Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[Hawkins]

There is far better evidence for Alexander than for Jesus. Carrier details this in his book on the historical Jesus. See also https://www.reddit.com/r/path%3D%252Fr%252FAskHistorians%252Fcomments%252F178ez0%252F .

You are still avoiding the question. Provide a name of a credible witness for Alexander. If you can't, it remains your own speculation on who is more credible.

Moreover, it's not about who exists. It's more about who said what. A credible witness should be able to provide what an ancient figure had said in quotes.

Moreover, what you said has nothing to do with credibility. It's all about one of the properties of the nature of history. The more famous one is, the more humans will write about him with more documents left behind. Still it says nothing about how credible those writings are.

The other property of the nature of history is that, humans don't usually seriously record supernatural events and figures as part of our formal history. Occasionally you may read it in some part of old history, yet it's more like a story instead of serious historical witnessing. Even today, we don't investigate supernatural claims and to record them for later humans to read as history.

Credibility on the other hand is about how you can confirm who wrote it, and how close of the version we are now reading to the original copy, say, written in ancient scrolls.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I have never said that a majority PROVES something but nevertheless it IS evidence for the position.

I have never said that you said it PROVES something!

Majority opinion is weak evidence. Why does that majority believe? That is the question you need to ask.

Most of the "scholars" in your survey are probably Christian teachers and pastors who would lose their jobs if they said the empty tomb was not verified. So the fact that they say this is not evidence. You need to look at the evidence they have, not simply state that they say yes on a survey.

And by the way, if the majority vote wins then you lose, for more people deny the resurrection then believe it. You simply ignore that.

I even admit that most of the scholars that believe that the tomb was empty do not believe that it was empty because Christ was resurrected. The majority of scientists believe that the theory of evolution is true. I have had many evolutionists tout that as evidence that evolution is correct.

Scientists do not base their beliefs on a popular vote. Science is based on a consensus of observations. Scientists publish their findings in journals. When findings are consistently in favor of a given view, and alternate views are consistently shown to be false, then there develops a consensus of the published findings toward that view. That is what happened with evolution. There is an overwhelming consensus of the scientific findings that show that evolution is true. We have a scientific consensus for evolution. That is far different from saying the majority believes this.

See, for instance, https://ncse.com/project-steve.

We do not have a scientific consensus for the empty grave. So what is your evidence?

Your only evidence that you don't think it is an ancient hymn is that you believe only Cephas is the Aramaic characteristic but many scholars say that the whole passage to verse 7 has Aramaic characteristics.

Balderdash. You were told over and over what my reasons are and you simply ignore it.

There is strong evidence I Cor 15:3-11 was inserted later. You simply ignore it.

Paul says he did not receive his gospel from men. Therefore when stating his gospel he would not simply recite a creed he got from men. You simply pretend I never said this.

Creeds don't include lists of evidence. You simply pretend I never said this.

You have presented no evidence that v 5-7 are a creed, other than that some people agree with you. I have asked for your evidence. You simply ignore the request.

Your evidence against the women is very weak. If the author was seriously trying to prove Christ's resurrection to a first century audience he would have recorded that men were the first to see the empty tomb. But since the author was a devout jew who believed in moral absolutes and wanted to tell the truth, he mentioned the women thereby confirming its very likely authenticity.

No, since Joseph of Arimethea was a member of the jewish court that condemned Jesus, it is very unlikely to have been a Christian invention and is likely a very early tradition that confirms that His tomb was well known very early on.

Joseph and the women come from the gospels, which were written later, and have doubtful credibility. The epistles say absolutely nothing about either. How do you know that the things the gospels record about the resurrection happened?

That is a possibility but given what we know above about the early tradition regarding the tomb, very unlikely. IOW there is absolutely no evidence that they went to the wrong tomb in fact the above evidence shows the opposite.

Sure there is. Romans typically buried condemned criminals in mass garbage heaps. How do you know that Jesus was not simply buried in a mass grave, and the story of the empty tomb did not develop until later?

Actually there is evidence that Mark was written before Pauls letters.

The writers of the epistles seem to be totally unaware of the gospels. The gospels themselves show signs of being written much later. What evidence do you have that Mark was written before Paul's letters?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You are still avoiding the question. Provide a name of a credible witness for Alexander. If you can't, it remains your own speculation on who is more credible.

