Proving The Resurrection By the "Minimal Facts" Approach

[Bradski]

I notice you didn’t cite a source.

Could you please do so?

And then we can chat.

w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html

Paragraph 51

As I intimated, the pope was referring to the conflict between what the church thought it knew then and what it knows, though scientific advances, now. That sounds entirely reasonable. But could obviously lead to all sorts of arguments.

For many hundreds of years, if not a couple of thousand, it was taught that we were the centre of the universe. That the world had been created by supernatural means and was a mere 6,000 years old. That there were only two humans from whom we are all descended. That there had been a global flood.

In all these cases, we can now discount supernatural means and ignore the fact that the Word of God wasn’t, at worst, correct and was, at best, interpreted incorrectly (although, we all know of Christians who cover their eyes and put their fingers in their ears when hearing this).

I’m pretty certain that if you asked the church a thousand years ago if what they were teaching was correct, they would have said it most certainly was. If you asked now if what they were teaching then was correct, then the obvious answer is that it wasn’t. The church now accepts that (some) supernatural events never took place. That what is written in the bible is not to be taken literally.

I think that’s accepted by everyone. No big deal. It just needs pointing out now and then.

But I expect you to appreciate that there is a certain amount of head scratching when someone say: ‘Talking snake? No way!’ But then accepts water into wine. Swallowed by a whale? Get out of here. But look how many were fed by just a few loaves. Animals two by two? Hell, just Sunday School stories. But the seas parted, the dead rose from their graves and 500 people saw the risen Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html

Paragraph 51

As I intimated, the pope was referring to the conflict between what the church thought it knew then and what it knows, though scientific advances, now. That sounds entirely reasonable. But could obviously lead to all sorts of arguments.

For many hundreds of years, if not a couple of thousand, it was taught that we were the centre of the universe. That the world had been created by supernatural means and was a mere 6,000 years old. That there were only two humans from whom we are all descended. That there had been a global flood.

In all these cases, we can now discount supernatural means and ignore the fact that the Word of God wasn’t, at worst, correct and was, at best, interpreted incorrectly (although, we all know of Christians who cover their eyes and put their fingers in their ears when hearing this).

I’m pretty certain that if you asked the church a thousand years ago if what they were teaching was correct, they would have said it most certainly was. If you asked now if what they were teaching then was correct, then the obvious answer is that it wasn’t. The church now accepts that (some) supernatural events never took place. That what is written in the bible is not to be taken literally.

I think that’s accepted by everyone. No big deal. It just needs pointing out now and then.

But I expect you to appreciate that there is a certain amount of head scratching when someone say: ‘Talking snake? No way!’ But then accepts water into wine. Swallowed by a whale? Get out of here. But look how many were fed by just a few loaves. Animals two by two? Hell, just Sunday School stories. But the seas parted, the dead rose from their graves and 500 people saw the risen Christ.

Now can you offer the document which indicates a contrary position?

And please cite your source, of course.

 

[Bradski]

Now can you offer the document which indicates a contrary position?

And please cite your source, of course.

Sorry? A document that says the church has never changed what it teaches? I don’t follow…

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry? A document that says the church has never changed what it teaches? I don’t follow…

This is what I originally posted:

You keep making references to the Church changing its teaching.

Is this a deliberate misunderstanding?

Because you’ve already been told, numerous times, that the Church has not changed its teachings.

At all.

So if you wish to pursue this, you’ll need to **give an example from the Church from the past, **and then an example of the Church presently, and where the change is.

Please cite your sources, of course.

So I presume that when you cited Pope Leo that this was an example of the bolded.

Now I’m asking for the latter.

 

[PRmerger]

For many hundreds of years, if not a couple of thousand, it was taught that we were the centre of the universe.

It was taught by whom?

By the Catholic Church?

If so, please cite the document, as well as the source.

That the world -]had been created by supernatural means and/-] was a mere 6,000 years old.

And who taught that the world was 6000 years old?

The Catholic Church?

