Virtual Particles Again

[Bradskii]

Wow, 6,000 posts. I guess we better not argue with you.

Your arguments dismissing the Gospels are weak and I’m surprised you’re so confident in them. The fact that they were written down 30-50 years after Jesus’ death means absolutely nothing in regards to historical value. Would you discount a book written by a WWII veteran in 1990? Of course not. You know as well as I do that oral tradition was the standard method of preserving knowledge at the time; the ability to retain and pass along history through oral tradition was prized to the highest degree. Plus the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 dates to 3-5 years after Jesus’ death, which I’m sure after 6,000 posts you know.

Do you believe we can know anything about the life of Alexander the Great? Why? The first biography written about him was, I believe, about 300 years after he died. Yet no historian in his right mind denies his existence nor the basic contours of his life. The double standard being applied to the NT is laughable and honestly, it’s intellectually dishonest.

On topic: virtual particles do not come from nothing. They come from a vacuum, which is by definition is not nothing. Very tricky concept for atheists to understand, but “something” is not “nothing”. Energy is something. Space is something. Quantum vacuum is something.

The vet? Well, if he’d written something about an event he hadn’t seen but was just reporting what other people had said other people had said they had seen and if he had kept no notes that we know of and if his account differed in important points from just 2 or 3 other accounts and if we had lost all the original hand written notes and now all we had were copies of copies of copies all transferred from the original language and if he had a reason to tell the story in a way that painted the main character in a particular way and if this exceptionally weak evidence about this person, if accepted, meant I had to change my whole outlook and revise literally everything I know about the world and how it works and if it meant that almost everything I believe turns out to be false…then I’d probably look for something a little more substantial.

You? Not so much.

 

[KJW5551]

Matthew and John were both eyewitnesses who followed Jesus everywhere he went for years. There is no historical basis to suggest that their Gospels were written by anyone other than them, just as their is no historical basis to suggest that Tacitus’ Annals was written by anyone other than Tacitus. Again, an obvious and undeniable double standard. There is plenty of modern-day conjecture regarding the authorship of the Gospels, I grant you that, but there is not one shred of actual evidence. Funny too, that there is quite literally no ancient debate on the subject whatsoever. None. Zero.

 

[Bradskii]

John’s and Matthews’s gospels are accepted as being anonymous. And written (and revised) some 70 to 80 years after the resurrection by second generasion Christians. And you really twist logical arguments out of all recognised shape. There is no evidence at all to suggest that, for example, John wrote his gospel but you have the chutzpaha to say ‘there is no evidence to prove that he didn’t’.

And how do you respond to this as it relates to accuracy (albeit from a wiki):

The oldest relatively complete manuscripts of the Bible are the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, which date from the 4th century. Besides these, there exist manuscript fragments ranging from a few verses to whole chapters. These are copies of copies. In the process of recopying, variations slipped in, different regional manuscript traditions emerged, and corrections and adjustments were made. Modern textual scholars collate all major surviving manuscripts, as well as citations in the works of the Church Fathers, in order to produce a text which most likely approximates to the lost autographs.

Say that you believe all the stories as a matter of faith and I will accept that without argument and retire gracefully from the discussion. Any attempt to try to prove that these are entirely accurate and factual reports and should be trated as verbatim will fail.

 

[KJW5551]

That is simply not true. The consensus of the Jesus Seminar is certainly not the consensus of the Catholic Church, nor of scholars who are willing to treat the subject fairly. You’re deflecting; a tactic, no doubt, acquired during the course of your 6,000 posts.

Show me historical evidence that the Gospels were not written by Matthew and John. The Church Fathers are unanimous in their attribution. There was no historical debate. All manuscripts we have say Matthew and John. Produce some evidence, not theories, and we can continue the debate. If no evidence, no debate from me.

Your dates are way off, too.

 

[Bradskii]

I’m already past the point where I am likely to spend my time listing every expert who considers the gospels to be anonymous. If you are not aware of the majority consensus on this matter then you need to investigate further. If you are aware then it might be prudent to acknowledge it and accept it as valid argument even if you personally reject it.

 

[HarryStotle]

For example, the gospel giving the report of the resurrection, known as Mark’s is, in the first instance, anonymous. That is, we do not know who wrote it.

There is far more evidence for Mark having originally written the Gospel than there is evidence for the Gospel being anonymous. In fact, the claim that Mark’s Gospel was initially anonymous has no evidence whatsoever in its support.

There are NO anonymous manuscript copies of any of the Gospels and no reason for thinking they were initially anonymous in the sense of it not being known who wrote any of them at some point in history.

