Bridging the Gap

[Silmarien]

I'm not sure that it's entirely accurate. Withing Christianity itself there's an "axiomatic range" of directions one could take, with plentiful being a viable path, including the allegorical one, which isn't new at all. Docetism has been around for a while, and I liken Christianity to an "open source" software that has been occasionally picked up, funded, and developed by corporate institutions for profit. It doesn't however mean that these are the only viable version of that software around.

For example, you could just chop off Biblical commentary, like Paul and the crew and get a rather free-running narrative of Jesus that isn't constrained by any orthodoxy other than Judaism platform. You'd get a vastly different concept of Christianity than a typical Catholico-protestant version of it.

Yes, you could do this, but like I said, I don't think there's anything recognizably Christian about it. If you want to ditch orthodoxy, you need to eliminate the Gospels of Luke and John also, since they're both very clearly heading in the same direction as Paul, and just to be safe, you should probably get rid of Mark and Matthew as well.

I suppose at that point you could go be a Gnostic instead, but I really don't see the point. There are better non-Christian frameworks out there than that mess.

And you are correct, in context of literal Jesus, resurrection wouldn't be that surprising, but nether would be YEC then. So, why would you dispose with YEC, which has been a large part of institutional Christianity, and none of the church leadership historically taught even millions of years.

But Young Earth Creationism was never a part of institutional Christianity--people were free to interpret Genesis in any number of different fashions. Saint Augustine for example viewed the various days of Creation as allegorical and believed that it had actually taken place as an instantaneous event, so there has never been any need to hold to a literal account here.

I would find YEC surprising, both because the early chapters of Genesis read more like theological literature and because the wording points more clearly towards evolutionary theory than towards a YEC fairy-tale.

 

[cvanwey]

But could the writer of Genesis "explore" evidence of such an event? Ah, see? That's the key here. The answer is basically, "no." He could not. And all the grasping you're doing at some amorphous, ethereal sense of inspiration, one that isn't specifically and comprehensively defined by the biblical writers anyway, can't undo this fact that I'm pointing out. So, that basically yanks the rug right out from your feet, doesn't it?

Furthermore, there is also no reason to think that INSPIRATION means, has to mean, and can only mean, that God magically deposited massive insights about some Flood from the past into Moses' skull. That kind of assumed definition is contrived and ill-begotten and forced fit into the passage of 2 Timothy 3:16 by nothing short of your own whimsy. No, it's best for us to say---no, to admit---that none of us knows exactly what inspiration from God really amounts to. That would be the honest thing for each of us to do.

So much for your reliance upon a forced-fit definition of inspiration that supposedly buttresses your not so well thought out ideas about just what 'literalness' in reading the Bible has to amount to! Better luck next time. Or, maybe its time for you to start doing a little bit of reading outside the Bible.

It appears nonsensical to suggest that the author(s), whom wrote stories of the flood, were doing so for any other reason, than it was 'God given information' to demonstrate 'absolute truth'. Otherwise, we are merely appealing to a book of 'subjective suggestions'. And as so, what else might one question...? Heck, if the story is false, then any other apologist, whom quotes the Bible, as an assertive or authoritative conclusion, has their verse called into question. Why? Because we are not talking about a basic history book, where some parts are verified true, others may be speculative, and others may be an educated guess (to some degree). It IS the claimed book of truth; all of it collectively.

I am not force-fitting any specific definition. Even excluding passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16, Proverbs 30:5, or even other passages eluding to perfect prophecy (i.e.) 2 Peter 1:19-24. As a whole, the book is to be taken as an authenticated collection of complete truth. This argument you seem to be presenting strikes me as extremely odd, if I must be honest here.

Again, either the flood did happen, or it did not. If it turns out that it did, then I can gladly recant my prior assessments, and explore the other claims against known reality. If the flood did not happen, then we seem to have a conflict.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It appears nonsensical to suggest that the author(s), whom wrote stories of the flood, were doing so for any other reason, than it was 'God given information' to demonstrate 'absolute truth'. Otherwise, we are merely appealing to a book of 'subjective suggestions'. And as so, what else might one question...?

