- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 May 21
2 edits
@fmf saidThe weeks that elapsed between the death of Jesus and the cultural shift of Jerusalem Jews in weeks was mentioned. You said something to the effect that the time lapse between the proclamation of His resurrection and His death was decades.
Because you seem to think that what "thousands of Jerusalem Jews" may have believed or may have done at some point after the death of Jesus is credible proof that something supernatural had happened.
Your rationale that too many years elapsed so that legend or myth could develop is countered with the fact that within weeks the belief was spreading in the very city of His death.
Also concerning the resurrection the earliest documents we have are Paul's First Corinthian letter. Even some skeptical scholars place that writing within a couple of years of Christ's death. When Paul wrote it there was in existence already a creedal formula stating Christ rose. That is something like "the Apostle's Creed" as a kind of saying. That indicates within a few years of Christ's death a creedal formula was being recited.
When you put forth a theory saying ie. "This evidence argues for myth making over many years" [paraphrased] I counter with "The evidence is that the central issue was known within weeks and a few years after the believed event."
The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars | Gary Habermas (Part 1) Dr. Gary Habermas "Don't tell us it happened because the Bible says so." Habermas was told by his doctoral dissertation committee lead chair.
This is a historical argument.
Anyone who doesn't want to watch the whole video, I suggest that you just watch eight to ten minutes for starters.
27 May 21
@sonship said[1] The question of when the Gospels, the Paul stuff, and Revelation were written, and the question of who wrote them, for me, undermine the account they give and so undermine the credibility of the claims that Christians make about Christ's supernatural identity.
You said something to the effect that the time lapse between the proclamation of His resurrection and His death was decades. Your rationale that too many years elapsed so that legend or myth could develop is countered with the fact that within weeks the belief was spreading in the very city of His death.
[2] What "thousands of Jerusalem Jews" you say believed or did at some point after the death of Jesus is not credible proof - to my way of thinking - that something supernatural had happened.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 May 21
1 edit
Correction:
I am watching the video again. And Habermas says that Bart Ehrman, agnostic leaning toward atheism and best known skeptical NT scholar in the US says that we can trace the creedal confession Paul speaks of in First Corinthians to ONE YEAR after the cross.
At about 17:15 on
27 May 21
@fmf saidTo remind you of the greater context:
Here is your analogy:
How could I come to reject that people travel by boat..? It would just be absurd to suggest that boats are not a thing, and people cannot travel on man-made objects moving in the water..."
The belief that people travel by boat is not a supernatural belief.
We have control over our minds and thought processes, right..?
We can also control what we find to be credible?
There are outliers, of course - how could I come to believe that spiderman, and only spiderman, is actual & real, except it's not Peter Parker -- it's my father!
How could I come to reject that people travel by boat..? It would just be absurd to suggest that boats are not a thing, and people cannot travel on man-made objects moving in the water...
But, generally speaking, man is capable of believing in what he chooses to believe in. What we believe is the one thing we have near 100% control over.
People can determine what they find credible, and what they wish to believe; there are very few things out there that are so incredible that it is probably impossible for people to choose to believe them even if they want to.
27 May 21
@fmf saidSo their will has already been set...
I do not think this is how it works with supernatural beliefs.
At waht point?
So, ultimately, nobody has a choice in what they believe, right? There's just inherent immutable characteristics about who they are and how they think, and thus what they find credible and what they are inclined to believe is beyond their control, yeah?
Or what's the metaphysics behind not being able to believe in God even if you want to...? Am I getting it wrong?
27 May 21
@philokalia saidI think finding claims about supernatural things to be credible is something that people realize about themselves and not a decision that is made.
So, ultimately, nobody has a choice in what they believe, right? There's just inherent immutable characteristics about who they are and how they think, and thus what they find credible and what they are inclined to believe is beyond their control
Can I simply decide to be a Christian believer again? No. But I might realize that my faith has returned at some point.
When I lost my faith, it was not a decision I made. It was something that I gradually realized had happened.
27 May 21
@philokalia saidWishing to believe might well be conducive to the process of becoming a believer, sure.
People can determine what they find credible, and what they wish to believe; there are very few things out there that are so incredible that it is probably impossible for people to choose to believe them even if they want to.
27 May 21
@fmf saidYou quoted this but then dodged it. Fair enough.
