believe the res such as Kasemann that;s the same as unbelievers really.

It REALLY is not.

Joe: No but that group includes a lot of different people with different rationales so I don;t have just one resonce

Different rationales, but the same underlying reason: faith.

Pix
Joe: all argument is predicated upon warrant, warrant is the step before proof when you have the reason for believing,it's just a justification argument nothing fancy


But how can you build an argument based on something that is "somewhat likely"? You say it is "the step before proof", how can it be a "proof" if the step before is merely "somewhat likely"?

You are making an arbitrary assertion that if it doesn't fit your arbitrary standard then it's only "somewhat" which is also your arbitrary standard,

This is virtually an admission of:

- the empty tomb is somewhat likely
- therefore we have rational warrant for the empty tomb
- that proves the tomb was empty

what is? you cant give me a historically based explanation so that makes my view pretty likely it's the one that fits the evidence,


again you make an arbitrary assertion of the importance of a X% level of probability to be deterred by you of course. A warrant is a a good reasom to believe I will decide for myself what I deem a good reason

The last line is the proof, and the step before is your warrant, right?

It is not proof it;s a good reason

Joe: It's not a low probability it's what you have to supply in order to prove high probability it's the point where evidence justifies belief.

Not sure what that means.

then why are you arguing about it?

Joe: Obviously it's not about saying it definitely happened it;s saying I have good reason to believe it definitely happened; If it was saying it definatley happened it would be proof

Either you can say it definitely happened, and can do the next step to your proof, or you cannot say that.

that is nonsense you are splitting hairs,




Joe: No we don't. you have that wrong, that's we have enough quotes from the new Testament canonical books to reconstruct them not from heterodox books.That would not make sense

From Wiki:

Marcionism was denounced by its opponents as heresy and written against – notably by Tertullian in a five-book treatise, Adversus Marcionem (Against Marcion), in about 208. Marcion's writings are lost, though they were widely read and numerous manuscripts must have existed. Even so, many scholars claim it is possible to reconstruct and deduce a large part of ancient Marcionism through what later critics, especially Tertullian, said concerning Marcion.


You are asserting that their absence proves they were rounded up and burned by the Orthodox, that quote says missing it does not say suppressed,their missing status may be just because they fell out of popularity,


Joe: that is what you said

There is a difference between destroying a book and not preserving it. Orthodox texts were preserved by copying them. Heterodox texts were not copied, i.e., not preserved, so now are lost. No one had to burn them or whatever.


No one stopped them from being copied, they were not copied because no one wanted to ,they were copied too the books at Nag Hammodi were copied,for a time




Joe: I did not make a mistake, it was reason to infer he was a skeptic since I had source saying he was it was the first pick: wow you can;t admit yor anti intellectual bias



Joe: if you understood what liberal theologians are the fact that students of Baultann believe the res such as Kasemann that;s the same as unbelievers really.

It REALLY is not.

because you don;t understand liberal theology. there are liberals who deny the resurrection,

Joe: No but that group includes a lot of different people with different rationales so I don;t have just one resonce

Different rationales, but the same underlying reason: faith.

wrong I was talking about the skeptics

Anonymous said…
Joe: You are making an arbitrary assertion that if it doesn't fit your arbitrary standard then it's only "somewhat" which is also your arbitrary standard,

"somewhat likely" is just a random example. My point is that if something - anything - is merely "somewhat likely", you cannot use "warrant" to pretend it is a fact. And that is what you appear to be doing.

Joe: what is? you cant give me a historically based explanation ...

The more historically-likely explanation is there was no honourable burial and no empty tomb. The Romans would not allow an honourable burial for a revel leader, for a claimant to the title "king of the Jews". Sure, Jesus was taken down off the cross by Joseph or Arimathea, but all the later events were made up as the story developed.

Joe: what is? you cant give me a historically based explanation so that makes my view pretty likely it's the one that fits the evidence,

But nevertheless, you cannot convert "pretty likely" to fact. At best your conclusion is "pretty likely".

Joe: again you make an arbitrary assertion of the importance of a X% level of probability to be deterred by you of course. A warrant is a a good reasom to believe I will decide for myself what I deem a good reason

Sure you will. You will say the empty tomb is "pretty likely", claim warrant, and then conclude the empty tomb was a fact.

That may fool other Christians, it may even fool yourself, but no one outside of Christianity will think you have an argument.

Joe: It is not proof it;s a good reason

But a reason for what? A reason to think it is a fact? Because if so, you are wrong.

Thinking something is "pretty likely" is only reason to believe it is "pretty likely".