Welcome to modern Jewish Hermeneutics, bud (not to mention various strains and nuances of Christian hermeneutics)! Do some Jewish people take the book hyper-literally. Yes. Do yet others take the Bible in a more mystical way? Yes. Do even some others see the Bible as an existential book and God as a force? Yes. Or do some handle the Bible as a cultural expression of the Jewish people as a whole? Yes to that, too. The Bible can be all of these things, but you're attempting to assert something for biblical interpretation that no one has to assume, at least not in the way that you're suggestion we do.

Heck, if the story is false, then any other apologist, whom quotes the Bible, as an assertive or authoritative conclusion, has their verse called into question. Why? Because we are not talking about a basic history book, where some parts are verified true, others may be speculative, and others may be an educated guess (to some degree). It IS the claimed book of truth; all of it collectively.

Why is it that you seem to think that if you just keep repeating the same mantra over and over and over again, it suddenly becomes true? What gives? This "claimed book of truth" is, and has been, subject to various interpretive measures, especially so if analyses like the Documentary Hypothesis are brought in for additional consideration, among other forms of textual criticism. I mean, if you REALLY are here to discredit the Bible, there are better ways to do so than to continue doing it the way you're doing here.

I am not force-fitting any specific definition. Even excluding passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16, Proverbs 30:5, or even other passages eluding to perfect prophecy (i.e.) 2 Peter 1:19-24. As a whole, the book is to be taken as an authenticated collection of complete truth. This argument you seem to be presenting strikes me as extremely odd, if I must be honest here.

It's not odd. It's just a matter of keeping the various, highly relevant modes of philosophical study in mind and applying them when and where they need to be applied. It's not my fault if you haven't realized that insights about the Bible have grown quite bit over the past couple of centuries.

One insight that has come about is in relation to the interpretation (and the gross misapplication) of the Curse of Ham. So, just how literally are we supposed to interpret the so-called, "Curse of Ham"? And who's ever had the 'right' interpretation?

Again, either the flood did happen, or it did not. If it turns out that it did, then I can gladly recant my prior assessments, and explore the other claims against known reality. If the flood did not happen, then we seem to have a conflict.

............OR, all of the flood stories still extant from ancient cultures imply to us some aspects of reality that were present in those parts of the world a few millennia ago---actually, I'd think that with global warming coming onto the world scene, the reality of the past may become a reality of our present. So, did a world wide flood happen just like it says in the Bible? Probably not. But to say that the Bible expresses a pure fiction, as do all of the similar ancient flood stories form the ancient world, and particularly those versions of it from Old Babylon, is a bit of a stretch. No, I think there are various contexts to consider, both outside and inside the Bible.

 

[cvanwey]

Welcome to modern Jewish Hermeneutics, bud (not to mention various strains and nuances of Christian hermeneutics)! Do some Jewish people take the book hyper-literally. Yes. Do yet others take the Bible in a more mystical way? Yes. Do even some others see the Bible as an existential book and God as a force? Yes. Or do some handle the Bible as a cultural expression of the Jewish people as a whole? Yes to that, too. The Bible can be all of these things, but you're attempting to assert something for biblical interpretation that no one has to assume, at least not in the way that you're suggestion we do.

Why is it that you seem to think that if you just keep repeating the same mantra over and over and over again, it suddenly becomes true? What gives? This "claimed book of truth" is, and has been, subject to various interpretive measures, especially so if analyses like the Documentary Hypothesis are brought in for additional consideration, among other forms of textual criticism. I mean, if you REALLY are here to discredit the Bible, there are better ways to do so than to continue doing it the way you're doing here.

It's not odd. It's just a matter of keeping the various, highly relevant modes of philosophical study in mind and applying them when and where they need to be applied. It's not my fault if you haven't realized that insights about the Bible have grown quite bit over the past couple of centuries.