Moreover, it's not about who exists. It's more about who said what. A credible witness should be able to provide what an ancient figure had said in quotes.

Moreover, what you said has nothing to do with credibility. It's all about one of the properties of the nature of history. The more famous one is, the more humans will write about him with more documents left behind. Still it says nothing about how credible those writings are.

There were names of two credible documents in the link I provided you.

 

[Hawkins]

There were names of two credible documents in the link I provided you.

Then please provide how do you evaluate them as credible or not! As what I was asking is a CREDIBLE witness.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Then please provide how do you evaluate them as credible or not! As what I was asking is a CREDIBLE witness.

I don't have time to go into the details. In the book The Historical Jesus Richard Carrier goes into details on the written evidence for Alexander, and how we know those sources are credible. You are welcome to look it up if you are interested.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

2PhiloVoid, I will try to fill in voids I see in your argument.

"Bahduh Cha"

 

[Grafted In]

Merle, I already gave you the 2 best witnesses in an earlier post.
You continue to impress with your worldly wisdom and it's clear you are well read. But the wisdom of man, such as your abundance, is a stumbling block to Spiritual Truth. You can write great eloquent summations til they pat you in the face with a shovel. Then all of Merle's arogant worldly wisdom will be for not.

You must be born again.

Jesus saves

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I didn't say it proves me right but it IS evidence against your position.

dm: ROFL! You found somebody that agrees with you, so that is evidence for your position?

You can find people that agree with those that think the earth is flat. Is that evidence for that position? When I ask for evidence, I am expecting more than, "Some people agree with me."

Somebody? I referenced several well respected scholars. There are no well respected scientists that think the earth is flat. So that is false equivalency.

dm: Galatians 1:11-12 it says, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." But you claim the sentence in bold means, "I received it of man, and I was taught it" I disagree. Paul clearly is not saying what you claim he is saying.

And let me guess: You will respond, once again by saying that "I neither received it of man" really means "I received it of man", yes?

No, see what I said earlier below.

ed: but it is true that he did not directly receive the gospel from the apostles, he received it from the bodily resurrected Christ as shown in the book of Acts. The creed he quoted is part of the gospel but it is not the full gospel.

dm: Huh? First Corinthians 15:1 specifically declares that this is the gospel: "Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,"

It is very clear to me that the verses as recorded here say this is Paul's gospel.

No, we know from all of Paul's letters that the full Gospel is far more than that, though that is a key component of the Gospel. He was responding to the Greeks in Corinth in this passage that were most likely claiming the resurrection was spiritual not bodily and that He didn't really die and resurrect. He is emphasizing this because if Jesus had not actually died then our sins were not forgiven.

dm: Again, it is hard to believe that Paul would say he did nor receive his gospel from men, and then, in another book, say, "I declare the gospel that yada yada yada", where yada yada yada is a verbatim quote of a hymn he received from other people. That makes no sense.

That is because they were claiming Paul had made it up on his own, ie man made. He was working in tandem with all the other apostles, he did not want to set "his" gospel up against "theirs". There was no us and them. He was claiming that not only his gospel but THE GOSPEL was not man made. By quoting the hymn Paul was showing that all of the apostles were preaching the same truths including the physical resurrection.

ed: I don't remember seeing you present any evidence for such a case. Re-present it and I will comment.

dm: Sigh. I have repeated this several times.

Post #92 is where I argue against I Cor 15:5-7 being a creed.
Post #92.
Post #92.

All you do on this post is say that by removing the creed/hymn from the text it makes the text sound better, but this is not true and purely speculative. There is no evidence that it was added later.

dm: Do you need me to repeat that a dozen times more for your benefit?

ed: No need to, I have already refuted it earlier in this thread.

dm: ROFL! So you admit you are hyjacking this thread!

How am I hijacking this thread just by stating that your statement has been refuted?

dm: No, you have not refuted the idea that Jesus might have been mythical. There are lengthy arguments in that other thread if you care to join me there.

Please quite trying to hijack this thread.

