Reasonable Doubt

[patg]

Thanks Nick.

Which leads me to the obvious, patg. That, notwithstanding that I referenced Habermas and gave a link, you (patg) have not addressed a major insight which sheds light on the question you yourself have raised. Please address that major insight.

Moreover, you claim that the Gospel writers are the only historical witnesses and that, because they were Christians, they were biassed.

As for historical witnesses:

Tacitus was not Christian.
Suetonius was not Christian.
Pliny the Younger was not Christian.
Josephus was not Christian.

Certainly they had their biasses but not in favour of the historicity of Christ.

And as for the historical Christian witnesses:

The point is that they were not always Christian. And they had their biasses but not in favour of the divinity of Christ.

The fact is that there were witnesses to the existence of Christ in history. And there were witnesses to the divinity of Christ in history. Just because you don’t call them witnesses, doesn’t mean that they were not witnesses.

Moreover, just because you choose not to address the points laid out in Habermas, does not mean that the historical witnesses to Christ were unreliable. Nor does it mean that every crazy story of the criminal accused are reliable.

Not only are your premises false, your argument is invalid.

All the above is irrelevant - no one is discussing or questioning the idea of Jesus as a historic figure. The only thing I have addressed is the fact that there is no historical evidence for the resurrection - it is purely based on faith. This is a simple fact - if it were not true, there would be a chapter in every history book talking about a man who rose from the dead as opposed to a very small group of people who believed that a man rose from the dead.

Empty tombs don’t prove anything, except to insiders. Nor do reports of appearances of risen leaders. In the gospels the risen Jesus appears only to those who already believe in him. Those who see him after his resurrection are those who followed him during his lifetime. John’s gospel originally ended with a blessing for those who believe in Jesus without needing to see him firsthand. John’s implication is that it takes little faith to believe when one has seen the risen Lord in person. Matthew, however, does not agree. At the very end of Matthew’s gospel is a fascinating and unexpected statement. He reports that even some of the apostles who personally encountered the risen Jesus had their doubts. Just before Jesus sent forth the Eleven with the Great Commission, they prostrated themselves before Jesus, “but some doubted” (28:17). This gospel thus closes with a cryptic admission that even some of these ultimate insiders were not convinced by a face-to-face encounter with the risen Lord. Matthew’s abrupt comment comes as a complete surprise and its precise meaning is puzzling. But this much at least is clear: Whatever else the gospels may teach about the resurrection, faith in the risen Jesus requires more than stories about him, no matter how convincing these stories may be to some insiders.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

patg:

All the above is irrelevant

Unsupported claim. Also not in the spirit of discussion.

patg:

• no one is discussing or questioning the idea of Jesus as a historic figure.

Um… yes we are. You are attempting to avoid the idea of Jesus as a historical figure.

patg:

The only thing I have addressed is the fact that there is no historical evidence for the resurrection

The historical evidence for the resurrection is based on the historicity of Jesus, the witnesses to that historicity, and the validity claims (see Habermas) for those witnesses.

- it is purely based on faith.

Tautology. And overly narrow use of the term ‘faith.’

patg:

This is a simple fact

No it is not simple fact. It is an unsupported opinion which you are merely saying over and over and over.

patg:

• if it were not true, there would be a chapter in every history book talking about a man who rose from the dead as opposed to a very small group of people who believed that a man rose from the dead.

Um… and the history of Western Civilization means what to you exactly?

You have not addressed Habermas. His point of view sheds light on validity claims for witnesses. Unless you can successfully dismantle Habermas’s validity claims, you will have to concede that your dismissal of the historical witnesses to the life and Resurrection of Jesus is a house built on sand.

Good luck to ya on that one!

 

[patg]

Um… yes we are. You are attempting to avoid the idea of Jesus as a historical figure.

Then you must be talking to some other patg - I have never expressed this sentiment or discussed it in any post.

The historical evidence for the resurrection is based on the historicity of Jesus, the witnesses to that historicity, and the validity claims (see Habermas) for those witnesses.

No, there is no connection between someone being a historical figure and claiming that a supernatural act they performed is historical. Supernatural acts are, by definition, outside the arena of history.