It's safe to say the 'insights' developed, over the 'past couple of centuries', have predominantly became so, due to evidence from multiple disciplines demonstrating such a claimed event is false

I'm not here to 'discredit the Bible'. Peer review has already demonstrated as such. For me to merely repeat all discovery, demonstrating lack in evidence for a flood, Exodus account, or others, is really only repeating what should be common knowledge at this point (for anyone claiming to take a serious look at the evidence for or against such claims).

My OP pertains to 'Bridging the Gap'. It's one thing to attribute the existence of what we know to some sort of intelligible force(s). Which also admittedly appeals to some variation of an 'argument from ignorance.' It seems a very large stretch, however, to continue attributing such measures as a result from what is presented from the Bible?

I guess I'm more-so perplexed, that in this day and age of shared information, how many seem to adhere to many stories from the Bible as factual. While, at the same time, others, like you say, refer to all such stories as 'mystical', allegorical, other. But like I stated, such believers, sharing such view appear to be now doing so instead out of 'wishful thinking.'

Thoughts?

............OR, all of the flood stories still extant from ancient cultures imply to us some aspects of reality that were present in those parts of the world a few millennia ago---actually, I'd think that with global warming coming onto the world scene, the reality of the past may become a reality of our present. So, did a world wide flood happen just like it says in the Bible? Probably not. But to say that the Bible expresses a pure fiction, as do all of the similar ancient flood stories form the ancient world, and particularly those versions of it from Old Babylon, is a bit of a stretch. No, I think there are various contexts to consider, both outside and inside the Bible.

I'm going to cut to the chase now... I have a blunt question for you

If you acknowledge the flood never happened, and possibly other claimed stories, proven later to be myth, then why is the claim of a resurrection factual?

 

[devolved]

Yes, you could do this, but like I said, I don't think there's anything recognizably Christian about it.

I'm not sure why synoptic gospel accounts wouldn't be recognizably Christian.

If you want to ditch orthodoxy, you need to eliminate the Gospels of Luke and John also, since they're both very clearly heading in the same direction as Paul, and just to be safe, you should probably get rid of Mark and Matthew as well.

I suppose at that point you could go be a Gnostic instead, but I really don't see the point. There are better non-Christian frameworks out there than that mess.

Not ditch Orthodoxy. There are plenty of orthodoxies. My point is that you could go in various directions with OT + Gospels alone, and it wouldn't be a huge problem, given how we arrived with NT to begin with.

But Young Earth Creationism was never a part of institutional Christianity--people were free to interpret Genesis in any number of different fashions. Saint Augustine for example viewed the various days of Creation as allegorical and believed that it had actually taken place as an instantaneous event, so there has never been any need to hold to a literal account here.

Of course, not in a form that you commonly understand as YEC today. But in the past the concept of special creation + relatively short timeline (not millions or billions) was a fairly common view in the church. Evolutionary view had some hints here and there, but these were exceptions that prove the rule.

I would find YEC surprising, both because the early chapters of Genesis read more like theological literature and because the wording points more clearly towards evolutionary theory than towards a YEC fairy-tale.

I would agree, but I'm not sure that the history of Biblical interpretation by the Church itself would be in line with that, with exception of Augustinian period. Again, these are exceptions that prove the rule.

By YEC, I generally refer to creationism in general in context of special creation as opposed to evolution. For example, some SDAs believe in old earth and old universe, but they view that in context of special creation of life was done in 6 literal days. They didn't get it out of thin air as a doctrine. That's an inheritance from Lutheran tradition, who didn't believe the Earth is older than 6000 years old, and he inherited that from Catholic tradition on the subject.

Hence, I'm not really sure you could claim that YEC was not a part of the Christian institution.

 

[devolved]

If you acknowledge the flood never happened, and possibly other claimed stories, proven later to be myth, then why is the claim of a resurrection factual?

Resurrection isn't really problematic in terms of who is resurrecting, and the surrounding claims. Likewise, it's difficult to call it factual due to the nature of the claim. So, you first have to accept that God exist and that Jesus was God prior to arriving with viability of resurrection. We can't independently verify the viability of these claims. It's something you have to either accept or reject based on personal model and worldview.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm not sure why synoptic gospel accounts wouldn't be recognizably Christian.