Maybe if I have time, but your claim that Paul believed that Jesus only resurrected spiritually makes no sense by reading his writings as I have demonstrated.

ed: Did you read his letter to the church in Corinth?

dm: Yes, I have read most of Clement's letter to the Corinthians. He most definitely does not claim that Matthew wrote the book of Matthew. You claim he said that, and I think you know that your claim is totally bogus. I have asked you over and over to show me where Clement says what you claim. You refuse--refuse!--to address that question. Instead you ask me again to read again a book that you know does not say what you claim is there! If you really think Clement declares that Matthew wrote the book of Matthew, than show me where he says that.

Actually I did make a mistake, I am referring to Clement of Alexandria. He explains how Mark recorded Peter's words about Jesus.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Somebody? I referenced several well respected scholars.

You are using an argument from authority. This is regarded as a logical fallacy. The fact that a well respected person said something does not prove it is true. I was looking for evidence that does not resort to logical fallacies.

All you do on this post is say that by removing the creed/hymn from the text it makes the text sound better, but this is not true and purely speculative. There is no evidence that it was added later.

Sure there is evidence I Cor 15:3-11 was inserted later, as detailed in the link I gave, https://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html .

So far you have given no evidence that I Cor 15: 5-7 is part of a creed. All you have said is that some scholars agree with you.

How am I hijacking this thread just by stating that your statement has been refuted?

Sigh. I have explained this over and over. You like lots of repetition, don't you?

Once again: There was another thread on the historical Jesus. There I presented in detail my agreement with the claim that Jesus could well have been mythical and never walked on earth as a man. That is a different thread. In this thread I deal with the case that there is not good evidence for a resurrection from the dead. I am not dealing here with the claim for a mythical Jesus. I am dealing with the claim that a physical Jesus arose from the dead. If Jesus existed, I don't think he bodily arose from the dead. However you keep on trying to hyjack this thread and make it be about a mythical Jesus, when that is not the topic. And so I need to explain this to you over and over again.

Actually I did make a mistake, I am referring to Clement of Alexandria. He explains how Mark recorded Peter's words about Jesus.

Clement of Alexandria is again late in the second century. As such, he is probably more of a witness to what the growing church heirarchy was now saying about the gospels, as opposed to what people said about the gospels at the time they were written.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Papias claimed to have spoken to John who told him that Mark was an interpreter of Peter and wrote down many things he said about his time with the Lord.

dm: Actually Eusbius claims that Papias claims that "The Elder" claims that Mark wrote what Peter said. We don't know who the elder is that Papias referred to. There is a whole lot of hearsay here, and we don't know if each chain in the link correctly relayed the information.

Due to the date of Papias many scholars believe that it is John the Elder, ie the apostle John. And they also believe that the evidence points to the fact that the title "Gospel of Mark" was attached shortly after they were written. Read Studies in the Gospel of Mark by Martin Hengel.

dm: At any rate, the book Papias describes is very different from our book of Mark, so it is doubtful he is talking about that book.

No, most scholars agree that he WAS talking about the gospel of Mark as we know it.

dm: Regardless, Papias appears to have never had a copy of any gospel account, and in fact, emphasizes that he sees little value in reading a gospel account. So how can Papias, who discounts the value of any such account, be used as proof that the accounts are reliable?

No, Papias states that Mark was not written in chronological order and that is correct, so plainly he had read it and even studied it. Evidence that he discounts the value of any such account?

ed: Justin, Irenaeus, and Clement also all claimed this about the book of Mark.

dm: Wrong. We have already looked at your false claim for Clement. You refuse to provide any evidence for this claim. It is obvious the reason you do not justify your claim is because Clement never said this, and you know it.

No, I corrected myself, I was referring to Clement of Alexandria. He records how Mark wrote the gospel in his work Hypotyposeis.

dm:The same can be said for Justin. He does not claim that Mark wrote a gospel. If you think he did, show us where.

Not specifically, but he refers to the gospels as "the Memoirs". Which means he considered them the Memoirs of the apostles and he knew about the story of Peter and Mark.

dm: And Irenaeus is 150 years after Jesus, which is too late to be considered a reliable source.

But he refers to older sources that provide the story that Mark wrote Peters memoirs of Jesus. And he implies that it may have been written PRIOR to Peters death, because he uses the term "departure" not the usual term for death. He may be referring to Peters departure for Rome.

