Proving The Resurrection By the "Minimal Facts" Approach

[Bradski]

Except that every time you quote the Bible you do it with the same reading that Fundamentalists do. I wonder why this is.

I’m quoting it as read by a fundamentalist. Which was as everyone would have read it originally. As being without error. As the church used to teach. Reading the bible as one was instructed to do by the Catholic Church and the world is 6,000 years old.

EAnd now you need to find a teaching in the nonce that has the Church declaring that Scripture is with fault.

I’m pretty certain that it doesn’t. But then again I’m pretty certain that I didn’t say that it did. What I did say was that you were originally instructed to treat scripture as without fault (that is, everything to be accepted as written - it is the word of God after all), but late (just going by what Leo said), if science shows scripture to be not factually correct (one could say ‘wrong’ couldn’t one?), then do NOT treat it as factually correct.

EPerhaps if you could cite the Church teaching that says we use the chronology of the Bible to determine the earth’s age, that would be helpful.

The church used to teach that scripture was accurate. THEREFORE, the chronology must be accurate and therefore the world must be 6,000 years old. You don’t need a papal declaration on it for that to be true. As is now accepted, the bible is. To a science book. But, to repeat myself, it was taught that it was accurate in all respects and that is no longer the case.

ESo what you need to do is find a teaching from the Magisterium that says we should trust in what Scripture told us. And then find a teaching from the Magisterium that says we should NOT trust in what Scripture told us.

See previous posts. Firstly it was to be treated as factually accurate. Now that is not the case.

You, my friend, were the one who asserted (and quite rightly so!) that people don’t die for a lie.

Without going way back to check, I believe you were the one who made that argument first (and you have done in other threads from memory) implying that, as they died, it must have been the truth.

It has constantly been pointed out to you that that is a logical fallacy.

Also, you asserted something else which I want to re-visit.

Something about atheism being the default position for all the dumb people who don’t examine their belief system.

Do you really want to claim them for atheism?

I don’t claim anyone for atheism. It’s not a club. Having more members doesn’t make a lack of a belief in gods any more legitimate. But the default position is atheism. Until you learn about any god, you can’t ‘not believe’ in him or her. We are not in a position to make a personal call on those kind of matters until relatively late in life. I’d hesitate to put an age on it, but from personal experience I would say 12 or 13.

To use a younger age so there is no dispute, there is no such thing, to my mind, as a three year old Christian. Or a three year old Muslim. There are certainly thee year old children of Christian or Muslim parents. But a child of that age has obviously not got the ability to form an opinion on such matters.

I mean, most children up to the age of 5 or 6 believe in Santa Claus. They will believe what they are told.

When they get older and class themselves as atheists without having thought anything about it, then please put them in the same box with all the Christians who do the same.

“Your eyes are like pools of limpid water”.

How in the world can eyes be pools?

The original time frames were accepted. Remember that it was taught that scripture was without fault? But then science got a foot into the door and those days started stretching out a little. It can’t have happened in 6 days, so we now need to treat the times as noted as metaphorical.

Adam to Christ was 4,000 years. The time line was from scripture, to be treated as being without fault. Now…

Which years listed in the bible from Adam onwards are to be treated as metaphorical? Is the genealogy wrong or the ages given for various people? Not that it makes much difference, to be honest. But it keeps leading back to the same old question: if this aspect of the bible isn’t meant to be taken seriously (although it originally was), then what else isn’t?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m quoting it as read by a fundamentalist. Which was as everyone would have read it originally.

Can you offer some, er, evidence that the Church read it as a fundamentalist does?

As being without error. As the church used to teach. Reading the bible as one was instructed to do by the Catholic Church and the world is 6,000 years old.

Again, if you can cite the document which offers that the CC taught that the Bible says that the world is 6000 year old, that would be helpful.

Otherwise, what I am going to assert is that scientists instructed us to follow science, and Jenny McCarthy told us science told us that the MMR causes autism.