Here is your analogy:
How could I come to reject that people travel by boat..? It would just be absurd to suggest that boats are not a thing, and people cannot travel on man-made objects moving in the water..."
The belief that people travel by boat is not a supernatural belief.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 May 21
2 edits
[1] The question of when the Gospels, the Paul stuff, and Revelation were written, and the question of who wrote them, for me, undermine the account they give and so undermine the credibility of the claims that Christians make about Christ's supernatural identity.
Taken on historical grounds only and not as inspired writing it is evident that someone BELIEVED that Jesus had been raised. And what they believed was in a kind of creedal confession. And this was a tradition already within one year of the cross.
That is not proof what they believed was true.
But it is evidence that it was believed.
As of yet you offered no alternative reason as to WHY they would believe it.
When you argue that these documents evidence that they didn't believe Jesus rose or that they demonstrate Jesus didn't do any such thing, I think you have a huge job to do to demonstrate that. It smells of rationalizing to the point that all evidence will be twisted to argue the opposite of what it indicates. Fortified skepticism, reinforced unbelief.
Ie. "The New Testament documents show the opposite of what they intended to show." That's like saying that Einstein's theory of General Relativity really shows that Einstein did not believe his theory of General Relativity.
What is the most striking fact in say the writings of the Gospel which undermine for you the proclamation it makes? Your MOST striking fact I request. Don't save your MOST striking fact for many examples latter.
[2] What "thousands of Jerusalem Jews" you say believed or did at some point after the death of Jesus is not credible proof - to my way of thinking - that something supernatural had happened.
It may not be proof. It is evidence that they believed it.
Well, a presentation of the corpse of Jesus could have crushed that.
The Romans and the Jews could have simply paraded the corpse of Jesus through the city to circumvent the spreading new belief.
You can say none of this is proof of a miracle. But it takes a lot of "faith" to support conspiracy theories of alternative explanations. Your lack of alternative explanations is not unnoticed.
Paul was a scholar.
Paul's life was changed by something.
Paul did a 180 degree turn from enemy of Christian doctrine and critic to the Gospel to its most ardent proclaimer.
Paul was there at the time when professed eyewitnesses were still alive.
Critical atheist and agnostic NT scholars are in agreement that five or six letters are undisputed authentic writings of this man Paul:
Romans, Galatians, First and Second Corinthians, First Thessalonians, Philemon.
I am not a scholar but I believe all 13 books with his name are Pauline.
But skeptical NT scholars agree on those few mentioned above.
Someone like Paul is very valuable to historians on non inspired non sacred terms.
Sure as a Christian I believe the writings are the oracles of God.
But if they are not their value is great still to show what soon after Jesus' death was the belief spreading astoundingly in the face of great odds to destroy it.
27 May 21
@sonship saidPaul never met Jesus.
Paul was a scholar.
Paul's life was changed by something.
Paul did a 180 degree turn from enemy of Christian doctrine and critic to the Gospel to its most ardent proclaimer.
Paul was there at the time when professed eyewitnesses were still alive.
Critical atheist and agnostic NT scholars are in agreement that five or six letters are undisputed authentic wr ...[text shortened]... on after Jesus' death was the belief spreading astoundingly in the face of great odds to destroy it.
27 May 21
@philokalia saidTell me some supernatural claims - that you do not find credible - that you could choose to believe anyway.
There are very few things out there that are so incredible that it is probably impossible for people to choose to believe them even if they want to.
27 May 21
@philokalia saidTo some extent, isn't this opening the door to anxiety about death..?
But you are an agnostic atheist... I thought this would mean that you are saying you just do not know, or perhaps cannot know.To some extent, isn't this opening the door to anxiety..?
No. Not really. And I don't see how my agnostic atheism has anything other than a reducing-anxiety effect. I am sure I will feel a bit fed up in my twilight years when I realize the time left to do things is running out. 'What happens after I die?' Is not a question that causes me any anxiety.
Meanwhile, for selfish reasons, perhaps, I do feel anxiety about the possibility that people around me will die, especially my immediate family.
27 May 21
@philokalia saidThis is perhaps worth a thread of its own.
I think that everyone has persistent anxiety about death, and so I believe some part of them wishes to avoid hell and attain heaven, even if it is something though they may put up a very confident facade that they completely reject the existence of both.