 

[Hawkins]

I don't have time to go into the details. In the book The Historical Jesus Richard Carrier goes into details on the written evidence for Alexander, and how we know those sources are credible. You are welcome to look it up if you are interested.

It's just human accounts of witnessing. You can't even briefly mention the basic criteria why they are credible.

My point is, you are applying a double standard when questioning the credibility of the Bible writers why you can't even provide your criteria on why the writers of Alexander can be considered credible.

For example, do you have the original ancient scrolls supporting the writings about Alexander and the tracked records about who wrote those writings, that is, the same criteria you tried to question the credibility of the Bible writers.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1wolf,

You get a lot of mileage out of your scholars. And yet most of the ones you consider scholars are paid promoters of the Christian faith. They would lose their job, or their market for their books, if they came out against the resurrection. And yet you expect us to believe things are true, just because your scholars say so.

That is like telling me that Ford would be the best car for you, for you talked to a Ford salesman, and that is what he told you. Yeah, duh. But what if you had talked to a Chevy salesman? Would you not have heard a different story?

You seem to be unaware of the case that some have brought against the resurrection. There are other scholars. Are you like the man who was sold on Fords because he had never heard another sales pitch?

Anyway, as I mentioned, saying something is true because a smart guy says so is considered a logical fallacy. And yet this is largely where your case rests.

Due to the date of Papias many scholars believe that it is John the Elder, ie the apostle John.

And many Ford salesmen believe in Fords.

Papias wrote 100 years after Jesus. It is doubtful his life overlapped any of the Jerusalem 12. At best his knowledge of them was second hand.

Papias wrote:

For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say.​

So the apostle John was a person that Papias asked about, not a person he spoke to. Papias got his information second hand.

And they also believe that the evidence points to the fact that the title "Gospel of Mark" was attached shortly after they were written.

What evidence do they have that it was titled "Mark" early? I know of nobody who clearly refers to the current book of Mark as being written by Mark before 180 AD.

No, most scholars agree that he [Papias] WAS talking about the gospel of Mark as we know it.

And most Ford salesmen sell Fords.

Papias describes a book of saying not in order, which hardly describes the book we now call Mark.

No, Papias states that Mark was not written in chronological order and that is correct, so plainly he had read it and even studied it. Evidence that he discounts the value of any such account?

Papias wrote:

I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.​

It appears Papias never saw the books he is talking about. He can't tell us what is in them, only what he imagines is in them. He imagines that there was nothing in gospels that would be as profitable as the second hand knowledge he got from asking about the apostles. He can hardly be considered a witness to the value of the gospels, if he never saw them, and imagined there was nothing in them as valuable as the second hand knowledge he got by hearsay from a friend of a friend of Jesus.

 

[doubtingmerle]

For example, do you have the original ancient scrolls supporting the writings about Alexander and the tracked records about who wrote those writings, that is, the same criteria you tried to question the credibility of the Bible writers.

Of course not. Nobody is asking for the original scrolls.

The problems is not just that the scrolls we have were not written by apostles. The problem is that the originals, form which the extent scrolls were copied, were probably not written by apostles. We don't know who wrote the original books, and if they were reliable.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It's just human accounts of witnessing. You can't even briefly mention the basic criteria why they are credible.

My point is, you are applying a double standard when questioning the credibility of the Bible writers why you can't even provide your criteria on why the writers of Alexander can be considered credible.

We do have credible witnesses to Alexander. Elsewhere I wrote:

The best ancient historians detail their own credentials, and list the credentials of the people they quote. For instance, Carrier writes:

Our best historian of Alexander is Arrian, who though he wrote five hundred years later, nevertheless employed an explicit method of using only three eyewitness sources (two of the actual generals of Alexander who wrote accounts of their adventures with him). He names and identifies these sources, explains how he used them to generate a more reliable account, and discusses their relative merits. That alone is quite a great deal more then we have for Jesus, for whom we have not a single named eyewitness source in any of the account of him, much less a discussion of how those sources were used or what their relative merits were. [OTHJ, kindle version]
​

And no, Arrian and his sources do not name every single person in the story or present every thing word for word. Those are straw men. Arrian explicitly names his sources and discusses the historical method and merit of what he is recording.