Have you read some of those parables? The orthodox take on Christianity is written all over them, particularly in Luke. You could try to ditch the Greek framework of theology, but you'll still end up with some form of incarnational theology.

Not ditch Orthodoxy. There are plenty of orthodoxies. My point is that you could go in various directions with OT + Gospels alone, and it wouldn't be a huge problem, given how we arrived with NT to begin with.

Orthodox thought is pretty broad, but there's not tons of different orthodoxies.

Of course, not in a form that you commonly understand as YEC today. But in the past the concept of special creation + relatively short timeline (not millions or billions) was a fairly common view in the church. Evolutionary view had some hints here and there, but these were exceptions that prove the rule.

If it's not current YEC, then it's not YEC.

Obviously you're not going to get more than hints of evolutionary thinking before Darwin, since nobody had yet connected the dots quite that much, but there's a ton of synergy between stuff like Thomistic metaphysics and evolution. You're not going to find many modern Aristotelians even on the ID side, much less the YEC one.

I would agree, but I'm not sure that the history of Biblical interpretation by the Church itself would be in line with that, with exception of Augustinian period. Again, these are exceptions that prove the rule.

By YEC, I generally refer to creationism in general in context of special creation as opposed to evolution. For example, some SDAs believe in old earth and old universe, but they view that in context of special creation of life was done in 6 literal days. They didn't get it out of thin air as a doctrine. That's an inheritance from Lutheran tradition, who didn't believe the Earth is older than 6000 years old, and he inherited that from Catholic tradition on the subject.

Hence, I'm not really sure you could claim that YEC was not a part of the Christian institution.

Is it in the Nicene Creed? Was there any ecumenical dispute about it? If it's not official doctrine, then it's not part of the institution.

You do realize that you're simultaneously trying to argue that Christianity can be whatever you want it to be, and that orthodox Christianity ought to be interpreted as defending solely a YEC view? Why do you go full blown deconstructionist on the Gospels and then abandon that for an artificially narrow reading of Christianity as an institution?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's safe to say the 'insights' developed, over the 'past couple of centuries', have predominantly became so, due to evidence from multiple disciplines demonstrating such a claimed event is false

Sure. And I don't have too much problem with this being the case, at least not like I did when I first cracked open the Bible three decades ago.

I'm not here to

'discredit the Bible'. Peer review has already demonstrated as such. For me to merely repeat all discovery, demonstrating lack in evidence for a flood, Exodus account, or others, is really only repeating what should be common knowledge at this point (for anyone claiming to take a serious look at the evidence for or against such claims).

Oh, that's good to know that you're only here as a mere critic and commentator upon a "post discredited" line of thinking. That makes me feel so much more at ease. And I do find it interesting that you've slipped in a few extra terms like, "peer reviewed," "multiple disciplines," and "common knowledge."

You know, they say a person should never look a gift-horse in the mouth, but I tend to do so anyway, especially if, from a distance, it seems like the horse is bigger than usual and possibly made out of wood.

My OP pertains to 'Bridging the Gap'. It's one thing to attribute the existence of what we know to some sort of intelligible force(s). Which also admittedly appeals to some variation of an 'argument from ignorance.' It seems a very large stretch, however, to continue attributing such measures as a result from what is presented from the Bible?

Here's the rub. If the Bible is what it is and says what it says, then IF Christians really began to trot out various demonstrations of evidence for some divine entity (as you've seemed to put it), then I'd have to say that the Bible is false. Strange. I know. But the biblical epistemology seems to indicate to me that we're pretty much intended to be left with a kind of Rorschach test as far as Jesus Christ is concerned. So, THAT is what I'd expect the world to look like when I finish reading the biblical text and then actually take the time to peer out into the world for "clues" as to God's presence and work through the Christian faith.