(And at least I have a citation to back up my claim )

I’m pretty certain that it doesn’t. But then again I’m pretty certain that I didn’t say that it did. What I did say was that you were originally instructed to treat scripture as without fault (that is, everything to be accepted as written - it is the word of God after all),

We do accept everything that is written.

But then again, we always did that.

So there’s no change there.

 

[PRmerger]

The church used to teach that scripture was accurate.

I think you mean inerrant. It makes no claim about the accuracy of things like, “3 days and 3 nights”. “Cut off your hand if it causes you to sin”.

Because, of course, we understand that there are idioms in languages.

THEREFORE, the chronology must be accurate and therefore the world must be 6,000 years old.

Nonsequitur.

Something can be inerrant but not intending to discuss chronology.

“Your eyes are like limpid pools” is not inerrant. That is, it’s error-free.

But they also are NOT limpid pools.

But I think you already know this.

You are losing the literalist argument here, Bradski, because you think you’re on a Fundamentalist Christian forum.

Take your “the Bible is accurate and therefore the earth is 6000 years old according to the Bible” to the Fundamentalist forum.

And, if you’re being such a fundamentalist, can you give the verse that tells you that the earth is 6000 years old?

Book, chapter and verse, please.

You don’t need a papal declaration on it for that to be true. As is now accepted, the bible is. To a science book. But, to repeat myself, it was taught that it was accurate in all respects and that is no longer the case.

And science teaches that the MMR causes autism.

Jenny McCarthy said.

I don’t claim anyone for atheism.

You actually did.

But that’s ok.

But the default position is atheism.

So you get all the apathetic folks and the dumb dumbs.

Okey-dokey.

 

[PRmerger]

The original time frames were accepted.

Source, please.

Adam to Christ was 4,000 years.

Where does the Bible say this?

The time line was from scripture, to be treated as being without fault.

It was?

Can you cite your source, please?

 

[Bradski]

The Church never taught that the Bible was a science book. Even as early as Augustine (ca. 4th century AD), we see the claim that we shouldn’t look at the Bible as if it’s teaching natural science. For your claim to hold, then, we really do need to assert a fundamentalist’s literalist interpretation of the Bible… which the Church does not teach.

You are talking in the present tense: ‘we do need to assert…’. but that wasn’t originally the case. Genesis can only be treated as metaphorical if it is known to be wrong as it is written. You don’t class a fact as something metaphorical.

And please don’t claim that people didn’t originally accept is as fact. There are still millions of people in the US alone today, with the benefit of a modern education, who still think it so.

And it was accepted as fact because the church taught that scripture was without error.

…if we presume that the Church teaches “trust in science”, it does not imply a change from the teaching “trust in Scripture”. The Church continues to teach “trust in Scripture”.

Except that you are now expected to treat passages that were interpreted literally as now being metaphorical: ‘Hey, we weren’t wrong. it’s just that people who believed them to be literal, well, THEY were wrong (even though we told them that what was written was without error).’

What a shame young Bradski drew an invalid conclusion.

My conclusion that there was, for example, no global flood? Oh, hang on. I see. It must be treated metaphorically. I guess maybe there’s a list somewhere that will tell me what is literally true and what isn’t.

Some of that stuff may not have been literal; but it is all ‘true’ – even if that truth is expressed in metaphor. Hopefully, there’s still a chance for old Bradski to realize his youthful conclusions were mistaken…

And there you go. Or maybe not. Some is literally true. Some maybe not. But it’s all true anyway! Something of a win-win situation. So maybe that answers the OP. The resurrection may be factual, or it may not be. But it’s true anyway. I mean, that was your point, wasn’t it?

So, the truth of a proposition is dependent on the strength of the argument that a person makes for it?

What someone will accept as being true is a direct result of the strength of the argument given. Whether it is true or not is another matter. My point being is that adding lots of relatively weak arguments doesn’t strengthen your position. It actually weakens it.