Arrian deals with named, credible eyewitnesses of Alexander. The gospels give no named, credible eyewitnesses as their source. Carrier continues:

And that's not all. We have mentions of Alexander the Great and details about him in several contemporary or eyewitness sources still extant, including the speaches of Isocrates and Demosthenes and Aschines and Hyperides and Dinarchus, the poetry of Theocritus, the scientific works of Theophrastus, and the plays of Menander. We have not a single contemporary mention of Jesus--apart, from, at best, Paul, who never knew him, and says next to nothing about him (as a historical man) [OTHJ, Kindle version]
​

Carrier goes on to describe many contemporary texts about Alexander that survive only as quotes in other sources, and the great deal of artifacts that survive. All of this together paints a coherent view of Alexander as a historical person.

Carrier discusses Alexander in detail, so before you critique his work on Alexander, would it be too much to ask that you first read what Carrier says?

​

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Somebody? I referenced several well respected scholars.

dm: You are using an argument from authority. This is regarded as a logical fallacy. The fact that a well respected person said something does not prove it is true. I was looking for evidence that does not resort to logical fallacies.

Almost everything you learn in life comes from an authority.

dm: https://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html .

So far you have given no evidence that I Cor 15: 5-7 is part of a creed. All you have said is that some scholars agree with you.

I am not a greek and Aramaic scholar, I have to rely on authorities. But nevertheless they believe there IS evidence.

ed: How am I hijacking this thread just by stating that your statement has been refuted?

dm: Sigh. I have explained this over and over. You like lots of repetition, don't you?

Once again: There was another thread on the historical Jesus. There I presented in detail my agreement with the claim that Jesus could well have been mythical and never walked on earth as a man. That is a different thread. In this thread I deal with the case that there is not good evidence for a resurrection from the dead. I am not dealing here with the claim for a mythical Jesus. I am dealing with the claim that a physical Jesus arose from the dead. If Jesus existed, I don't think he bodily arose from the dead. However you keep on trying to hyjack this thread and make it be about a mythical Jesus, when that is not the topic. And so I need to explain this to you over and over again.

There is a connection between the two theories, I am just showing how both are incompatible with almost everything Paul wrote.

ed: Actually I did make a mistake, I am referring to Clement of Alexandria. He explains how Mark recorded Peter's words about Jesus.

dm: Clement of Alexandria is again late in the second century. As such, he is probably more of a witness to what the growing church heirarchy was now saying about the gospels, as opposed to what people said about the gospels at the time they were written.

No, actually he is from the mid second century. There is no evidence that the church leadership was wrong and since Christians believe in moral absolutes, there is a less probability that they would lie.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Almost everything you learn in life comes from an authority.

Perhaps for you that is how it works. For science, no, this is not how it works. It is not true that in science, almost everything we learn comes from authority. In fact, as I mentioned to you, arguing from authority is considered a logical fallacy. And yet you not only rely on this logical fallacy, but insist that relying on authority is the source of almost every thing we know! Almost everything we know is based on what we obtain through a logical fallacy? I don't think so.

You might want to read up on the scientific and historical methods. There, almost everything we know is based on observation, evidence and reason.

Smart people are sometimes wrong. Smart people are sometimes biased. Smart people sometimes say what they need to say to earn there pay. So to me, as a lover of science and truth, I have a hard time with the argument that says I ought to believe something because you know a smart person who believes it.

I am not a greek and Aramaic scholar, I have to rely on authorities. But nevertheless they believe there IS evidence.

What evidence? That is the question. I have quoted you a source saying many scholars think I Cor 15:5-7 is not a creed and have given their evidence. The list of names there do not correlate with the witnesses mentioned in the gospels and the order of events. If this was a creed that everybody knew, the gospel writers would have tried to synchronize with it. Lists of names that saw something is not typical of creeds. The list appears to have more to do with establishing who was a priority in the church than in historical fact. And besides, the list is out of place in the chapter and could well have been inserted later.

There is a connection between the two theories, I am just showing how both are incompatible with almost everything Paul wrote.