If so, please cite the document and the source.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Fact 4: James, the skeptical brother of Jesus was suddenly converted.

We do not have as much information about James as we do about Jesus, but what we do know provides additional evidence for the resurrection of Jesus:

1. 
   *]James was skeptical of Jesus
   *]James saw the risen Jesus
   *]James became the leader of the early Church in Jerusalem.
   *]James was martyred for his faith.
   
   1. The brothers of Jesus did not believe in him.
   
   Mark 3:20-22
   20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family[a] heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
   
   John 7:4-6
   4 No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
   
   2. James saw the risen Jesus according to Paul.
   
   1 Corinthians 15:3-8
   3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
   
   3. In Acts 15, we learn that James became the leader of the Church in Jerusalem.
   
   4. Non-biblical accounts of the martyrdom of James.
   
   Josephus
   1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees,[23] who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.[24] Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest (Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, XX, 9).
   Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria and Hegesippus
   
   Eusebius recorded two accounts of the death of James which have otherwise been lost: that of Clement of Alexandria and Hegesippus.
   
   Clement of Alexandria (via Eusebius)
   
   ”But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: “For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Savior, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.” But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.” (Eusebius, History of the Church 2:1:3-4)
   
   (cont.)

1. 
   Randy, there are actually people who refer to James brother of Jesus as James the Less.

 

[pocaracas]

So, again, give an example of what you would expect a “godly rule” to look like.

Here: “”

That’s right…

I don’t know what this means.

Is this an analogy?

Are you able to cite analogies but not able to receive them?

If that was an analogy, it was a very poor one…
The relative difference between an ant and me would be infinitesimal compared with the difference between me and the god you guys claim to be “all-powerful, all-good”.
And yet… I care so much for how ants treat each other, don’t I?.. (NO)

Oh, dear.

I didn’t realize that I needed to start so far back at the beginning.

When we ask for a Church document, we mean something from the Magisterium.

Something that comes from the Church’s teaching authority–something from a Pope, in an official document. Or something from a Church council. Something from the bishops in union with the Vicar of Christ (that is, the Pope).

A good resource is this: papalencyclicals.net

Not a website that claims to summarize Church teaching.

right on it… sure…
something about purgatory, perhaps?

 

[pocaracas]

Again, Empiricism is great.
Empiricism is our friend.

Catholicism embraces empiricism.

It is only when you assert your dogma that “Empiricism is **all we have **to be as sure as we can about anything” that it gets foolish…

and self-refuting.

For it to be true, you would have to offer some…

Empirical Evidence…

to support your view.

What study shows this?

Please cite your sources, and make sure the study is peer-reviewed, reproducible, and is, well, empirical.

Methinks you’re mixing up concepts and coming up with something that’s not making sense to me, however much sense it makes to you.

A true statement, or a truth, is a statement that contains an accurate description of reality, or as accurate as possible to the person uttering (or writing) such statement, or is an accurate reasoning out of some basic premises (using logic and all that shebang).
Hence, such a statement need not be empirically evidenced for it to be true.
However, for any statement concerning the reality of the world, of the Universe and beyond(?), to be considered true, it must be put to the empirical test and pass.

I gave the example of Einstein’s relativity - it looked accurate enough on paper, but it was only after the test that it gained the traction it needed.
Same for Quantum mechanics, same for semiconductors, same for anything…

The god claim does not seem to be one that can be put to such a test, hence… it remains a claim, it remains unbelievable.
It would be less unbelievable if there were miracles, as we’ve established earlier, right?
But all claims of miracles also appear unbelievable, with too many unaccounted for factors (some unaccountable with present-day technology), or just some old records with not enough credibility (given how often similar records would sprout in the world only to be considered false by some, while true by others).
I asked you for a good one, you presented me with such an old unbelievable one… so I remain not believing it, not accepting it as true…
I see no evidence that miracles are representative of reality, hence, no evidence that god is real.

 

[pocaracas]

Deadly serious.

The Catechism says that the body and soul share equally in dignity.

That’s pretty clear.