No it is not simple fact. It is an unsupported opinion which you are merely saying over and over and over.

Ok, show ne the history book which states that Jesus rose from the dead… I’m waiting…

Um… and the history of Western Civilization means what to you exactly?

I’m talking real history - rigorous, academic investigation. Results which would accepted by recognized historians and included in objective documents.

You have not addressed Habermas. His point of view sheds light on validity claims for witnesses. Unless you can successfully dismantle Habermas’s validity claims, you will have to concede that your dismissal of the historical witnesses to the life and Resurrection of Jesus is a house built on sand.

Good luck to ya on that one!

If you have faith that all that is reported is true, then you have faith in the resurrection. Show me the history, not the validity of unverifiable communicators. Does the church use these arguments to “prove” the resurrection? Do historians use these arguments to establish historicity? What it would take to convince you that some cult leader had truly risen from the dead?
Pragmatic communications from heavily biased followers writing decades after the event would convince you? It all comes down to faith.

 

[utunumsint]

Most claims for historicity rest on the probability that what is communicated is true.

It is probably true that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, but not not indisputable.
It is probably true that such and such happened, but not indisputable.

For all historical claims there is a certain amount of faith required. That you disregard the historical validity of the Gospels, Paul’s letters, Josephus, etc… is your personal choice to make. But, I suspect that you make it not because of a lack of historical evidence, but because of the implications it would have on you if you did accept them as true. Frankly, I don’t know how you could acknowledge the resurrection and remain an unbeliever. If you are not Christian, then you have to attack all such accounts as flawed, or false. Your arguments against the resurrection are simply a corollary to your lack of faith. (I think you would agree with me about this)

History has to remain silent about such claims because of the implications that such an event would have on the hearer.

Ut

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But pat, by your contentions you are completely removing ‘reason’ from the discussion.

Faith does not contradict reason. No more does science ‘contradict’ religion. But too many people have fallen into traps and thus attempt to argue that faith, or that religion, can never been viewed ‘reasonably’ or ‘scientifically’.

Balderdash.
The fact that I believe in Christianity, on the basis of solid evidence from reliable people (Scripture and Sacred Tradition) as to its source, and also solid and reliable evidence from its proponents for the last 2000 years as to its continued truth, does not mean that I blindly let ‘reason’ go out of the equation. Far from it–reason informs my decision of faith. As well it should.

Because of reason, I examine my faith, and find it convincing in its truthfulness. It is then, building on the reason which is the foundation of the Christian faith, that I erect the dome of my personal belief in that reasonable faith.

It’s a circle–reason=faith=reason=faith ad infinitum. Reason–the Word/God existed from the ‘start’ and was informed by faith (Abraham and the prophets) which was seen as reason (the covenant fulfilled in Christ’s death and resurrection) to which we personally confess our faith (and so on, the ‘reason’ of our faith informing others, who then profess their faith, leading to ‘reason’ for others, etc. etc.)

 

[Ani_Ibi]

patg:

Then you must be talking to some other patg - I have never expressed this sentiment or discussed it in any post.

I am talking to you.

patg:

No, there is no connection between someone being a historical figure and claiming that a supernatural act they performed is historical.

You are saying this because you have no understanding – or choose not to demonstrate any understanding – of validity claims. In other words you are out of your depth and don’t want to do the reading.

Let’s clear this up here and now. Have you read the Habermas material I gave you? Yes or no please.

patg:

Supernatural acts are, by definition, outside the arena of history.

Only by your definition.

patg:

Ok, show ne the history book which states that Jesus rose from the dead… I’m waiting…

I’ve shown you the witnesses to the historicity of Jesus. Once you recognize those, then we’ll go the next logical step. Note I use the word ‘logic.’

patg:

I’m talking real history - rigorous, academic investigation.

Nope. You are talking about your private notion of history.

patg:

Results which would accepted by recognized historians and included in objective documents.

Please give us the recognized historians and objective documents.

patg:

If you have faith that all that is reported is true, then you have faith in the resurrection.

Non sequitur.

patg:

Show me the history, not the validity of unverifiable communicators.