Sorry, but your attempts to refute that Jesus was mythical do nothing to refute the claim that the historical Jesus--if he existed--did not rise from the dead. This thread is about whether the historical Jesus--if he existed--rose from the dead. Your insistence on changing the subject does nothing to argue for the issue discussed in this thread. Get with the program please.

No, actually he is from the mid second century. There is no evidence that the church leadership was wrong and since Christians believe in moral absolutes, there is a less probability that they would lie.

And that is what it comes down to: The church of the late 2nd century could not have been wrong, therefore we should believe everything they said? I disagree. It appears to me that there was a power struggle in the 2nd century, with what we now refer to as the orthodox faith winning out and thus establishing lucrative jobs for the leaders. But the fact that they won is no more evidence that they are telling the truth, than the fact that Trump won proves that there were broadcasts of Muslims publicly cheering for the fall of the twin towers in New Jersey.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Perhaps for you that is how it works. For science, no, this is not how it works. It is not true that in science, almost everything we learn comes from authority. In fact, as I mentioned to you, arguing from authority is considered a logical fallacy. And yet you not only rely on this logical fallacy, but insist that relying on authority is the source of almost every thing we know! Almost everything we know is based on what we obtain through a logical fallacy? I don't think so.

While it is true that attempting to argue from authority is a "logical fallacy," in regard to scholars, this kind of argument is really only a fallacy IF the scholars are, all things considered, wrong about their explanations, data, and/or theories. So, to cite a scholar (and do it correctly) is NOT to commit the fallacy of arguing from authority.

In fact, I found it very interesting that Massimo Pigliucci (2015), an atheist, had this to say about how Skeptics have a tendency to resort to, and overuse, the defense of citing logical fallacies pertaining to the use of authority, and he says:

Indeed, the more we reflect on the nature of the skeptic (and humanist and atheist) community, the more it seems like there is a great potential to do good, but also quite a bit of confusion and misunderstanding on basic issues [such as the fallacy of arguing from authority] ...

...philosophers consider informal fallacies actually fallacious only once the background has been clearly taken into account, since there are instances where those not only are not actually fallacies but represent pretty decent heuristics that are wise to deploy in order to navigate the world pragmatically. For instance, we all rely on one authority or another to back up our claims, because we don't have the time or skills to verify them. It isn't, therefore, a question of authority per se, but of the quality and reliability of such authority. And it is not at all a bad idea to consider the track record of an individual or organization when evaluating their reliability ... (p. 24)​

So, Merle, you may want to be a bit more hesitant in telling others that they are committing the fallacy of "argument from authority" if they cite scholars as "having something valid to say on the subject." What might be better is for you to demand that those with whom you debate properly quote, cite, and/or explain how scholar X's arguments have a bearing upon whatever issue is being discussed. What we can't do is dismiss our debate opponents simply because they mention that "Scholar X says ..." For instance, I don't dismiss your citation of Robert Price's argument about possible interpolations in 1 Cor. 15 as an "argument from authority"; rather, I may simply not agree with his premises.

In fact, I get very, very tired of people using the Consensus Argument, whether they be Christian or Skeptic... that supposedly a majority of scholars believe "such and such," and that because the majority may believe "such and such," we should automatically take their view seriously simply because most of them do, or that we should maybe assume the rightness of whatever basic idea they propose without then launching into at least a moderate investigation to see what validity the supposed preponderance of scholars ACTUALLY has in saying "such and such" about the issue under debate.

As it goes, we often simply see the tired and outworn practice of people claiming that a majority of scholars says "such and such" without also listing just exactly who these scholar ARE in number and in comparative proportion to a like list of other scholars who disagree. (And to those who think that it isn't practical to always list out scholars when referring to "the majority opinion" all I can say is TOUGH...do the work!!! Lay out your 'list' of scholars, something like this [link]...OR, don't claim a majority vote!!! OR, just don't claim a majority, period, since truth isn't determined by majority affirmation. Personally, I get sick of the "majority argument.")

So, in all of this, I also agree with Pigliucci that all those who debate these issues of the Christian faith while referring to various authorities, whether they be Skeptic or instead Christian advocates of the Bible, need to be willing to do the further "work" of at least trying to understand the contexts of their supposed authorities, as well as the contexts expressed by the opposition.