 

[PRmerger]

You are talking in the present tense: ‘we do need to assert…’. but that wasn’t originally the case.

Source, please.

Even way back in the 4th century St. Augustine wrote about Genesis being metaphorical.

patheos.com/blogs/godandthemachine/2012/08/st-augustine-asking-the-hard-questions-atheists-dont-ask/

How can there be light when the sun wasn’t created until the 4th day, Augustine asks.

From Wiki: Some Jews and Christians have long considered the creation account of Genesis as an allegory instead of as historical description, much earlier than the development of modern science. Two notable examples are Augustine of Hippo (4th century) who, on theological grounds, argued that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant, and not in six days as a plain account of Genesis would require

Genesis can only be treated as metaphorical if it is known to be wrong as it is written. You don’t class a fact as something metaphorical.

Something can be metaphorical without being “known to be wrong as it is written”.

For example, “Your eyes are like limpid pools” is metaphorical, but it is also NOT wrong.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m quoting it as read by a fundamentalist. Which was as everyone would have read it originally.

Well, no Bradski. You are quoting it as you assume or think “everyone would have read it originally,” not as it would have been read originally.

You do understand that in ancient Judaism there was only one word to name all time durations? That word was יוֹם.

Here are the various ways in which יוֹם could be translated…

afternoon* (1), age (8), age* (1), all (1), always* (14), amount* (2), battle (1), birthday* (1), Chronicles* (38), completely* (1), continually* (14), course* (1), daily (22), daily the days (1), day (1115), day of the days (1), day that the period (1), day’s (6), day’s every day (1), daylight* (1), days (635), days on the day (1), days to day (1), days you shall daily (1), days ago (1), days’ (11), each (1), each day (4), entire (2), eternity (1), evening* (1), ever in your life* (1), every day (2), fate (1), first (5), forever* (11), forevermore* (1), full (5), full year (1), future* (1), holiday* (3), later* (2), length (1), life (12), life* (1), lifetime (2), lifetime* (1), live (1), long (2), long as i live (1), long* (11), midday* (1), now (5), older* (1), once (2), period (3), perpetually* (2), present (1), recently (1), reigns (1), ripe* (1), short-lived* (1), so long* (1), some time (1), survived* (2), time (45), time* (1), times* (2), today (172), today* (1), usual (1), very old* (1), when (10), when the days (1), whenever (1), while (3), whole (2), year (10), yearly (5), years (13), yesterday* (1).
biblehub.com/hebrew/3117.htm

So יוֹם could have meant anything from a specified amount of time as in day, year, lifetime, forever or eternity; any unspecified period from entire, long, forevermore, short-lived, perpetually, time, whenever or whole; even sort of, kind of related to time meanings like chronicle, ripe, survived or usual.

Are you certain that “everyone” – including the author of Genesis – would have read יוֹם as “day?”

Here are some of the ways that Moses, the purported author of Genesis used יוֹם

Genesis 4:3 “And in process of יוֹם it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.” (means a season)
Genesis 43:9 "…then let me bear the blame for יוֹם " * (means forever)*
Genesis 44:32 “…then I shall bear the blame to my father for יוֹם” (means forever)
Deuteronomy 4:40 “…that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, for יוֹם.” (means a lifetime)
Deuteronomy 10:10, “Now I stayed on the mountain forty days and nights, as I did the first יוֹם,…” (means time of forty days)
Deuteronomy 18:5 “…to stand to minister in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for יוֹם.” (means for eternity)
Deuteronomy 19:9 “…to love the Lord thy God, and to walk יוֹם in His ways…” (means as long as we live, a lifetime)

So, Brad, are you still certain about how “everyone” would have read יוֹם originally?

 

[Gorgias]

And please don’t claim that people didn’t originally accept is as fact.

