Proving The Resurrection By the "Minimal Facts" Approach

[PRmerger]

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

Umm…how about this definition?

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).

How odd that you would pretend not to know what is Real, yet, just a few posts prior you gave a definition of what’s Real.

#peculiar

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

That which is.

Edit: We have DIRECT access to that which is through our very act of existing, itself.

Therefore, INDIRECT or “objective” access of reality through experience cannot be the sole source of our knowledge concerning what is real –*i.e., being or existence, itself.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

Clearly, that to which we do have empirical access is not the entirety of reality.

1. It certainly hasn’t been shown to be, and
2. given that the part of reality to which we do have empirical access doesn’t itself explain our empirical access itself – nor
3. does it fully explain all of the reality to which we do have empirical access –

Therefore, we have every reason to believe reality is not merely constrained to that which we do have empirical access.

Now, if you can understand all of the above, you can explain it back to me and I’ll let you know if I have made any sense at all.

 

[pocaracas]

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?

More like: all coins I’ve found are false. This one is just like the others, hence it’s false.

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?

Does it reflect something that exists in reality? Or some aspect of reality?
Or does it refer to statements about reality?

2 things can have the the same quality.

It’s called “sharing”. Check it out.

A jpeg? not a GIF? pffff

As I read it… the thing being shared is the dignity, not the value.

So…a myth?

Could have been, yes.

That some people wrote “independently” about a story that was spreading should not come as a surprise.
How that story appeared…well… you said it yourself: people were very aware of the psalms.
The Essene education would give him the notion that he could resurrect and he would have passed it on to his audience.
The audience then built the tale, making sure he dies and, necessarily, resurrects.
The tale spreads and some people write it down.

 

[PRmerger]

More like: all coins I’ve found are false. This one is just like the others, hence it’s false.

Again, you have to know what a real one looks like to know that something is false.

Surely you get that, right?

Imagine there’s an alien and give him a coin and say, “Is this real or false?”

he’s going to say…“Heck if I know! I’ve never seen one of your real coins. Show me a real one, and then I’ll tell you what’s false as I compare it to that.”

Does it reflect something that exists in reality? Or some aspect of reality?
Or does it refer to statements about reality?

All of the above.

Every assertion that is posited as being true is a statement about reality, of course.

Now, since your assertion cannot be backed up by empiricism, it turns out that you’re not even following your own dogma.

As I read it… the thing being shared is the dignity, not the value.

Yep.

So it’s equal in dignity.

Could have been, yes.

So, again, that puts you in the…

fringe minority of folks who don’t even believe that the man named Jesus was nailed to a tree.

 

[pocaracas]

How odd that you would pretend not to know what is Real, yet, just a few posts prior you gave a definition of what’s Real.

#peculiar

Very peculiar, since I did no such thing!
Try reading what I write.
Truth is not reality.

 

[PRmerger]

Very peculiar, since I did no such thing!
Try reading what I write.
Truth is not reality.

Truth is not reality?

What is truth then?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Truth is not reality.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=17308

What, then, is truth if not an accurate and exact depiction of reality?

You are not claiming that truth and reality are completely distinct and unrelated to each other, are you?

Oh, my!

 

[Gorgias]

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

Unauthoritative teaching.

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

Fine. Declaration of canonicity is a function of governance; the fact that the Church exercised this function in the 300’s, 700’s or 1500’s AD doesn’t mean that the writings (which eventually were found to be canonical) weren’t being used in Christian worship and catechesis.

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

So… you’re suggesting that Jesus was an Essene… except that He wasn’t.

Jerusalem seems to have been vacant of Essenes

Are you sure about that? Some scholars suggest that they were, as evidenced by Mark 14 and Luke 22. (Jesus told his apostles that they could ID the place for the Last Supper by finding a man carrying a water jar. In those days, getting water was women’s work (see the OT for a ton of examples). So, for Jesus to point out a community in which men did women’s work (ostensibly, an all-male community, in which there weren’t women to do the traditional work of women), that would seem to indicate a community not unlike… wait for it… the Essenes.

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.

That’s fair. However, your assertion wasn’t “some get it, some don’t” – it was that folks wouldn’t have gotten the meaning of Jesus’ citation of Psalm 22.

 

[pocaracas]

That which is.

Sounds good enough for most purposes.

Edit: We have DIRECT access to that which is through our very act of existing, itself.

Does that access translate into information gathering?
Is it relevant for ascertaining if a statement about reality is true or not?

Therefore, INDIRECT or “objective” access of reality through experience cannot be the sole source of our knowledge concerning what is real –*i.e., being or existence, itself.

What other source do you propose, then?

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

Clearly, that to which we do have empirical access is not the entirety of reality.

Yes… it can be said that it’s a known unknown.
Maybe it’s a matter of technology… maybe not…
Hubble keeps probing the depths of the Universe and giving us new things.
String theory promises to provide a much more detailed view of the nature of all elementary particles, providing a single mechanism for all particles.

