Flying Spaghetti monster

[Tantum_ergo]

But Tor, you’re changing the subject, aren’t you?

You said:

You don’t sound very convinced yourself. Do you wish to make a positive claim that one or several of the gospel writers are identified with the apostles, and is there any evidence to back this up?

I not only showed that ‘several of the gospel writers’ are identified with the apostles, I gave you evidence – documents from the Church.

That evidence is both the written gospels themselves and the oral tradition of the Church. (By definition, ‘oral tradition’ would not be ‘written down’ as it would pass ‘orally’.) At some point, though, the Church ‘wrote down’ various ‘oral traditions’ while being careful not to enter them into ‘Written Tradition’ (which is Scripture). We were guided by the Spirit as to what written evidence (word of God) was to be considered as “Inspired and inerrant Word of God”, but that doesn’t mean that the oral traditions and teachings were not just as important. After all, Christ established a teaching Church–and for the first 3 centuries, the main way that Church functioned was through Oral teaching and preaching. . .both of written teaching/ Scripture, other written teaching (Non inspired, such as the Didache, but not conflicting with written/oral teaching), noninspired written or oral teaching which did not conflict, etc.

At times, individuals attempted to present noninspired written or oral teaching as ‘inspired’. When this happened, the leaders of the Church ‘corrected’ the wrong teachings (St. Paul does this often) as quickly (for the time) as it could. Even so, as is always the case, people had ‘free will’ to accept this ‘correction’ or to continue in error.

The oral tradition, as Pope Benedict points out, along with written tradition, places St. Matthew as the author of the Gospel of Matthew.

Now apparently you don’t accept this as ‘evidence.’

Why not?

And just exactly what evidence WOULD you accept–and why?

 

[SFTor]

But Tor, you’re changing the subject, aren’t you?

You said:

I not only showed that ‘several of the gospel writers’ are identified with the apostles, I gave you evidence – documents from the Church.

That evidence is both the written gospels themselves and the oral tradition of the Church. (By definition, ‘oral tradition’ would not be ‘written down’ as it would pass ‘orally’.) At some point, though, the Church ‘wrote down’ various ‘oral traditions’ while being careful not to enter them into ‘Written Tradition’ (which is Scripture). We were guided by the Spirit as to what written evidence (word of God) was to be considered as “Inspired and inerrant Word of God”, but that doesn’t mean that the oral traditions and teachings were not just as important. After all, Christ established a teaching Church–and for the first 3 centuries, the main way that Church functioned was through Oral teaching and preaching. . .both of written teaching/ Scripture, other written teaching (Non inspired, such as the Didache, but not conflicting with written/oral teaching), noninspired written or oral teaching which did not conflict, etc.

At times, individuals attempted to present noninspired written or oral teaching as ‘inspired’. When this happened, the leaders of the Church ‘corrected’ the wrong teachings (St. Paul does this often) as quickly (for the time) as it could. Even so, as is always the case, people had ‘free will’ to accept this ‘correction’ or to continue in error.

The oral tradition, as Pope Benedict points out, along with written tradition, places St. Matthew as the author of the Gospel of Matthew.

Now apparently you don’t accept this as ‘evidence.’

Why not?

And just exactly what evidence WOULD you accept–and why?

Why do I not consider the Church’s teachings on the topic as “evidence?” It is possible that the Church has evidence, but none is presented in the passage you quote. The passage is actually rather ambiguous. You are also speaking of an “oral tradition,” which would be the very definition of hearsay.

So you are stating unequivocally that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Gospel According To Matthew?

If that is the case, I wonder why he borrowed so heavily from Mark (90% or thereabouts)? I mean, if he was there himself to see what happened I would expect his words to be his, not a regurgitation of someone else’s work.

My understanding is that the Gospel according to Matthew is attributed to the tax collector Levi, who is mentioned in the text (Matthew 9:9.) It is generally dated to 65–70 CE.

Best,

Tor

 

[CentralFLJames]

It seems to me the witnesses to the physical resurrection were the angel who rolled away the stone and confronted the Roman guards and the guards themselves. This is why I am amazed that there is no seperate historical accounting in the Roman historical archive showing what the fate of the guards were. Surely at least some were found, interviewed and punished if not executed for failing to guard the tomb.

Such a pity that Josephus did not write something about the fate of the tomb guards.

Also the Jews might have some oral traditions or written record attesting to what the Jewish guards saw. Here I expect that there is a strong motive for a cover up - but it would not surprise me if there is not still some protected/withheld evidence somewhere in the Jewish records. After all the Sanhedrin who tried Jesus must have kept legal records of at least the trial and I would expect other official sanctions and actions (perhaps sending a guard detail to guard the tomb).