I guess I'm more-so perplexed, that in this day and age of shared information, how many seem to adhere to many stories from the Bible as factual. While, at the same time, others, like you say, refer to all such stories as 'mystical', allegorical, other. But like I stated, such believers, sharing such view appear to be now doing so instead out of 'wishful thinking.'

Thoughts?

Well, since we all seem to enjoy repeating our favorite competing mantras over and over again, I'll just repeat mine: All human writing, even that of the Bible, is representational in nature, even artistically so, and to varying degrees. So, for us to expect that what we find in the bible to have some kind of evidences that reflect a Correspondence Theory of Truth is .... in my mind, frankly a futile attempt at certainty that God hasn't intended to give us. Yet, Christians galore these days, along with their atheistic and apostate comrades, will take the 'high-road' on this and just keep insisting that this is how it all "should" have been done. Well, with Pascal and Kierkegaard, and maybe Sartre, I'd just have to say: I'm sorry it didn't quite work out in just that exact, corresponding way for everyone.

For those who need Kleenex, the line can start here, as I'll be passing tissues out by the box full.

I'm going to cut to the chase now... I have a blunt question for you

If you acknowledge the flood never happened, and possibly other claimed stories, proven later to be myth, then why is the claim of a resurrection factual?

That's great. I have a blunt answer: philosophy rules. [And that's not an exclamation; it's a description of a category.]

The real question is: are you willing to actually go there?

 

[cvanwey]

Sure. And I don't have too much problem with this being the case, at least not like I did when I first cracked open the Bible three decades ago.

Oh, that's good to know that you're only here as a mere critic and commentator upon a "post discredited" line of thinking. That makes me feel so much more at ease. And I do find it interesting that you've slipped in a few extra terms like, "peer reviewed," "multiple disciplines," and "common knowledge."

You know, they say a person should never look a gift-horse in the mouth, but I tend to do so anyway, especially if, from a distance, it seems like the horse is bigger than usual and possibly made out of wood.

Here's the rub. If the Bible is what it is and says what it says, then IF Christians really began to trot out various demonstrations of evidence for some divine entity (as you've seemed to put it), then I'd have to say that the Bible is false. Strange. I know. But the biblical epistemology seems to indicate to me that we're pretty much intended to be left with a kind of Rorschach test as far as Jesus Christ is concerned. So, THAT is what I'd expect the world to look like when I finish reading the biblical text and then actually take the time to peer out into the world for "clues" as to God's presence and work through the Christian faith.

Well, since we all seem to enjoy repeating our favorite competing mantras over and over again, I'll just repeat mine: All human writing, even that of the Bible, is representational in nature, even artistically so, and to varying degrees. So, for us to expect that what we find in the bible to have some kind of evidences that reflect a Correspondence Theory of Truth is .... in my mind, frankly a futile attempt at certainty that God hasn't intended to give us. Yet, Christians galore these days, along with their atheistic and apostate comrades, will take the 'high-road' on this and just keep insisting that this is how it all "should" have been done. Well, with Pascal and Kierkegaard, and maybe Sartre, I'd just have to say: I'm sorry it didn't quite work out in just that exact, corresponding way for everyone.

For those who need Kleenex, the line can start here, as I'll be passing tissues out by the box full.



That's great. I have a blunt answer: philosophy rules. [And that's not an exclamation; it's a description of a category.]

The real question is: are you willing to actually go there?

Like I stated prior, you are an enigma my friend.

But yes, lay out your starting argument, for a positive claim for evidence of a resurrection claim. I'm ready

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Like I stated prior, you are an enigma my friend.

But yes, lay out your starting argument, for a positive claim for evidence of a resurrection claim. I'm ready

I thought we were talking about the literary nature of the Noahic Flood and the implications of a hyper-literalist reading of the Bible; and now, here you go, wanting me to air-walk with Michael Jordan!

I'm not really an expert when it comes to sports (or much good on the field or the court), BUT if there's one thing I know, it's that there are some things that expert players of any game have to have straight in their heads before they can play. Right?