Joe: that is nonsense you are splitting hairs,

Consider this:

X is pretty likely
If X, then Y
Therefore Y

Is it reasonable to conclude Y? No. We can only conclude Y is pretty likely. This is not splitting hair, this is logic, Joe.

Joe: You are asserting that their absence proves they were rounded up and burned by the Orthodox, that quote says missing it does not say suppressed,their missing status may be just because they fell out of popularity,

I specifically said they were not burned.

Joe: No one stopped them from being copied, they were not copied because no one wanted to ,they were copied too the books at Nag Hammodi were copied,for a time

Exactly. No one wanted to copy them, hence they were not preserved. Is this getting through at all?

Joe: because you don;t understand liberal theology. there are liberals who deny the resurrection,

Like who? In what sense are they still Christians?

Pix
you are just dogmatically insisting that warrant leas us with less than probable, that's not a good reason, warrant = good reason to believe,,if somewhat likely is not a good reason then it is not a warrant,


stop obfuscating, you are trying the old atheist ploy of meaning too rigid a burden of proof thus sweeping a lot of good evidence under the rug,

that;s nothing more than hypothetical carping about arguments you have not made,
Joe: No one stopped them from being copied, they were not copied because no one wanted to ,they were copied too the books at Nag Hammodi were copied,for a time

Exactly. No one wanted to copy them, hence they were not preserved. Is this getting through at all?

Joe: because you don;t understand liberal theology. there are liberals who deny the resurrection,

Like who? In what sense are they still Christians?

that's why they are liberals ,try to learn something
Joe: No one stopped them from being copied, they were not copied because no one wanted to ,they were copied too the books at Nag Hammodi were copied,for a time

Exactly. No one wanted to copy them, hence they were not preserved. Is this getting through at all?

you have atomically abandoned your original position
Anonymous said…
Joe: you are just dogmatically insisting that warrant leas us with less than probable, that's not a good reason, warrant = good reason to believe,,if somewhat likely is not a good reason then it is not a warrant,

I am saying you use "warrant" to hide that your supposed facts are uncertain, and that that uncertainty necessarily must be present in your conclusion.

All you can do is bluster about ideologies.

Joe: that's why they are liberals ,try to learn something

I am trying to learn why they are considered Christian when they reject the resurrection. You seem unable to tell me.

Joe: you have atomically abandoned your original position

Not at all.

4/09/2019 02:22:00 PM: History is written - and preserved - by the winners, and that is definitely the case with Christianity.

4/10/2019 12:17:00 AM: The church chose to preserve some - surely you do not dispute that. Do you think they chose to preserve heretical works?

Right from the start I said the church did not preserve them; I never said the church destroyed them. You misunderstood.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: you are just dogmatically insisting that warrant leas us with less than probable, that's not a good reason, warrant = good reason to believe,,if somewhat likely is not a good reason then it is not a warrant,

I am saying you use "warrant" to hide that your supposed facts are uncertain, and that that uncertainty necessarily must be present in your conclusion.

that's bull shit, you have to back that claim by showing they are uncertain,More importation discussion of warrant is a decision making paradigm it transcends the specifics of any particular argument, so you are attacking something you don't even understand,



All you can do is bluster about ideologies.


Identifying is the first step in not being taken in by them


Joe: that's why they are liberals ,try to learn something

I am trying to learn why they are considered Christian when they reject the resurrection. You seem unable to tell me.

they are re defining what Christianity is about, that;s why the fundamentals don;'t see them as Christian. The liberals are saying that the faith is about the essence of the faith not the literal claims and the fundies are saying no you have to stick with the literal claims,

Joe: you have atomically abandoned your original position

Not at all.


sure as hell did you started out saying the Orhodox burned the book then wound up saying they were dropped because they were unpopular


History is written - and preserved - by the winners, and that is definitely the case with Christianity.


so therefore Hitler was a great guy right? there was no Holocaust that;s what the winners said,

The church chose to preserve some - surely you do not dispute that. Do you think they chose to preserve heretical works?

why do you think the church was all powerful? there;s no way early Christianity had the power to wipe out every vestige of other view points. The church was persecuted until 321. they had almost 300 years to develop while Gnosticism had an equal shot at being Christian orthodoxy and the orthodox had no state power,

Right from the start I said the church did not preserve them; I never said the church destroyed them. You misunderstood.

why should they preserve something they don;t believe in?