As we keep trying to tell you, even in the early Church, it wasn’t treated as scientific fact.

There are still millions of people in the US alone today, with the benefit of a modern education, who still think it so.

Good for them. You didn’t ask that question, though: you asked what the Church teaches. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach literal 6000-year creation.

And it was accepted as fact because the church taught that scripture was without error.

It is. And yet, it isn’t interpreted by the Church as if it were a science book. You keep desperately holding to this claim, is if it were true. It ain’t.

Except that you are now expected to treat passages that were interpreted literally as now being metaphorical

Ever hear of the differences between the Antiochian and Alexandrian schools in the early Church? That was the big discussion: literal or metaphorical interpretation (respectively)?

: ‘Hey, we weren’t wrong. it’s just that people who believed them to be literal, well, THEY were wrong (even though we told them that what was written was without error).’

And still, you’re moving the goalposts: you didn’t assert “what people believe”, you asserted “what the Church teaches.”

My conclusion that there was, for example, no global flood? Oh, hang on. I see. It must be treated metaphorically.

Or (as poca likes to render it): the author believed the flood to be global.

I guess maybe there’s a list somewhere that will tell me what is literally true and what isn’t.

To some extent. Glad to see that you recognize that Scripture needs an authoritative interpreter, and isn’t just a book you can pick up off the shelf and it interprets itself.

And there you go. Or maybe not. Some is literally true. Some maybe not. But it’s all true anyway! Something of a win-win situation. So maybe that answers the OP. The resurrection may be factual, or it may not be. But it’s true anyway. I mean, that was your point, wasn’t it?

Nope. My point is that yours doesn’t hold up – partially, because you misstate what the Church teaches, and partially, because you want to hold the Church to some sort of fundamentalist doctrinal stance.

 

[pocaracas]

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.”

It is a fallacy, I know… still, it’s relevant.
Your analogy doesn’t seem to apply… why would Barney be dismissed out of hand?

I’m questioning the scholars of the subject about their objectivity concerning the subject they research.
Would you expect a muslim to ever consider that Mo wasn’t visited by an angel (even if just in dreams)?

 

[pocaracas]

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.

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

#doublestandard.

Riiight… you keep telling yourself that.

 

[pocaracas]

The folks who weren’t preaching what the Apostles taught of course.

Which, according to you,

It wasn’t until 16 centuries later that people decided to preach a different gospel.

#pickingonyou

 

[pocaracas]

OK – so, you’re calling ‘truth’ the false things that some people incorrectly believe to be true.

This is not what the Catholic Church means when it talks about ‘truth’. So, if you want to call it “personal opinion”, that’s cool; but, we’re not going to get very far in our discussion if you look at the Nazis and give their beliefs the label ‘truth’.

Ah, the internet and its rule for nazis… any discussion that takes enough time will lead to nazis en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law.

I think I’m calling things by different names than you are:

I’d say that you think you are, but you’re not.

If you define ‘reality’, then this definition has a chance of working.

One of you guys already defined it: that which is.

This is your ‘Nazi’ example; given the latitude you’re allowing for ‘within certain bounds’, then you’re not talking about ‘truth’ – maybe about ‘personal opinion’, but not ‘truth’.

No… this bounded accuracy is more for the slightly inaccurate descriptions, such as most (not to say all) scientific models.

This might be a description that is thought to be true of an unreal event, but calling it ‘truth’ muddies the water.

It’s sadly one of the most common applications of the word.
You may argue that it’s a misapplication, but then… people lie, misremember, or make mistakes and unwittingly say things which don’t relate with reality, but they think they do relate.
That nazi example could fit here.
Religions also fit here.

But that’s different than saying that she is speaking the truth.

No – the person is unknowingly speaking an untruth. Big difference.

It’s good to know that you think the truth is one thing and an utterance believed to be the truth is something else.
How to discern them?
wink starts with “empir”.

Getting closer, now.