We have. Address what we have shown you and we’ll move on.

patg:

Does the church use these arguments to “prove” the resurrection?

Relevance please? Thank you.

patg:

Do historians use these arguments to establish historicity?

Which historians? Which historicity?

patg:

What it would take to convince you that some cult leader had truly risen from the dead?

It would take you addressing the validity claims set forth in Habermas, for a start.

patg:

Pragmatic communications from heavily biased followers writing decades after the event would convince you?

Define ‘pragmatic communications’ please.

patg:

It all comes down to faith.

Define faith please.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Pat-
It’s been awhile, but what about the venerable Bede? In his History of England, did he not state that Christ rose from the dead?

 

[patg]

I am talking to you.

Then you should start listening.

You are saying this because you have no understanding – or choose not to demonstrate any understanding – of validity claims. In other words you are out of your depth and don’t want to do the reading.

Let’s clear this up here and now. Have you read the Habermas material I gave you? Yes or no please.

Yes.

Only by your definition.

No, by the definition of all historians. You are saying this because you have no understanding – or choose not to demonstrate any understanding – of claims of historicity or of the historical. In other words you are out of your depth and don’t want to do the reading.

I’ve shown you the witnesses to the historicity of Jesus. Once you recognize those, then we’ll go the next logical step. Note I use the word ‘logic.’

What part of “I don’t deny the historicity of Jesus” do you not understand??? And of course you ignored my comments about none of these saying anything other than that the Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead.

Nope. You are talking about your private notion of history.

No, you are saying this because you have no understanding – or choose not to demonstrate any understanding – of claims of historicity or of the historical method. In other words you are out of your depth and don’t want to do the reading.

Please give us the recognized historians and objective documents.

That’s exactly what I am asking you for…

It would take you addressing the validity claims set forth in Habermas, for a start.

They are meaningless in this context. We have no verifiable witnesses. We have no witnesses to the resurrection. We have contradictory claims of appearances written by unknown authors decades after the supposed event in translated documents of which we have no originals. We have Matthew reporting that even some of the apostles who personally encountered the risen Jesus had their doubts - the gospel thus closes with a cryptic admission that even some of these ultimate insiders were not convinced by a face-to-face encounter with the risen Lord.

To claim that the academic arguments of a philosophical pragmatist as the basis for claiming the historicity of the resurrection is beyond illogical. Historic analysis is concerned with analyzing verifiable evidence and assigning probability to conclusions based on rigorous application of academic principles - none of which provides the slightest evidence for the resurrection… and which, of course, is why it is never mentioned as an event in history.

Historical truth does not deny the resurrection - it merely states that it cannot be verified as a probable historic event.

 

[patg]

Pat-
It’s been awhile, but what about the venerable Bede? In his History of England, did he not state that Christ rose from the dead?

Thanks for the reference - I’ve found it hard to separate his historical documents from his scriptural commentaries and at times they seem intermixed. He also wrote over 600 years after the events and does not, as far as I have found, reference any non-Christian contemporary accounts of the supernatural events related to Jesus. He also seemed to do a serious job of citing references and checking his sources so he was quite a guy for his time.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, those who claimed to have experienced a risen Christ did start Christianity.

Sure, but i didn’t.

That is not the point. We are required to believe a supernatural event based only on the contradictory testimony of a very few people who were already believers.

My point is that they didn’t become believers until they saw Christ walking around and talking to them after the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Before that, they had just thought that He was a really good teacher.

There is no true historical evidence whatsoever. There are any number of religions whose founders performed miracles and whose followers declared them to be gods and who were willing to die for them. The bottom line is that belief in the resurrection requires faith and cannot be based on historical evidence.

Yes, it requires faith, but there is nothing in the historical evidence to contradict that faith.

You can decide that the Resurrection didn’t happen, but then you are left with the inexplicable phenomenon of all these (more than 5,000) people who are possibly crazy, hallucinating, etc. - who, one moment are terrified, packing their things and getting ready to head for the hills, and the next moment, claim they have seen Jesus alive, and decide to stay in town, and start preaching and doing miracles of their own.