I have read info on one Jewish Kabbalistic oriented site a year or so ago that sometime after the resurrection that all accounts of Jesus name were stricken or obscured from all Jewish written texts. In some cases various unflattering euphamisms for somone worthy of damnation and shame were substituted in place of his name.

I really think our Jewish friends must still be in possession of vitally important evidence and are holding back historical period data from public knowledge out of national interest. What a pity if so. Of course many Jewish records were likely lost in 70AD when Jerusalem was sacked and the temple destroyed. But the Jewish oral traditions still exist and I just wonder if there are some elect few who are entrusted to more information who know more about the Jewish side of what really happened. In the interest of common good it should be a crime against humanity for any country or private individual to hold back any evidence of this period that could lend more credibility to the accounts or even cast new suspicions. Given the deafening silence and the past adverse historical sentiments it is apparent that there are no hidden negative records - but I really wonder about more positive evidence.

We could sure use the testimony of the tomb guard details - Roman AND Jewish. What happened to these men and their property and their families? Why do we hear nothing more about these men?

Anyone know if the Vatican or any organization has ever made a formal request for historical information from the Jewish archives and private collection for historical records relating to Jesus crucifixion?

James

 

[nuntym]

Firstly I should say that I am a Catholic however I have been having trouble with this question:

Why should someone believe Jesus rose from the grave? (Please do not give reasons such as the disciples held that what they saw was true even during martyrdom)

How does this differ from the reason that one should not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Richard Dawking’s invention) or invisible unicorns?

I don’t want empirical justification, just a solid reason.
My question is why faith?

One answer which I think found reasonable was that although humans can understand some truth the human mind is limited.

My next question why believe Christ rose from the dead?

The only reason provided was the testimony of the martyrs.

I think this is inadequate because (though I do not believe this) they could have been lying, deluded or brainwashed.

I see you are not adverse to reading quite long books. Well, can I suggest G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, followed by The Everlasting man?

Don’t worry, although they are long (The Everlasting Man especially) they are VERY good reads (especially Orthodoxy)

I recommend these books because (1) Orthodoxy makes the bold claim that Christianity is all about sound, common sense, and (2) The Everlasting Man makes the ludicrous claim that history (and prehistory) affirms the divinity of man and the divinity of Christ.

 

[SFTor]

Lion:

I am not concerned whether a scientist or scholar is an atheist, as long as he or she is honest.

To impugn Bible scholars who do not agree with your point of view based on their religion is bigotry. And nobody gets to discredit people out of hand simply because you disagree with them.

 

[Spirithound]

sorry but u and ambrose have the weakest argument.
just because people are willing to die for their OPINIONS,
does not make it true.

right now, that’s happening everday in the middle east and africa.

there have been martyrs in many religions.

Got any proof that Islam or every other religion for that matter had no eyewitness martyrs to miracles?

The only reason provided was the testimony of the martyrs.

I think this is inadequate because (though I do not believe this) they could have been lying, deluded or brainwashed.

Part of the circumstances to the Apostles’ martyrdoms consistently is overlooked. It is this: their testimony is qualitatively different from mine in that I am not an eyewitness. I do not have the means to know FIRSTHAND what happened. The Apostles SAW Jesus die, then they SAW Him glorified. Would I be willing to die for Jesus, here in 2008? Well, hopefully…let’s not test it though…
The Apostles SAW, and they KNEW, and they were STILL willing to die.
Thus, they weren’t lying.

Were they brainwashed? By who? Even if just ONE of them was willing to die for what they KNEW was a lie, that would be remarkable.

Were they deluded? Here’s what went down. A dozen people set out in a bunch of different directions. They started out with the same story, and years later, they were all still, independent of each other, preaching the same story. They weren’t deluded.

 

[Nickkname]

Firstly I should say that I am a Catholic however I have been having trouble with this question:

Why should someone believe Jesus rose from the grave? (Please do not give reasons such as the disciples held that what they saw was true even during martyrdom)

How does this differ from the reason that one should not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Richard Dawking’s invention) or invisible unicorns?

You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about, so I’m going to refrain from answering your questions, because you wouldn’t understand the answers, seeing as you fail to have an understanding of both history and pop culture.

 

[Spirithound]

Besides don’t extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

Not a priori. If I told you it was 30 degrees Celsius last night, and it downpoured, and it was so hot I went outside and danced in the rain, that would certainly be a chain of events out of the ordinary, wouldn’t it? No? Well, we must have different definitions of “extraordinary”.