You don’t see that?

I must be reading it wrong…
““soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him”

What does “greatest value” mean?

 

[pocaracas]

Fair enough.

Islam claims that he was fake-crucified.

You’re saying that the entire thing was a myth. None of it happened.

Is that still your story, that you’re sticking to?

“the entire thing was a myth”? the things I say…

 

[pocaracas]

Your citation doesn’t talk about ‘heresy’, but only about ‘authoritative’ (and apostolic!) teaching.

And whatever was not ‘authoritative’ teaching… was what?

We were talking about the Gospels, weren’t we?

Indeed we were…
oh well… ok.

But it is a fact that some non-gospel books in the NT were not immediately found to be canonical.

It may. The argument doesn’t hold up well, though, for a variety of reasons (one of which is that Essenes lived in communities and Jesus was an itinerant preacher)…

And the Essenes only allowed people over 36 to become leaders of a community… perhaps Jesus was a bit impatient and wanted to start another community, before he was of the right age, so he had to go elsewhere… Jerusalem seems to have been vacant of Essenes (because of the sparks between these and the Pharisees which were in charge of the religiosity of the city).
Well, guess what happened? sparks and the minority view got squashed.

Nope. Merely that the Jews there would have understood the reference.

I can’t remember the name of the group that had that view I mentioned, but it could have been a less jewish group.
The jewish groups would have gotten the reference… the others… gentiles(?) could have not gotten it.

 

[PRmerger]

Here: “”

That’s right…

Egg-zactly.

So your comment was absolutely inutile about a religious rule sounding man-made.

If that was an analogy, it was a very poor one…
The relative difference between an ant and me would be infinitesimal compared with the difference between me and the god you guys claim to be “all-powerful, all-good”.
And yet… I care so much for how ants treat each other, don’t I?.. (NO)

Would you call it a comparison then?

right on it… sure…
something about purgatory, perhaps?

Let’s see what you got.

You need to show the “old” teaching on purgatory. With documentation.

And then the “new” teaching on purgatory. With documentation.

And, if it’s not that clear to us, please limn where you think the change in teaching is.

 

[PRmerger]

Methinks you’re mixing up concepts and coming up with something that’s not making sense to me, however much sense it makes to you.

Ok.

A true statement, or a truth, is a statement that contains an accurate description of reality, or as accurate as possible to the person uttering (or writing) such statement, or is an accurate reasoning out of some basic premises (using logic and all that shebang).

You are correct.

Hence, such a statement need not be empirically evidenced for it to be true.

Yes!

So Empiricism Only cannot be true.

QED

However, for any statement concerning the reality of the world, of the Universe and beyond(?), to be considered true, it must be put to the empirical test and pass.

Can you put this statement to the empirical test and pass then?

 

[PRmerger]

I must be reading it wrong…
““soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him”

What does “greatest value” mean?

You were so fair to include the next paragraph in your citation on the Catechism.

But look at it again.

Paragraph 364.

CCC
“”
363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

The human body shares in the dignity.

That means…it has equal dignity with the soul.

Now, I’m going to try a…er, comparison here and see if you can make a connection.

A mother has the greatest value in raising a child.
The father shares in this value.

Do you see one being pitted against the other in those statements?

It seems to me that I’m saying that they…share…and that means they are equally valuable.

 

[PRmerger]

“the entire thing was a myth”? the things I say…

Fair enough.

Can you comment, then, on what you meant here:

Someone whose death was a retelling of an old psalm?

It certainly sounds like you’re saying that a story was made up (that is, a myth was created) that was a re-telling of an old psalm.

No? That’s not what you meant?

Please clarify then. Thanks!

 

[Peter_Plato]

Hence, such a statement need not be empirically evidenced for it to be true.
However, for any statement concerning the reality of the world, of the Universe and **beyond(?), **to be considered true, it must be put to the empirical test and pass.

Well, no poca, you cannot just slip in the word “beyond(?)” and expect it to go unnoticed.