What happened on that Sunday morning that made them change their minds, gave them courage in place of terror, and caused the same man who just a few hours before that said to the girl who tends the fire, “I never met Him before in my life” to start shouting from the rooftops that He is God - if the Resurrection is not true?

Something happened. If it wasn’t the Resurrection, then there has to be an alternative explanation to show why 5,000 terrified people who were already half-way out of town are just all of a sudden on fire for Jesus.

Was it mass hallucination? Or what?

 

[Cranch]

Say it often and enough and it will be true, right? Your ‘explanation’ of your point of view has devolved into tautology.

We have demonstrated that the witnesses to the historicity of Jesus were not all believers.

You have not demonstrated that the witnesses to the historicity of Jesus were all believers.

Therefore you have conceded the point as to historical witnesses…
…It is a grammatical imprecision – if not a logical impossibility – to say that belief in the resurrection cannot be based on historical evidence.

Folks, this is an example of why the philosophy threads need to be separated from the apologetics threads.

There is a predictable methodology on many of the apologetics threads: strawman > tautology > false analogy > red herring > ad hominem > personal attack > pleading special case > swan song. Repeat on new thread.

The philosophy threads, on the other hand, have for the most part demonstrated friendship and respect, analytical rigour and impartiality, and logic.

:clapping: This post deserves a nod, even if the target blew right by it.

Because there are so many philosophy threads appearing on the apologetics thread list, it was only a question of time before the non-philosophical methodology reared its impulcritudinous cranium. My :twocents:

Had to look that one up! And then had to add the “im”! That’s how come I know you left out an “h” (after the “c”)!

 

[utunumsint]

Historic analysis is concerned with analyzing verifiable evidence and assigning probability to conclusions based on rigorous application of academic principles - none of which provides the slightest evidence for the resurrection… and which, of course, is why it is never mentioned as an event in history.

Historical truth does not deny the resurrection - it merely states that it cannot be verified as a probable historic event.

Right. History can only take us so far. When it comes to a miracles like the resurrection, history is of little use, because miracles are by definition improbably. This is one of the limitations of history. But this does not mean that the miracle did not happen, or is unreasonable, or is untrue.

History can make comments on the fact that there are people who claim to be witnesses to the risen Christ. Most historians will say that the disciples certainly believed in the resurrection. So it comes down to whether you trust their account or not.

In my opinion, evidence of confusion, uncertainty, and missunderstanding, would be expected for an event like the resurrection. It would take time for them to process what they had experienced. They would do it in different ways and different traditions would arrise. Those traditions are what become scripture.

Ut

 

[Ani_Ibi]

That’s how come I know you left out an “h” (after the “c”)!

D-oh! :doh2: An h! An h! My kingdom for an h!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

patg:

Then you should start listening.

:coffeeread: Heavy on rhetoric. Light on logic.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ani Ibi:

Have you read the Habermas material I gave you? Yes or no please.

patg:

Yes.

Then refer to that material please.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

patg:

No, by the definition of all historians.

Name them.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

When it comes to a miracles like the resurrection, history is of little use, because miracles are by definition improbably.

Define miracle please.

 

[ziggernaut]

Wow! The OP has really got some folks stirred up, here. There have been some really interesting comments, a number of them addressed to the OP, who seems to have disappeared. What saist thou, Ammonius Saccus?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

I broke my computer screen. It will not be fixed until Friday or Monday. I will post responses then.

 

[patg]

Then refer to that material please.

I have no reason to respond to this material because you keep using it as a smoke screen to avoid facing the reality of historical analysis. You have not presented any reason that there should be or is any logical connection between verifying that communicative action has taken place between two or more people and the subject we are discussing. Yes, communicative action has occurred…I totally agree…now can we get to the real topic?

The resurrection is a faith event; it is outside the realm of the historian - outside the topics and rules in which the formal science of history operates. Find an academic history book which states that a man literally rose from the dead in 33 AD with the same assurance that the U.S. Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 4, 1776. You can’t - because the science of history doesn’t deal with things which are supernatural and outside the realm of human experience even though those things may be believed by a large number of people and may be absolutely true.