If there is something beyond the Universe, we are very unlikely to ever gain access to it.

1. It certainly hasn’t been shown to be, and
2. given that the part of reality to which we do have empirical access doesn’t itself explain our empirical access itself – nor
3. does it fully explain all of the reality to which we do have empirical access –

Therefore, we have every reason to believe reality is not merely constrained to that which we do have empirical access.

Now, if you can understand all of the above, you can explain it back to me and I’ll let you know if I have made any sense at all.

1. agreed.
2. why do you say that we can’t explain empirical access? It is certainly possible to explain how our senses work and how external technological sensors work…
3. seems to be a restating of 1)

Therefore… now I’m thinking you’re trying to say something a bit broader, than your initial sentence suggested.
“that to which we do have empirical access”… is it that to which we may ever, no matter how accurate and precise our instruments, have empirical access?
Or, even further, even if we could break the light speed barrier and find everything about the Universe, the whole past, up until now… you’re claiming there would still be more? Beyond the Universe is such a thing. I’ve never shied away from allowing something beyond the Universe, but I’ve always had the caveat that we can’t know what is there, in that beyond.

 

[pocaracas]

Again, you have to know what a real one looks like to know that something is false.

Surely you get that, right?

Imagine there’s an alien and give him a coin and say, “Is this real or false?”

he’s going to say…“Heck if I know! I’ve never seen one of your real coins. Show me a real one, and then I’ll tell you what’s false as I compare it to that.”

Show him a plastic coin.
He says: I see a lot of plastic wasted in your oceans and in your rubbish piles… this plastic thing cannot be a real coin - there’s no value to it.
This required the definition of “coin”…
Define miracle, then.

All of the above.

Every assertion that is posited as being true is a statement about reality, of course.

That doesn’t seem to follow from my earlier definition…

Yep.

So it’s equal in dignity.

But not in value… weren’t we talking about value?

So, again, that puts you in the…

fringe minority of folks who don’t even believe that the man named Jesus was nailed to a tree.

1.8 billion muslims can’t be a fringe minority in a world of 7 billion people, can they?

Nailed to a tree?.. Not exactly the tale I’ve heard, before.
Although, I’ve also heard it said that it was a hanging - hanging from a tree could work with nails.

 

[PRmerger]

That some people wrote “independently” about a story that was spreading should not come as a surprise.
How that story appeared…well… you said it yourself: people were very aware of the psalms.
The Essene education would give him the notion that he could resurrect and he would have passed it on to his audience.
The audience then built the tale, making sure he dies and, necessarily, resurrects.
The tale spreads and some people write it down.

You still have to explain how people were tortured and died for this.

Liars make poor martyrs, eh?

And if your story is that they were simply mistaken, you need to explain how the tomb was empty.

And how likely it would be for a mass hallucination to occur, resulting in folks proclaiming something that they knew would get them killed.

 

[PRmerger]

1.8 billion muslims can’t be a fringe minority in a world of 7 billion people, can they?

Nailed to a tree?.. Not exactly the tale I’ve heard, before.
Although, I’ve also heard it said that it was a hanging - hanging from a tree could work with nails.

Islam professes that he was nailed to a tree. That’s what “though it was made to appear like that to them” implies.

So, yes, that still puts you in with the fringe minority of folks who don’t believe that the historical Jesus was nailed to a true.

No reputable scholar denies that the man named Jesus was crucified by the Romans.

 

[Peter_Plato]

:
If there is something beyond the Universe, we are very unlikely to ever gain access to it.

Huh? We have demonstratively DIRECT access through the very act of our being itself.

:
Or, even further, even if we could break the light speed barrier and find everything about the Universe, the whole past, up until now… you’re claiming there would still be more? Beyond the Universe is such a thing. I’ve never shied away from allowing something beyond the Universe, but I’ve always had the caveat that we can’t know what is there, in that beyond.

Strange that you want “beyond” to retain spatial dimensions, when, in that case, it would still be empirically accessible, at least, in theory.

“Beyond,” may also mean non-spatial or not constrained by space and time. We do have access to that sense of beyond. There are all kinds of realities that we do consider in that sense of “beyond” all the time. Values, moral truths, logical laws, mathematics, qualities, even consciousness itself. You’d have to presume a great deal about the nature of consciousness to eliminate it completely from your investigation into the reality of “beyond,” especially since consciousness, itself, is what makes possible ALL of your investigative capabilities in the first instance.

 

[PRmerger]

What other source do you propose, then?

Catholicism proclaims: fides et ratio.

 

[PRmerger]

Show him a plastic coin.
He says: I see a lot of plastic wasted in your oceans and in your rubbish piles… this plastic thing cannot be a real coin - there’s no value to it.