A proper and logically true restatement of your proposition would be as follows:

Hence, such a statement need not be empirically evidenced for it to be true, [in an absolute sense.]
However, for any statement concerning the [empirically accessible] reality of the world, of the Universe and **beyond(?), **to be considered [empirically] true, it must be put to the empirical test and pass.

 

[pocaracas]

Egg-zactly.

So your comment was absolutely inutile about a religious rule sounding man-made.

hehe… they all sound man-made!
But a few are more obvious.

Would you call it a comparison then?

perhaps…

################

Can you put this statement to the empirical test and pass then?

-.-’

Does the statement refer to something “of the world, of the Universe and beyond”?

#############

You were so fair to include the next paragraph in your citation on the Catechism.

But look at it again.

Paragraph 364.

The human body shares in the dignity.

That means…it has equal dignity with the soul.

Now, I’m going to try a…er, comparison here and see if you can make a connection.

A mother has the greatest value in raising a child.
The father shares in this value.

Do you see one being pitted against the other in those statements?

It seems to me that I’m saying that they…share…and that means they are equally valuable.

I honestly didn’t understand your …er, comparison.
What does it mean for “a mother to have the greatest value in raising a child”?

To my view, if something has the greatest value, then nothing else has a greater, nor equal value.
It’s called the “superlative”. Check it out.

###############

Fair enough.

Can you comment, then, on what you meant here:

pocaracas:

Someone whose death was a retelling of an old psalm?

It certainly sounds like you’re saying that a story was made up (that is, a myth was created) that was a re-telling of an old psalm.

No? That’s not what you meant?

Please clarify then. Thanks!

It certainly seems like I’m saying that the crucifixion was a retelling of that old pslam… not the whole thing.

 

[PRmerger]

hehe… they all sound man-made!
But a few are more obvious.

So here’s another, er, “comparison”.

You say, “All of these coins look like counterfeit!”
We say, "How do you know?

Your statement presumes that you know what a real coin looks like, so you can then assert, “I’ve seen a real coin, so I know what a fake one looks like”.

But it turns out, you have never actually seen a real coin, so you wouldn’t know a real one from a fake one, right?

Does the statement refer to something “of the world, of the Universe and beyond”?

Yes. Yes, it does.

So you have some sort of empirical test you can show us to tell us that your statement is true and accurately reflects reality?

(I can assure you, before you even try to google “empirical tests which show that empiricism is the only thing that accurately reflects reality” that you’re going to find NOT A SINGLE TEST.)

So, you fail in your own paradigm.

You believe something without any empirical evidence to back it up.

I honestly didn’t understand your …er, comparison.
What does it mean for “a mother to have the greatest value in raising a child”?

To my view, if something has the greatest value, then nothing else has a greater, nor equal value.
It’s called the “superlative”. Check it out.

2 things can have the the same quality.

It’s called “sharing”. Check it out.

http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/468914975-200x300.jpg

It certainly seems like I’m saying that the crucifixion was a retelling of that old pslam… not the whole thing.

So…a myth?

 

[PRmerger]

Would you call it a comparison then?

perhaps…

Ah. So I think I see where your confusion lies.

An analogy and a comparison are…

the same thing.

For some weird reason you seem to understand it a little bit better when I use “comparisons” but when it’s called an “analogy” you get all



analogy
[uh-nal-uh-jee]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Word Origin
noun, plural analogies.
1.
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a **comparison **may be based:
the analogy between the heart and a pump.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy

Do you see how a heart and a pump are analogous, poca? We make a…COMPARISON between the two?

 

[pocaracas]

Well, no poca, you cannot just slip in the word “beyond(?)” and expect it to go unnoticed.

A proper and logically true restatement of your proposition would be as follows:

Hence, such a statement need not be empirically evidenced for it to be true, [in an absolute sense.]
However, for any statement concerning the [empirically accessible] reality of the world, of the Universe and **beyond(?), **to be considered [empirically] true, it must be put to the empirical test and pass.

LOL.
What is Real? How do you define Real?