Still, though, speaking an untruth – even unknowingly – does not make a statement ‘true’.

Yep, I agree. But the person saying the untruth will be puzzled by that… why don’t other people believe her when she says that “truth”?

Why don’t atheists believe the “truth” of the church?
Why don’t atheists believe the truth of the Qur’an?
Why don’t atheists believe the truth of the Vedas?
Why don’t atheists believe the truth of any religion?

 

[pocaracas]

About the discussion of things that change within the church… well…
One can take Galileo as an example of how things change.
They may not be the core church teachings, but they do concern the reality around us…

arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.6168.pdf
GG said: “Sol est centru mundi, et omnio imobilis motu locali”… oh, do you guys read latin?

• The Sun is the center of the world and the imobile center of everything.

Church censors say: “omnes dixerunt dicta propositionem esse stultam et absurdam in Philosophia, et formaliter hereticam”

• they all said the same proposition as to be foolish and absurd in philosophy and formally heretical

hmmm… what does heretical mean?

Shall we go on?
GG: “Terra non est centrum mundi, nec imobilis, sed secundum se totam, movetur et moto diurno”

• Earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but considered as a whole, it is moved and is moved with a day, (meaning it turns around in one day)

Church censors: “Omnes dixerunt hanc propositionem recipere eandem censuram in Philosophia, et spectando veritatem Theologicam, adminus esse in fide erroneam”

• All said the same to receive the censure of this proposition in philosophy, and looking at the criterion for theological truth, at least to be erroneous in the faith,

“theological truth”? “erroneous in faith”?

Philosophy? why did philosophy fail?
wink it starts with “lack of empir”.

 

[pocaracas]

Or (as poca likes to render it): the author believed the flood to be global.

Actually, for that particular case… the author was taking inspiration from a pre-existing tale of such a flood.
The author of that original flood tale may have been relaying the impression that survived, depicting it as a world-wide flood… as wide as they thought the world spanned.

As early as the 1400’s, it was a common perception that the world would end at some point in space: here be dragons.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_incognita
Can’t say cartographers’ ignorance and imagination didn’t play a role, there…

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is a fallacy, I know… still, it’s relevant.
Your analogy doesn’t seem to apply… why would Barney be dismissed out of hand?

Nice to see that now you are admitting – contra Poca circa post#189 – that the Gospel writers being Christian is no reason to dismiss their claims “out of hand.”

In particular, since it was their becoming Christian in the first place that was largely attributable to the Resurrection experience. That would be akin to a witness deciding on the basis of what she saw that George held-up and robbed the store. She wasn’t convinced that George held-up the store by her presumptions or biases about his character as a thief or her agenda to get him convicted. She is convinced that George is a thief and wants to get him convicted only after and BECAUSE she witnessed him robbing a store.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why don’t atheists believe the truth of any religion?

Likely because it is easier to deny everything “out of hand” than engage in the serious enterprise of sifting through claims and making a positive determination. Denials are relatively straight forward. Standing FOR something, especially when that “something” makes heavy demands, is difficult and demanding. After all, no one can call you a hypocrite if you have no real or determinable commitments to any positive beliefs – those who adhere only to a “lack of belief” don’t have to defend any beliefs or live up to any standards, now do they?

 

[rcwitness]

Likely because it is easier to deny everything “out of hand” than engage in the serious enterprise of sifting through claims and making a positive determination. Denials are relatively straight forward. Standing FOR something, especially when that “something” makes heavy demands, is difficult and demanding. After all, no one can call you a hypocrite if you have no real or determinable commitments to any positive beliefs – those who adhere only to a “lack of belief” don’t have to defend any beliefs or live up to any standards, now do they?

I agree very much with this. So the “hope” of one who doesn’t believe, becomes a hope that there is not a God of the Christian faith.