As far as the "credibility of witnesses" for the resurrection of Jesus is concerned, I'm not even sure why Christians attempt to lay such a high value on whether or not the writers of the four gospels represent "credible" eye-witnesses in and of themselves. It should be enough that the Gospel writers simply be shown to generally (even if not specifically) carry Coherent Articulations about the existence, person, and nature of Jesus the Messiah, along with the accompanying background content they are attempting to convey to the wider public.

On the other hand, if "credibility" of an eye-witness is all that important to the evaluation of the validity of the Christian faith, I would probably contend that Paul is, more or less, a "credible" eyewitness of Jesus as the Risen Lord, with the supposed interpolations within his letters notwithstanding.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

References​

Pigliucci, Massimo. (2015). Science and skepticism, the big picture. Skeptical Inquirer, 39(1), pp. 23-24.

 

[Grafted In]

Merle, there are no human witnesses living that could answer you original question. None. They are all dead and gone.
Does that answer satisfy you?

Now, will you please respond to my post regarding witnesses?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Merle, there are no human witnesses living that could answer you original question. None. They are all dead and gone.
Does that answer satisfy you?

Now, will you please respond to my post regarding witnesses?

I wasn't asking for a living witness. I was asking for a document by a known credible person who makes a clear case for the resurrection.

It's been a long thread with lots of posts, but if I remember right, your case was that the Word of God and the Holy Spirit were your witnesses.

No, I am sorry, I don't think we can say the four gospels are true because they are written by God. For they are filled with contradictions. I cannot see how the same God could have written those four books with so many contradictions. So no, I don't buy the argument that they are written by God, therefore true.

And previously on this thread I addressed the argument that people reliably get messages from the Holy Spirit. If that is so, why do people hear different things when they think they hear the Spirit? Why does one hear the spirit leading him to speak in tongues, while another hears the spirit saying that God never leads one to speak in tongues today? Why does one hear the spirit leading him to go to war, while another hears the spirit saying all war is wrong? With so many people hearing so many different things, unless you have a foolproof means of knowing what the spirit says, I don't consider this source reliable.

 

[doubtingmerle]

While it is true that attempting to argue from authority is a "logical fallacy," in regard to scholars, this kind of argument is really only a fallacy IF the scholars are, all things considered, wrong about their explanations, data, and/or theories. So, to cite a scholar (and do it correctly) is NOT to commit the fallacy of arguing from authority.

Understood. One should not simply say that his opponent quoted an authority, therefore the opponent is wrong. That is not necessarily so. What one needs to do is determine if the opponent's authority was correct in his data, explanations and theories. That is why, when Ed presents authorities who think the list of names in I Cor 15 are an early creed, I want to know the data, explanations and theories behind those claims. That is what I have been asking for.

In fact, I found it very interesting that Massimo Pigliucci (2015), an atheist, had this to say about how Skeptics have a tendency to resort to, and overuse, the defense of citing logical fallacies pertaining to the use of authority, and he says:

Indeed, the more we reflect on the nature of the skeptic (and humanist and atheist) community, the more it seems like there is a great potential to do good, but also quite a bit of confusion and misunderstanding on basic issues [such as the fallacy of arguing from authority] ...

...philosophers consider informal fallacies actually fallacious only once the background has been clearly taken into account, since there are instances where those not only are not actually fallacies but represent pretty decent heuristics that are wise to deploy in order to navigate the world pragmatically. For instance, we all rely on one authority or another to back up our claims, because we don't have the time or skills to verify them. It isn't, therefore, a question of authority per se, but of the quality and reliability of such authority. And it is not at all a bad idea to consider the track record of an individual or organization when evaluating their reliability ... (p. 24)​

Fair point. We all take shortcuts and rely on authorities to explain things that are out of our field. That is different, though, from saying we know something is true because an authority says so.

Also when a person reports what he observed, we trust him as an authority to say what he saw (provided we find him credible). And when a reporter who was not on the scene of the accident reports that an eyewitness said something, we are trusting the authority of the reporter to being telling the truth that the conversation occurred, and trusting the eyewitness to be telling the truth about what he saw. Again, we have to rely on those authorities, which we do, unless we have reason to doubt their credibility.