To claim that the Gospel of Mark was originally anonymous without any evidence that it actually was, is a pretty bold step for someone who touts lack of evidence as a good reason to disbelieve a claim.

Consistency, Bradskii?

 

[HarryStotle]

John’s and Matthews’s gospels are accepted as being anonymous. And written (and revised) some 70 to 80 years after the resurrection by second generasion Christians. And you really twist logical arguments out of all recognised shape. There is no evidence at all to suggest that, for example, John wrote his gospel but you have the chutzpaha to say ‘there is no evidence to prove that he didn’t’.

And how do you respond to this as it relates to accuracy (albeit from a wiki):

The oldest relatively complete manuscripts of the Bible are the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, which date from the 4th century. Besides these, there exist manuscript fragments ranging from a few verses to whole chapters. These are copies of copies. In the process of recopying, variations slipped in, different regional manuscript traditions emerged, and corrections and adjustments were made. Modern textual scholars collate all major surviving manuscripts, as well as citations in the works of the Church Fathers, in order to produce a text which most likely approximates to the lost autographs.

Say that you believe all the stories as a matter of faith and I will accept that without argument and retire gracefully from the discussion. Any attempt to try to prove that these are entirely accurate and factual reports and should be trated as verbatim will fail.

Nope. Your analysis of text criticism is not an accurate one. The surviving manuscripts coming from a wide range of locations over a long period of time are in virtual agreement as to what the originals recorded.

If the originals were so discordant with each other, their distribution over a wide area would have resulted in virtually no agreement with regard to the copies we have from centuries later. Those copies virtually all agree on 99.7% of the text.

Your dating is also way off relying as it does on faulty or contentious premises surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem, the Synoptic Problem, and Markan priority.

You need to read more recent scholars.

 

[Gorgias]

There were no eye-witnesses at all to the Resurrection itself

To the event? No. What does that matter, though, if we have eyewitnesses to the Risen Christ?

of those who are claimed to have seen the risen Christ, only Paul actually gives an eye-witness account.

That’s untrue. Matthew and John, the evangelists, attest to Christ’s appearance among them (the apostles), and Mark and Luke – who ostensibly wrote from the eyewitness accounts of apostles – record what these eyewitnesses told them. And, of course, we have Paul’s witness.

The accounts reporting the eye-witness of others often refer to Jesus as not being identifiable, at least at first, from Mary Magdalen thinking he was the gardener, to the disciples on the road to Emmaus and the others fishing on the Sea of Galilee.

The first two are unlike the third. In the first two, the eyewitnesses’ understanding was that Jesus was dead – until they realized that they were mistaken, the natural expectation would be that they were conversing with anyone but Jesus! In the Sea of Galilee story, they see Him at a distance, and only become aware that it’s Jesus after they discern his identity.

So, these don’t demonstrate, I’d assert, what you think they demonstrate.

 

[Gorgias]

And I might note that the line about the Stanley Cup has been used, to my direct knowledge, in at least two other similar discussions about the resurrection over the last couple of years. I think you are repeating what you have heard rather than what you think.

Nah. It’s just that the Pens have made the playoffs again, so my mind is on the next Cup they’ll win in a few months…

Only one eye witness report.

Nope. At the very least, we’ve got:

• two apostolic evangelists
• two non-apostolic evangelists who were getting their info from apostles
• Mary Magdalene
• the disciples from Emmaus
• Paul

The event happened over two thousand years ago

You keep repeating this, but you refuse to admit what you’re doing: you’re attempting to say that events in the distant past are more unlikely than ones in the recent past. That’s just poor argumentation.

The event was only recorded decades after the event.

The event was well-known in the community immediately. We can quibble about when it got written down, but it was the centerpiece of the entire Jesus movement.

Records about the event do not match in important details.

In other words, it looks exactly the way eyewitness accounts are told, and nothing like the way that made-up accounts are told. Thank you – that’s an important data point!

It is generally accepted that the methods of reportage include the use of folk history, prophesy, word of mouth, metaphor and hyperbole.

Generally accepted by whom?

And you say that the evidence for the first is stronger than the second.

No: you asked whether the first account was credible. I say it is.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m already past the point where I am likely to spend my time listing every expert who considers the gospels to be anonymous. If you are not aware of the majority consensus on this matter then you need to investigate further.

You need to read more recent scholars.

This.

The Gospel manuscripts, in fact, are not anonymous. Every extant Gospel we have that includes the start of the Gospel (and not just a snippet), literally identifies the author. You recognize, don’t you, that this is the exact opposite of ‘anonymous’, right?