 

[pocaracas]

Likely because it is easier to deny everything “out of hand” than engage in the serious enterprise of sifting through claims and making a positive determination. Denials are relatively straight forward. Standing FOR something, especially when that “something” makes heavy demands, is difficult and demanding. After all, no one can call you a hypocrite if you have no real or determinable commitments to any positive beliefs – those who adhere only to a “lack of belief” don’t have to defend any beliefs or live up to any standards, now do they?

Easier?
Partly, yes… partly, it’s far easier to remain in the believing community.

Perhaps the sifting through claims was accomplished and they didn’t pan out. Certainly, there are atheists out there who did their research… some even work as scholars of the first century Middle East.

To remain a believer in whatever you were indoctrinated, on the other hand, is also the easier option for some people.
Do you know how difficult it is to escape the mental conditioning that accompanies some religions?
How hard it is to move away from the majority opinion in the community? To be cast out of a group of friends, just because you stop believing the same things as they do?

Luckily, I was never conditioned like that… it was mostly the overall portuguese society in the 80’s that made it seem like everyone was catholic (heck, when I was a kid, I thought everyone in the world was catholic… christian and catholic were synonyms) and my grandmother trying, very sporadically, to teach me some rhymes.
Then something hit me and I spent a few years thinking I was the only person in the world that noticed it (retrospect LOL!) - only to find, eventually, that some 20% of the world also don’t believe… It feels good to have confirmation that you’re not (that) crazy.
Also, around here, people don’t care much for what you believe. There seems to be an unspoken rule of thumb: younger than 40? likely non-believer; older? likely believer.

Given that, for me, yes it’s easier to not believe.
That creates a few gaps in human knowledge which may never be filled… gaps which the believers just fill up by default… but I live on… no need to get hung up on things like that.
It also means that I never had to try to make the stories of old miracles fit with the reality I find myself in… until I found religious forums (or is it fora?). It’s been a fun few years.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Easier?
Partly, yes… partly, it’s far easier to remain in the believing community.

Perhaps the sifting through claims was accomplished and they didn’t pan out. Certainly, there are atheists out there who did their research… some even work as scholars of the first century Middle East.

On the other hand, sifting through the sifting has demonstrated that what is claimed not to have “panned out” hasn’t met the burden of proof the “sifters” think it has.

It is interesting, however, that you appear to be defaulting to a position that beliefs are necessarily “conditioned,” in an apparent bid to move away from the needs 1) to warrant those beliefs at all and 2) to show which beliefs are best warranted.

The knife cuts both ways and leaves us in the middle holding it with the requirement that whatever we believe must be justified and not merely adhered to.

The question is still a positive one. Which positive beliefs can best be justified? Atheism, when held as a “lack of belief” remains a negative, an avoidance, when faced with the question of “Where to from here?” It provides NO positive direction.

 

[pocaracas]

On the other hand, sifting through the sifting has demonstrated that what is claimed not to have “panned out” hasn’t met the burden of proof the “sifters” think it has.

Such is the nature of the data that is available…
Incomplete… inconclusive…
People then attribute their own intuitive likelihood indicators and conclude whatever they want.

It is interesting, however, that you appear to be defaulting to a position that beliefs are necessarily “conditioned,” in an apparent bid to move away from the needs 1) to warrant those beliefs at all and 2) to show which beliefs are best warranted.

Aren’t they mostly conditioned?
Look at the whole world around you…
Take out global communications and you get regional religions… which is what you’d expect if they crop up in a particular place/community and spread through indoctrination/imposition.

The knife cuts both ways and leaves us in the middle holding it with the requirement that whatever we believe must be justified and not merely adhered to.

The question is still a positive one. Which positive beliefs can best be justified? Atheism, when held as a “lack of belief” remains a negative, an avoidance, when faced with the question of “Where to from here?” It provides NO positive direction.

That question… why?

How about this one: Which model best represents reality?

• Christian model?
• Muslim model?
• Hindu model?
• Norse model?
• Atheist model?