An article from This Rock addresses this fallacy.

 

[SFTor]

Not a priori. If I told you it was 30 degrees Celsius last night, and it downpoured, and it was so hot I went outside and danced in the rain, that would certainly be a chain of events out of the ordinary, wouldn’t it? No? Well, we must have different definitions of “extraordinary”.

An article from This Rock addresses this fallacy.

Spirithound,

I don’t know how this is a reasoned response to the question. There is nothing in human experience that prevents you from doing this.

Rising from the dead is extraordinary on a whole different level.

Best,

Tor

 

[Spirithound]

Spirithound,

I don’t know how this is a reasoned response to the question. There is nothing in human experience that prevents you from doing this.

Rising from the dead is extraordinary on a whole different level.

Allo Tor
I disagree! There are numerous reports of saints raising people from the dead. On the other hand, I’ve only ever gone outside specifically to be in the rain maybe 3, 4, or 5 times.

So have you read the article? It attacks the phrase “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” as an ambiguous claim. At most, it says “Events out of the ordinary require overwhelming evidence”. Doesn’t quite pack the same punch, does it? But anyways, the article, (along with at least one other poster on this thread) ask the question “Which level?” CS Lewis wrote about “Obstinacy in belief” (in an essay of the same title). It seems that my “threshold of overwhelming evidence” is lower than yours, for example. If you’re biased against the supernatural, then there’s not much we can do, since you’ll just dismiss all our evidence.

Back to “Dying for a lie”. Would I be willing to die for holding to “me dancing in the rain last night” ? No, definitely not…the event happened a few months ago. Would I have been willing at that point? No, probably not. Even though it’s the truth, it’s not a real important truth.
Contrast the Apostles. Could the “lie” of Jesus Christ be worth dying for? (And if indeed Jesus didn’t rise, the apostles were lying). Were the lives of those dozen or so people so wonderful from the time of the “resurrection” until their deaths, that it would somehow counterbalance their deaths? I think not. Paul was stoned on at least one occasion. At any time, he could have just gone back to tent-making. Probably a really good trade.

Have you read Lee Strobel’s “Case for Christ” ?

 

[Philthy]

Why do I not consider the Church’s teachings on the topic as “evidence?” …
Best,

Tor

You never answered the more important question:
Tantum ergo:

And just exactly what evidence WOULD you accept–and why?

 

[Pete_1]

To take a different approach, Pete_, you’re sig negates your OP. Richard Dawkins is most definitely not a credible source when it comes to theology; therefore, by your own recommendation, why should we listen to you?

– Mark L. Chance.

Because I was asking a question not giving an answer.

 

[Pete_1]

I see you are not adverse to reading quite long books. Well, can I suggest G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, followed by The Everlasting man?

Don’t worry, although they are long (The Everlasting Man especially) they are VERY good reads (especially Orthodoxy)

I recommend these books because (1) Orthodoxy makes the bold claim that Christianity is all about sound, common sense, and (2) The Everlasting Man makes the ludicrous claim that history (and prehistory) affirms the divinity of man and the divinity of Christ.

Thanks.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Besides don’t extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

I don’t think this statement scales in the general sense.

It’s easy to come up with exceptions that will all eventually beg the questions “just what is evidence?” Inherent in this statement is an assumption of physical evidence - a type of evidence of the variety that is somewhat universally discernible through the senses and stimulus response.

But what of an extraordinary phenomena of mass interior revelation through inner locution where the senses are completely bypassed (at least externally) and driven internally to stimulate the cerebral functions - imagery? What evidence is there other than oral testimony and the character or credibility of the witnesses?

So, given the above exception I have proven through perhaps a hypothetical condition (that are alleged to have happened in various times and places - e.g. The Fatima Sun Dance Phenomena) an exception that breaks the rule.

QED
The assertion is false in the general case.

Followup hypothesis:
In the super-extraordinary case (observe how we already get into degrees of extraordinary) I present that it would be most improbable that such a concept as “extraordinary evidence” could exist since this conjecture of concept necessitates and creates an impossible and orthogonal dichotomy of semantics between the “ordinary” nature of traditional “evidence” (usually physical) and the unknown extraordinary nature of extraordinary evidence; the latter being a new super-type of evidence never before witnessed (again implying sensory perception). But an "extraordinary “type” of evidence would not likely exist in the ordinary conditions of time and space or be so rare that it would not long persist in time and space. Thus by definition “extraordinary evidence” would take on dimensions of “other worldliness”. It would have to be of alien physical or meta-physical nature or manifestation that is not likely to be even fully observable through “ordinary” sensory means and quite possibly wholely or partly outside of time and space.