But what if he said, “I’ve been to your casinos and I’ve seen some plastic coins being used there. They seem to have great value, therefore, it’s a real coin.”

google.com/search?q=plastic+coins+in+casinos&biw=1821&bih=857&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ7AlqFQoTCMizhr_NzMgCFQejiAodyqQHJQ&dpr=0.75

See how using a false frame of reference gives you a false conclusion?

(Here, read “false frame of reference” to be “Empiricism Only”)

 

[PRmerger]

But not in value… weren’t we talking about value?

Can you give an example of something that is viewed as having high dignity but not high value?

 

[pocaracas]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=17308

What, then, is truth if not an accurate and exact depiction of reality?

You are not claiming that truth and reality are completely distinct and unrelated to each other, are you?

Oh, my!

Much has been written about truth.

Certainly, something is true if it is an accurate depiction of reality.

However, it may also be true if it’s a not so accurate depiction of reality… cue back to Newton’s “rule” of gravity… It’s not so accurate, in light of Einstein’s general relativity, but accurate enough to get astronauts to the moon.
It is a true statement, but only within some special bounds.

People may make true statements - statements that they think represent reality, but which don’t… hehe… like “god exists” (or vice-versa - let’s be inclusive).
A true statement, in this case, is one which is firmly believed in… a statement which is not an conscious lie.
A person who hallucinates, will say she saw the thing hallucinated and that will be a true statement.

Of course, I haven’t covered all aspects of the truth… but I think it’s enough to understand that “truth is not reality” is an accurate statement.

 

[Gorgias]

Much has been written about truth.

And hopefully, you’re getting the drift that it’s surprisingly difficult to get a grip on what ‘truth’ means – at the very least, it’s more difficult than it might seem at first glance!

Certainly, something is true if it is an accurate depiction of reality.

Not so fast. Let’s look at your examples – I think you’ll find that the analysis is more nuanced than you make it out to be…

However, it may also be true if it’s a not so accurate depiction of reality… cue back to Newton’s “rule” of gravity… It’s not so accurate, in light of Einstein’s general relativity, but accurate enough to get astronauts to the moon.
It is a true statement, but only within some special bounds.

Hmm. That doesn’t seem quite right.

“Within some special bounds” – like, for example, within the context of Nazi Germany – Jews were understood to be sub-human and should be exterminated. Are you really willing to say that this is ‘true’?!? :nope:

People may make true statements - statements that they think represent reality, but which don’t.

So, are you saying that the standard for ‘truth’ is that it is believed to be true, even if it isn’t? That would seem to contradict your “within special bounds” criterion.

A true statement, in this case, is one which is firmly believed in… a statement which is not an conscious lie.

Again… nope.

A person who hallucinates, will say she saw the thing hallucinated and that will be a true statement.

Yes, the statement is true (“I perceived this”)… but that doesn’t mean that the thing itself is true. You need to distinguish between these, or else you run the risk of saying that hallucinations are ‘true’. That’s not what you mean, right?

Of course, I haven’t covered all aspects of the truth… but I think it’s enough to understand that “truth is not reality” is an accurate statement.

No, I don’t think that’s what you demonstrated. Rather, you showed that an individual’s or group’s (false) perspective on reality does not imply truth. Big difference…

 

[pocaracas]

Unauthoritative teaching.

Good one!

Fine. Declaration of canonicity is a function of governance; the fact that the Church exercised this function in the 300’s, 700’s or 1500’s AD doesn’t mean that the writings (which eventually were found to be canonical) weren’t being used in Christian worship and catechesis.

Christian?.. which christianity?

So… you’re suggesting that Jesus was an Essene… except that He wasn’t.

Then what was he?
You must agree that it is an amazing coincidence that Jesus would preach pretty much what the Essenes practiced.
Also, the Damascus document (yes, Peter, you’re right, it is this document that describes them in more detail) got its name because it refers way too much to the community in… Damascus… who else was going to Damascus when something happened?
(I certainly hope, this is one of those things I’m not getting terribly wrong )

Are you sure about that? Some scholars suggest that they were, as evidenced by Mark 14 and Luke 22. (Jesus told his apostles that they could ID the place for the Last Supper by finding a man carrying a water jar. In those days, getting water was women’s work (see the OT for a ton of examples). So, for Jesus to point out a community in which men did women’s work (ostensibly, an all-male community, in which there weren’t women to do the traditional work of women), that would seem to indicate a community not unlike… wait for it… the Essenes.

Curious… So he would have his meals in this quarter of the city?
Or was it just a particularly good restaurant, quite appropriate for a last supper? (kidding! Here’s your smiley: )

That’s fair. However, your assertion wasn’t “some get it, some don’t” – it was that folks wouldn’t have gotten the meaning of Jesus’ citation of Psalm 22.

Perhaps I worded it wrong, my first time around. Those folks would have been the ones in such gentile communities who converted to christianity, somehow, and then got sidetracked with this other… what’s the word?.. christology?