 

[cvanwey]

I thought we were talking about the literary nature of the Noahic Flood and the implications of a hyper-literalist reading of the Bible; and now, here you go, wanting me to air-walk with Michael Jordan!

I'm not really an expert when it comes to sports (or much good on the field or the court), BUT if there's one thing I know, it's that there are some things that expert players of any game have to have straight in their heads before they can play. Right?

If you and I both conclude the flood did not happen, then let's just move on to the next topic. My prior concluded question was very simple. I wanted to cut to the chase, as I have a sneaking suspicion you might accuse me of being a 'literalist' with many other claims, while at the same time, also agreeing that such claims may not have happened. If the flood is allegorical, not literal, or other, how is the resurrection not placed into the same category?

It's not even about me being a 'hyper-literalist'. My view is quite simplistic. As I stated long ago, in another thread between you and I. It's one thing to believe Alexander did this, that, and the other, but once the story turns to the supernatural, is where I draw the line, without extra-ordinary evidence.

I figured I would just try to save 50+ posts, by just jumping straight to the end - (the resurrection). In this topic specifically, you must be a, as you call it, 'hyper-literalist' regardless. The resurrection either happened or it didn't.

So let's get to it; unless this event is also allegorical, mystical, or metaphorical, as well to you. Then there really is nothing more to speak about between you and I

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you and I both conclude the flood did not happen, then let's just move on to the next topic. My prior concluded question was very simple. I wanted to cut to the chase, as I have a sneaking suspicion you might accuse me of being a 'literalist' with many other claims, while at the same time, also agreeing that such claims may not have happened. If the flood is allegorical, not literal, or other, how is the resurrection not placed into the same category?

It's not even about me being a 'hyper-literalist'. My view is quite simplistic. As I stated long ago, in another thread between you and I. It's one thing to believe Alexander did this, that, and the other, but once the story turns to the supernatural, is where I draw the line, without extra-ordinary evidence.

I figured I would just try to save 50+ posts, by just jumping straight to the end - (the resurrection). In this topic specifically, you must be a, as you call it, 'hyper-literalist' regardless. The resurrection either happened or it didn't.

So let's get to it; unless this event is also allegorical, mystical, or metaphorical, as well to you. Then there really is nothing more to speak about between you and I

Well, you figured wrong. Again. So, I guess we're done.

 

[cvanwey]

Well, you figured wrong. Again. So, I guess we're done.

I doubt it sir

Let me break it down one last time...

- Claims to 'Adam and Eve' false, via later evolutionary discovery
- Claims to a flood falsified, via independent and multiple scientific disciplines
- Claims to an Exodus account falsified by archaeology
etc etc etc

(All in the same book)

But the resurrection is somehow true because?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I doubt it sir

Let me break it down one last time...

- Claims to 'Adam and Eve' false, via later evolutionary discovery
- Claims to a flood falsified, via independent and multiple scientific disciplines
- Claims to an Exodus account falsified by archaeology
etc etc etc

(All in the same book)

But the resurrection is somehow true because?

Because "truth" comes in various forms, and it might just be that you don't see it (i.e. the truth of Jesus' Resurrection) because you're assuming you've got the inside Truth about biblical truth, as well as about the Truth for what specifically qualifies as knowledge. But, then, when I see people assert these kinds of things, being the philosopher that I am, I just have to role my eyes, like this ...

 

[devolved]

But the resurrection is somehow true because?

Resurrection isn't true or false (in context of the claim). That's what you seem to misunderstand about all of your claims. History isn't true or false. History is a claim, and you either believe that claim based on known surrounding facts, or you don't.

For example, true or false... Socrates committed suicide by drinking poison. Here's Plato's account of this event:

Plato's Account of Socrates' Death

But Plato was not there. So, how do you know such is the case? You don't. You can either accept that claim as believable based on the facts surrounding the claim, or you don't. Either way has zero bearing on history of what actually happened. It may not actually have any bearing on your life, or it may. For example, if you accept certain Socratic idealism worthy to be emulated.