QED II
If extraordinary evidence exists Jesus had to be it; was it; is it and shall be it. The extraordinary evidence of the intergenerational “cause and effect” chained relationship He had on the physical world and its creatures and how that relationship was mirrored and witnessed both through physical phenomena (miracles) and through human witness, written prophecy and history is strong. But at this time this is not universally accepted as “extraordinary evidence”.

**The bottom line for those still not convinced becomes:
“What is Truth”?

To which I say: “Life, and the utter rarity of life in the inconceivably large Cosmos.”

That is extraordinary enough for me. **

James

 

[nuntym]

Thanks.

You’re welcome Pete I have to admit, these books placed me right back into the love of God and His Church.

 

[notacat]

I am not saying it is impossible but it is very likely that Dawkins wrote the book, based on the assumption that reason gives correct answers and the assumption of humanities inability to cover up huge conspiracies

Pete, when you begin to understand that the Bible was written by 40 authors over a long period of time you realize that no men could coordinate all that. If it’s not inspired by God, who wrote it?

Does Dawking’s book contain fulfilled prophecies? Many people have tried unsuccessfully to prove the Book of Daniel was written later than it was because of the accuracy of the prophecies in it. That led to Daniel being one of the most authenticated books of the Old Testament.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I must assume that reason is capable of knowing the truth in order to make sense of the world. I must also assume I am not constantly hallucinating in order to make sense of the world.

Therefore it is only rational to assume Richard Dawkins exists. As I have seen his body and heard him speak.

Try proving the existence of Richard Dawkins in 2000 years, when all we have is your statement “I have seen his body and heard him speak.”.

The Apostles say nothing different about Jesus Christ.

That is, if you believe Dawkins ideas and self will be important enough to be remembered that long…Dawkins who???

(And, by your standards of “knowing”, you should also question the existence of Socrates.)

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Lion:

I am not concerned whether a scientist or scholar is an atheist, as long as he or she is honest.

Response: Are you as unconcerned if the scientist or scholar is a believer as long as he is honest?

To impugn Bible scholars who do not agree with your point of view based on their religion is bigotry. And nobody gets to discredit people out of hand simply because you disagree with them.

Response: I think there is enough evidence that many particular “scholars” allow their pre-existent bias to color their conclusions, to accept, reject, even distort data to fit their conclusions–this is not bigotry to state this fact about human nature.

 

[SFTor]

Allo Tor
I disagree! There are numerous reports of saints raising people from the dead. On the other hand, I’ve only ever gone outside specifically to be in the rain maybe 3, 4, or 5 times.

So have you read the article? It attacks the phrase “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” as an ambiguous claim. At most, it says “Events out of the ordinary require overwhelming evidence”. Doesn’t quite pack the same punch, does it? But anyways, the article, (along with at least one other poster on this thread) ask the question “Which level?” CS Lewis wrote about “Obstinacy in belief” (in an essay of the same title). It seems that my “threshold of overwhelming evidence” is lower than yours, for example. If you’re biased against the supernatural, then there’s not much we can do, since you’ll just dismiss all our evidence.

Back to “Dying for a lie”. Would I be willing to die for holding to “me dancing in the rain last night” ? No, definitely not…the event happened a few months ago. Would I have been willing at that point? No, probably not. Even though it’s the truth, it’s not a real important truth.
Contrast the Apostles. Could the “lie” of Jesus Christ be worth dying for? (And if indeed Jesus didn’t rise, the apostles were lying). Were the lives of those dozen or so people so wonderful from the time of the “resurrection” until their deaths, that it would somehow counterbalance their deaths? I think not. Paul was stoned on at least one occasion. At any time, he could have just gone back to tent-making. Probably a really good trade.

Have you read Lee Strobel’s “Case for Christ” ?

Spirithound:

You’re right. I am very skeptical of supernatural claims, especially when they come out of a time as rife with superstition as the Near East of Antiquity. The whole area was crawling with gods, angels, and demons. Above, at, and below ground, as a matter of fact.

As far as people dying for their faith: this is commonly observed behavior even today, and the ones doing it now certainly were not eyewitnesses to anything.

I have not read “Case for Christ,” and I’ve never made a tent. Is that bad?

T

 

[SFTor]

Lion_of_Narnia:
Lion:

I routinely heed scientific work by scientists who are Christian believers.

The more I read about early Christianity, the more it seems clouded in the so-called oral tradition, and the massive superstition that was a hallmark of the times.