Moreover, the “late authorship” theory is waning in scholarly acceptance. In fact, it tends to be based off of erroneous dating vis-a-vis the events of 70A.D. So, “20 to 30 years” and “by eyewitnesses” tend to be what many Scripture scholars are now saying. Other than Ehrman and Azlan, of course.

 

[HarryStotle]

The oldest relatively complete manuscripts of the Bible are the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, which date from the 4th century. Besides these, there exist manuscript fragments ranging from a few verses to whole chapters.

There are manuscript fragments of papyri (Papyrus 4, Papyrus 62, Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75) from the second century that, while they are fragments, they do contain the supercriptions with author attribution. I’ve taken the liberty to upload a table with that information. Red arrows show the earliest manuscripts with the form of the name as attributed.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I repeat: There are NO extant manuscripts that lack authorial attribution for any of the Gospels.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

So, these don’t demonstrate, I’d assert, what you think they demonstrate.

Well, I’m not sure what they demonstrate; I just think you need to go carefully. Your addition of Matthew and Luke to my single eye-witness account is still disputed, I think. I’m not a scholar in this field, but am aware that Jerome Gilmartin thinks he has reinstated the apostolic identity of the evangelists. However I don’t know that his views yet constitute a consensus among bible scholars. HarryStotle is correct that I need to read more recent scholars, but I don’t seem to be able to find any.

The eye-witness case is not enhanced by confusing an" eye-witness" with an “eye-witness report”. The disciples on the way to Emmaus were certainly the one, but they did not leave us the other. In fact nobody did except Paul, and perhaps the two evangelists, although they do not read like eye-witness reports. I imagine this is explained as a stylistic thing, but whereas Paul says “he appeared to me”, the evangelists say “he appeared to them” rather than “he appeared to us.”

I’m not sure, myself. I think Jesus was crucified, and I think that after a short while people were prepared to die defending the Resurrection. What exactly happened is less important than its effects.

 

[Gorgias]

HarryStotle is correct that I need to read more recent scholars, but I don’t seem to be able to find any.

Check out Brant Pitre’s “The Case for Jesus”, for one such treatment.

The eye-witness case is not enhanced by confusing an" eye-witness" with an “eye-witness report”. The disciples on the way to Emmaus were certainly the one, but they did not leave us the other.

What would you call the narrative of their encounter, then, as found in Luke? That they did not pen it themselves makes it no less of an eyewitness account!

 

[AlNg]

What does that matter, though, if we have eyewitnesses to the Risen Christ?

Will Durant mentioned the possibility that Jesus did not actually die on the Cross and that He was still alive but near death or in a coma, when He was taken down from the Cross.

 

[HarryStotle]

Gorgias:

What does that matter, though, if we have eyewitnesses to the Risen Christ?

Will Durant mentioned the possibility that Jesus did not actually die on the Cross and that He was still alive but near death or in a coma, when He was taken down from the Cross.

Some reading for you.

https://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/deathjesus.pdf

 

[KJW5551]

Just another crazy theory without a shred of historical evidence.

 

[HarryStotle]

Will Durant mentioned the possibility that Jesus did not actually die on the Cross and that He was still alive but near death or in a coma, when He was taken down from the Cross.

To be very clear:

The eyewitness report by John that blood and water flowed from the side of Jesus was for 1900+ years thought to be merely of theological significance by pretty much everybody, since it wasn’t even thought possible.

As it turns out – and this has only been confirmed in the last 50 years or so – the blood and water flowing separately from a wound can mean only one thing, i.e., that both the pleural and pericardial cavities were pierced by the spear, but also that his death had to have been the case even before the spear opened his side given the time needed for blood and water to pool respectively in those two areas after the heart stops beating.

From the article above:

Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured his death.

 

[Gorgias]

Will Durant mentioned the possibility that Jesus did not actually die on the Cross and that He was still alive but near death or in a coma

Right. 'Cause, after all, Roman soldiers were complete amateurs at their jobs. Which, in this case, was killing criminals painfully, publicly, and most important, effectively.

 

[neophyte]

Do virtual particles come into being out of nothing or do they come into being out of something?

Out of nothing, nothing comes. It is impossible for anything, including elementary particles, to arise out of nothing absent a special act of creation by God.

 

[neophyte]

And it’s a binary question on par with ‘there is either a magical unicorn who created the universe or there isn’t’.

No, it’s not. You’re making a fundamental category error.