4/13/2019 07:51:00 AM Delete
Anonymous said…
Joe: that's bull shit, you have to back that claim by showing they are uncertain,More importation discussion of warrant is a decision making paradigm it transcends the specifics of any particular argument, so you are attacking something you don't even understand,

No, Joe. If you make a claim, the burden of evidence is on YOU.

And you are not using it to make a decision, you are using it to make an uncertain claim appear to be certain.

Joe: Identifying is the first step in not being taken in by them

?

Joe: they are re defining what Christianity is about, that;s why the fundamentals don;'t see them as Christian. The liberals are saying that the faith is about the essence of the faith not the literal claims and the fundies are saying no you have to stick with the literal claims,

Okay. So can you name a couple of Christians who reject the resurrection?

Joe: sure as hell did you started out saying the Orhodox burned the book then wound up saying they were dropped because they were unpopular

You are just making this up. Go back and look. I said not preserved, I did not say destroyed.

Joe: so therefore Hitler was a great guy right? there was no Holocaust that;s what the winners said,

Are you aware the Nazis lost WW2?

Joe: why do you think the church was all powerful? there;s no way early Christianity had the power to wipe out every vestige of other view points. The church was persecuted until 321. they had almost 300 years to develop while Gnosticism had an equal shot at being Christian orthodoxy and the orthodox had no state power,

I am talking about once the church was powerful.

Joe: why should they preserve something they don;t believe in?

They would not. That is the point.

Pix
Joe: that's bull shit, you have to back that claim by showing they are uncertain,More importantly, discussion of warrant is a decision making paradigm it transcends the specifics of any particular argument, so you are attacking something you don't even understand,

PXNo, Joe. If you make a claim, the burden of evidence is on YOU.

That's the whole point Pix. as a decision making paradigm warrant says we don't have to prove it we just have to show good reason to believe it, of course that doesn't preclude disproving it.



PXAnd you are not using it to make a decision, you are using it to make an uncertain claim appear to be certain.

you are muddling the issues by asserting that if it is not proven then it must have weak probability or be less likely that is not the case. The evidence for the res is very strong but it can't be proven because we can't go back in time. But it;s strong enough we can assert the probability



Joe: Identifying [ideologies] is the first step in not being taken in by them

?
ideologies



Joe: they are re defining what Christianity is about, that;s why the fundamentals don;'t see them as Christian. The liberals are saying that the faith is about the essence of the faith not the literal claims and the fundies are saying no you have to stick with the literal claims,

PXOkay. So can you name a couple of Christians who reject the resurrection?


Rudolph Baultmann and Earnst Kasemann, mind you I don't agree with them, I call myself a liberal but not for that reason,


Joe: sure as hell did you started out saying the Orhodox burned the book then wound up saying they were dropped because they were unpopular

PXYou are just making this up. Go back and look. I said not preserved, I did not say destroyed.

for whatever reason i was under the impression that that was your idea

Joe: so therefore Hitler was a great guy right? there was no Holocaust that;s what the winners said,

PXAre you aware the Nazis lost WW2?


that;s my point, if history is written by the winners that means the winners ideas are imposed upon the losers,so then Hitler could have been a great guy we just say he was a monster because we won the winners say they losers followed a monster,get it? Of course I dont; believe that

I am saying you can't do history by making stupid assumptions about the historian's motivations,




Joe: why do you think the church was all powerful? there;s no way early Christianity had the power to wipe out every vestige of other view points. The church was persecuted until 321. they had almost 300 years to develop while Gnosticism had an equal shot at being Christian orthodoxy and the orthodox had no state power,

I am talking about once the church was powerful.


there are still vestiges of other view points. that kind of maverick history stuff is BS that;s like saying evolution is just s lie of Establishment science,

Joe: why should they preserve something they don;t believe in?

They would not. That is the point.

Pix

that;s doing history by asserting the mavericks have to be right,

4/13/2019 10:35:00 AM
Pix I just happened to notice this, you said

The better approach is to look at what is more like, and to acknowledge our uncertainty. If you can show the resurrection is 60% likely to have happened, then the conclusion is that it is quite like to have happened. It would, on the other hand, be wrong to conclude it definitely happened.

I agree with that I think that;s a pretty good comment, to it I said:

Joe: The evidence need only point to the fact that the belief tenet is still "in the running" as a possibility, not that it actually happened, although we believe, as Christians, that it did happen.


You took that to mean believe things with low probability that's not what I said,I wqs "Proof" is only for math and whisky, the fact can warrant belief
I don't say it effeminately happened I say I believe it definitely happened,as warranted by the evidence

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Scientifically Documented Miracles

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

The Meaning of the Manger