In which case, there are subjective reasons to believe that Socrates drank poison rather than face public execution.

 

[cvanwey]

Because "truth" comes in various forms, and it might just be that you don't see it (i.e. the truth of Jesus' Resurrection) because you're assuming you've got the inside Truth about biblical truth, as well as about the Truth for what specifically qualifies as knowledge. But, then, when I see people assert these kinds of things, being the philosopher that I am, I just have to role my eyes, like this ...

So give me your 'truth'. Please educate me as to the evidence, and the way it should be interpreted, in regards to the resurrection claim. Because at the end of the day, this topic boils down to this specific event either being true or false. (i.e) You have no choice but to be literal for this claim.

I want to know what makes the resurrection claim true, in your eyes?

 

[cvanwey]

Resurrection isn't true or false (in context of the claim). That's what you seem to misunderstand about all of your claims. History isn't true or false. History is a claim, and you either believe that claim based on known surrounding facts, or you don't.

For example, true or false... Socrates committed suicide by drinking poison. Here's Plato's account of this event:

Plato's Account of Socrates' Death

But Plato was not there. So, how do you know such is the case? You don't. You can either accept that claim as believable based on the facts surrounding the claim, or you don't. Either way has zero bearing on history of what actually happened. It may not actually have any bearing on your life, or it may. For example, if you accept certain Socratic idealism worthy to be emulated.

In which case, there are subjective reasons to believe that Socrates drank poison rather than face public execution.

My 'salvation' does not live or die by believing in Socrates

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So give me your 'truth'. Please educate me as to the evidence, and the way it should be interpreted, in regards to the resurrection claim. Because at the end of the day, this topic boils down to this specific event either being true or false. (i.e) You have no choice but to be literal for this claim.

I want to know what makes the resurrection claim true, in your eyes?

Ok. Here's STEP 1. Consider the following, just for the sake of epistemological and ontological introduction.

If I just kind of put "out there" on the conceptual table before us the following, minimal categorization for kinds of truth that exist (and there could be more), would you agree that these (again, yet to be explored and analyzed) categories are relevant to the questions that we all have about Jesus' Resurrection?

1) Objective Truth
2) Subjective Truth
3) Political Truth

 

[cvanwey]

Ok. Here's STEP 1. Consider the following, just for the sake of epistemological and ontological introduction.

If I just kind of put "out there" on the conceptual table before us the following, minimal categorization for kinds of truth that exist (and there could be more), would you agree that these (again, yet to be explored and analyzed) categories are relevant to the questions that we all have about Jesus' Resurrection?

1) Objective Truth
2) Subjective Truth
3) Political Truth

Well, this is a bit of a possible slippery slope...? There appears to be true things and false things. And all in between, where people think things are true, but later turn out to actually be false.

Example claim. The earth is a perfect sphere. 50 years ago, that may have been considered 'objective' truth.

As for political, it really depends, very situational....

But to make it simple, things are either actually true or false I guess.

But for the sake of argument, I'll run with your conclusion for now I'll be out the rest of the day, so expect a delay before the next response.

Peace!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, this is a bit of a possible slippery slope...? There appears to be true things and false things. And all in between, where people think things are true, but later turn out to actually be false.

Most definitely, and I wouldn't knock this observation you have since I think we both know that this can be the case from time to time.

Example claim. The earth is a perfect sphere. 50 years ago, that may have been considered 'objective' truth.

As for political, it really depends, very situational....

But to make it simple, things are either actually true or false I guess.

But for the sake of argument, I'll run with your conclusion for now I'll be out the rest of the day, so expect a delay before the next response.

Peace!

Ok. Since you've decided to run with me on this short jog, I'm just going to put "out there" a few more things. One of these things is that the 3 categories of truth I offered above are actually those that Neil deGrasse Tyson offered to a skeptical atheist on a very recent talk-show/youtube segment. And I think we should both take a listen to his fuller (albeit intentionally introductory level) explication about these 3 categories of truth. And then we can move on to other nuances about the Truth of biblical truth as we might try to conceive it: