Proving The Resurrection By the "Minimal Facts" Approach

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You still have to explain how people were tortured and died for this.
Which people?
The people in the story?
Liars make poor martyrs, eh?
That’s something we’ve established with the help of Bradski, right?
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.
It’s well established that the christ myth pre-dated Jesus, from the pslam, right?
A christ was expected, right?

The tomb was empty because it was necessary for the story of Jesus to be that of Christ… perhaps?
Folks would believe… after the fact… that the Jesus character was indeed the long awaited Christ - thus a sort of resurrection occurred in people’s minds… in people’s beliefs… perhaps only in the Essene community?
Mass hallucination? where would that have happened?

Did it get them killed right away?
How long until whoever it is started killing people for it?
 
Good one! 😉

Christian?.. which christianity?
There was only one form of Christianity, one form which followed what the Apostles preached, one form which received the kerygma and proclaimed it.

It wasn’t until 16 centuries later that people decided to preach a different gospel.
Which people?
The people in the story?
The people who were fed the lions by Nero?

Or are you part of another fringe minority that believes this didn’t happen either?

Perhaps you believe Nero didn’t really exist?

Is that your position? So perhaps we need to establish first if you are a skeptic about the existence of Nero?

If you believe he actually existed, then do you believe he persecuted some people and had them tortured?
 
right on it… sure…
something about purgatory, perhaps?
I sure hope you haven’t forgot about this assertion you made, poca?

Can you please attend to this.

You’ve answered a lot of posts, and that is wonderful. 👍

But I really want to see your thoughts on why you believe the Church changed her teaching on purgatory.

Thanks.
 
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.
ok… 😦
No reputable scholar denies that the man named Jesus was crucified by the Romans.
Reputable scholar?.. as if 90%+ of them aren’t christian to begin with…
There was a time when Biblical archaeology was digging with the shovel in one hand and the bible in the other… so we should expect that to be the order of things.
How many christians (even scholars) would contemplate the option that Jesus wasn’t crucified?

Bah…
The man died or disappeared… that is for sure.
How it happened, beats me…
Could have been crucified… but I seriously doubt he resurrected (phew, back at the OP!)
 
Huh? We have demonstratively DIRECT access through the very act of our being itself.
What? we have that?
Like the direct access we have to dark matter and dark energy, huh?
Strange that you want “beyond” to retain spatial dimensions, when, in that case, it would still be empirically accessible, at least, in theory.
I use “beyond” purposefully to avoid “outside of”, in an attempt to keep such spatial dimensionality out of the words… sadly, it seems it’s not entirely possible. Our language is too limited.
“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.
Well, as far as I’m aware, consciousness is limited to organic brains.
I wouldn’t be so bold as to assume it to exist “beyond” the Universe. One may attribute a certain likelihood to that, but I wouldn’t put much stock in that possibility.
 
Catholicism proclaims: fides et ratio.
“Faith and reason”…
Like I said earlier, mental masturbation is fine and dandy, but it needs the anchor of empirical test to determine how much it aligns with reality.
To rely solely on your thoughts is an invitation to disaster… It may have a correct outcome, but it may not… how to tell? test!

Faith… meh… each religion claims that we need to have faith in their precepts… which empirical test do we have to determine which of them is real?
Which non-empirical test do we have to determine which is real?
 
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”)
Dude, you’ve been in the wrong casinos! Plastic casino coins are the hallmark of underground venues! 😛
Look, you can buy them online and all: amazon.com/Plastic-Casino-Gold-Coins-144/dp/B001QEYGIG
😉

Actually, typical casino tokens are made of clay: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_token#Construction
The things I’m learning!
 
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:
It was true to the Nazis.
Still to this day, there are groups of people who consider other groups as inferior.
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.
Somehow, I think you’re not getting the whole thing…
True statements can fall into different categories:
  • Accurate description of reality
  • As accurate as possible (within certain bounds) description of reality
  • Accurate description of events thought to have been real, even if they weren’t.
Again… nope.
Yes.
I assure you that a person is being truthful when she claims something about that which she believes.
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?
Certainly, hallucinations exist - people suffer from them and, often are unable to discern reality from hallucination. Any claim influenced by a hallucination is a truthful claim.
The person is not lying, hence she’s saying the truth.
That other people didn’t experience those hallucinations only serves to attest to the hallucinator that her perceptions are compromised… not entirely representative of the reality.
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… 😉
I’d say that an individual’s or group’s truthful statement does not imply an accurate perspective of reality.
 
There was only one form of Christianity, one form which followed what the Apostles preached, one form which received the kerygma and proclaimed it.

It wasn’t until 16 centuries later that people decided to preach a different gospel.
Are you kidding me?
Who did Tertullian rage against?
The people who were fed the lions by Nero?
Where and when?
 
And who taught that the world was 6000 years old?

The Catholic Church? If so, please cite the document and the source.
The document is the bible (I assume you won’t need a link). It gives quite a reasonably accurate chronology.

Back to Leo XIII (same link as before):

“For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and Trent, and finally and more expressly formulated by the [First] Council of the Vatican.”

He’s already said that if science should arrive at different conclusions regarding factual matters within the bible, then science will trump scripture. In effect saying that if the bible is being used to teach people about (for example) the age of the earth, then it might not necessarily be true.

But above he is in no doubt that, until such time as that occurs, the bible, ‘wholly and entirely’ is without error. Very close to what the catechism says today. But taken together, the two quotes effectively state that: this must be accepted as being true, unless it is shown not to be so. Again, quite reasonable.

Now I will grant you you the Catholic Church has probably never explicitly stated that the world is 6,000 years old. But for many centuries, it taught that scripture was be be treated as being without error. Therefore, the chronology was without error. Therefore…the planet was a few thousand years old.

These days, the catechism, despite it saying pretty much what Leo said in that first paragraph, goes on to allow for a more liberal approach to interpreting scripture. That Catholicism is not a ‘religion of the book’. So hey, the science tells us we’re a few billion years old so what we taught previously (that the chronology was divinely inspired and hence correct) was wrong.
 
I sure hope you haven’t forgot about this assertion you made, poca?

Can you please attend to this.

You’ve answered a lot of posts, and that is wonderful. 👍

But I really want to see your thoughts on why you believe the Church changed her teaching on purgatory.

Thanks.
I can’t find it… Not that I put too much time into it… but ok, I concede the main teachings have remained the same…
Some of the surrounding details, however… like limbo and what sparked this requirement from you… can’t even remember it… replying to too much stuff!
 
Reputable scholar?.. as if 90%+ of them aren’t christian to begin with…
That is what we call the genetic fallacy, poca.

Let’s do this…comparison. (Which you should know is still an analogy even if you don’t wish to call it one :))

“Daddy! I heard on Barney that the earth is the 3rd planet from the sun!”

“No, son, that is false. Why? Because you heard it on Barney.”
Bah…
The man died or disappeared… that is for sure.
How it happened, beats me…
Could have been crucified…
Ah. I see. I am dealing with a member of a fringe group.

It helps to know this.

“The MMR could cause autism”.

Okey-dokey.

#givesmeinsight
 
“Faith and reason”…
Like I said earlier, mental masturbation is fine and dandy, but it needs the anchor of empirical test to determine how much it aligns with reality.
Well, since you don’t even follow your own paradigm, I’m not going to submit to your demands to follow a paradigm that’s self-refuting, as well as foolish.

“I’m only going to use my teeth to get out of this locked stable!”

Okey-dokey, then.

I, however, am going to use ALL the tools we have to get out of this locked stable.

Like, the key. 🙂

http://www.realtownblogs.com/uploads/sutterzmill_golden_key.jpg

Oh, wait. You’re saying that Christians have to use only their teeth, but you don’t have to.

#doublestandard.
 
Faith… meh… each religion claims that we need to have faith in their precepts… which empirical test do we have to determine which of them is real?
Which non-empirical test do we have to determine which is real?
Faith…meh?

Really?

You who have a belief in Empiricism Only which…amusingly…is a faith-based assertion?

You who say that Manila is the capital of the Philippines based only on faith that Mrs. Caltigaroni, your 2nd grade teacher, is correct?

You who accepts that Voltaire spoke of an earthquake because you read it on a website?

You who have crossed over a bridge, based on faith-alone that the structural integrity is sound? Based on faith that the engineer actually passed her exams without cheating?

You who have traveled in a plane (or had a loved one travel in a plane) based on faith-alone that the pilot is actually licensed?

So, you’ll have to forgive me if your “faith…meh” comment prompts some cognitive dissonance.

Now, if you tell me that before you drive over any bridges, fly on planes you actually do demand to see the empirical evidence that the structure is sound and the pilot is competent…I’m going to say…

 
Dude, you’ve been in the wrong casinos! Plastic casino coins are the hallmark of underground venues! 😛
Look, you can buy them online and all: amazon.com/Plastic-Casino-Gold-Coins-144/dp/B001QEYGIG
😉

Actually, typical casino tokens are made of clay: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_token#Construction
The things I’m learning!
Oh, dear.

Your own website source says this:
Casino tokens (also known as casino or gaming chips, checks, or cheques) are small discs used in lieu of currency in casinos. Colored metal, injection-molded **plastic **or compression molded clay tokens of various denominations are used primarily in table games, as opposed to metal token coins, used primarily in slot machines. Casino tokens are also widely used as play money in casual or tournament games.
 
The current President of the Republic of Portugal.
High dignity, little value. 😛
Really? You view him (or her?) as having high dignity?

How does that work then that you see her has having little value?

I don’t understand.
 
It was true to the Nazis.
Still to this day, there are groups of people who consider other groups as inferior.
So it was true to the Nazis that Jews were inferior?

Is it true that the MMR vaccine causes autism to the anti-vaccine folks?

Is it true that the earth is 6000 years old?
True statements can fall into different categories:
  • Accurate description of reality
  • As accurate as possible (within certain bounds) description of reality
  • Accurate description of events thought to have been real, even if they weren’t.
Can you give an example of the last thing?
Yes.
I assure you that a person is being truthful when she claims something about that which she believes.
Well then all Christians are being truthful.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way, what else can we discuss? 😃
Certainly, hallucinations exist - people suffer from them and, often are unable to discern reality from hallucination.
You are correct.
Any claim influenced by a hallucination is a truthful claim.
The person is not lying, hence she’s saying the truth.
That other people didn’t experience those hallucinations only serves to attest to the hallucinator that her perceptions are compromised… not entirely representative of the reality.
Well, then, the disciples and apostles were proclaiming the truth.

And now that’s taken care of, too!
I’d say that an individual’s or group’s truthful statement does not imply an accurate perspective of reality.
Wait…what?
 
Faith…meh?

Really?

You who have a belief in Empiricism Only which…amusingly…is a faith-based assertion?

You who say that Manila is the capital of the Philippines based only on faith that Mrs. Caltigaroni, your 2nd grade teacher, is correct?

You who accepts that Voltaire spoke of an earthquake because you read it on a website?

You who have crossed over a bridge, based on faith-alone that the structural integrity is sound? Based on faith that the engineer actually passed her exams without cheating?

You who have traveled in a plane (or had a loved one travel in a plane) based on faith-alone that the pilot is actually licensed?

So, you’ll have to forgive me if your “faith…meh” comment prompts some cognitive dissonance.

Now, if you tell me that before you drive over any bridges, fly on planes you actually do demand to see the empirical evidence that the structure is sound and the pilot is competent…I’m going to say…
yeah… thanks for putting words in my mouth…

faith alone for all that… -.-’ or course… try again, maybe?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top