So regarding personal observations, it is fine to trust a person as being the authority in what he saw, provided we find him credible. But when one is making a case that a historical fact or scientific fact for which he was not a witness is true, then it is good to ask for his evidence.

So, Merle, you may want to be a bit more hesitant in telling others that they are committing the fallacy of "argument from authority" if they cite scholars as "having something valid to say on the subject." What might be better is for you to demand that those with whom you debate properly quote, cite, and/or explain how scholar X's arguments have a bearing upon whatever issue is being discussed. What we can't do is dismiss our debate opponents simply because they mention that "Scholar X says ..." For instance, I don't dismiss your citation of Robert Price's argument about possible interpolations in 1 Cor. 15 as an "argument from authority"; rather, I may simply not agree with his premises.

I agree. One should not dismiss an argument because somebody quotes an authority. But if one has reason to question what that authority says, then one should rightly ask how that authority arrived at his conclusions.

In fact, I get very, very tired of people using the Consensus Argument, whether they be Christian or Skeptic... that supposedly a majority of scholars believe "such and such," and that because the majority may believe "such and such," we should automatically take their view seriously simply because most of them do, or that we should maybe assume the rightness of whatever basic idea they propose without then launching into at least a moderate investigation to see what validity the supposed preponderance of scholars ACTUALLY has in saying "such and such" about the issue under debate.

When we claim a scientific consensus, we are not simply saying that we have a majority of scientists or even a vast majority on our side. Rather, a scientific consensus means the issue has been thoroughly debated in publications, with the overwhelming agreement of the arguments arriving at the same conclusion.

As it goes, we often simply see the tired and outworn practice of people claiming that a majority of scholars says "such and such" without also listing just exactly who these scholar ARE in number and in comparative proportion to a like list of other scholars who disagree. (And to those who think that it isn't practical to always list out scholars when referring to "the majority opinion" all I can say is TOUGH...do the work!!! Lay out your 'list' of scholars, something like this [link]...OR, don't claim a majority vote!!! OR, just don't claim a majority, period, since truth isn't determined by majority affirmation. Personally, I get sick of the "majority argument.")

I get sick of majority arguments too. It would be an overwhelming effort to get the vote of every scholar on many subjects. And then we would run into endless debates on who is qualified enough to have a vote. Questions of science are not decided by votes.

But questions of science are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

In biblical studies, one could claim there is a consensus of critical scholars that the resurrection did not occur, and a consensus of evangelical scholars that the resurrection did occur. So do we have a consensus? It depends on where one looks. So seeing the state of things, I do not argue from consensus, nor from majority, but based on the reasons that each side presents.

So, in all of this, I also agree with Pigliucci that all those who debate these issues of the Christian faith while referring to various authorities, whether they be Skeptic or instead Christian advocates of the Bible, need to be willing to do the further "work" of at least trying to understand the contexts of their supposed authorities, as well as the contexts expressed by the opposition.

I agree. We are here to understand arguments, not count scholars.

As far as the "credibility of witnesses" for the resurrection of Jesus is concerned, I'm not even sure why Christians attempt to lay such a high value on whether or not the writers of the four gospels represent "credible" eye-witnesses in and of themselves. It should be enough that the Gospel writers simply be shown to generally (even if not specifically) carry Coherent Articulations about the existence, person, and nature of Jesus the Messiah, along with the accompanying background content they are attempting to convey to the wider public.

There are ancient documents that make all sorts of ridiculous claims. For instance, there are claims that an army had an overwhelming victory, when the evidence clearly shows they were defeated. Also Papias, who came up in this thread, claimed that the head of Judas swelled so it was bigger than an ox cart. I don't believe him. So when looking at history, we cannot simply look at documents and assume that since they are written they must be credible.

On the other hand, if "credibility" of an eye-witness is all that important to the evaluation of the validity of the Christian faith, I would probably contend that Paul is, more or less, a "credible" eyewitness of Jesus as the Risen Lord, with the supposed interpolations within his letters notwithstanding.

I agree that Paul is our most credible witness of what early Christianity was like. I do not, however, find strong evidence of belief in a bodily resurrection in Paul.