Resurrection Evidence

[2PhiloVoid]

That's no fun. There's always more for me to learn - that's what keeps it from getting boring.

And here I was just about to ask you what the latest and greatest books are for both Historiography and the Philosophy of History ... since the book I finished reading on these fields was published in 1989.

 

[Resha Caner]

And here I was just about to ask you what the latest and greatest books are for both Historiography and the Philosophy of History ... since the book I finished reading on these fields was published in 1989.

Here's the thing. When I work with new engineers right out of school, I tell them they're not students anymore, they're engineers. There are no longer any answers in the back of the book.

As I progressed toward my history degree, I worked with professors from a variety of different universities, and they all took an approach in teaching historiography that was similar to my approach with new engineers. Essentially, there is no one book. When I was an undergrad in history, my classes were primarily topic-focused: ancient history, recent history, American history, Japanese history. I only had one historiography-based class, and that was focused on guiding us as we wrote for our senior project.

Once my graduate classes started, that flipped on it's head. Most of my classes were about historiography, and the subject matter, whatever it might happen to be, really only served as a case study for historiography. We were being prepared for our "seminar" and our oral exams, which means we were no longer focused on reading other people's history, but on writing our own.

As such, I'd have to give you a list of books rather than just one book. With that said, I like the Oxford "Very Short Introductions" series. I think they do an excellent job. Just keep in mind that advanced reading in history is not about absorbing facts (and thereby absorbing the author's approach to history). It's about using the source material to help you understand the issues. Regardless, in that Oxford series you'll find books like "Historiography" about Greek/Roman historiography (the necessary beginning to historiography) "The Goal of History" about Marx's historiography (hugely important), etc.

I wonder. Is such a topic worth the effort of a thread in this forum?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Here's the thing. When I work with new engineers right out of school, I tell them they're not students anymore, they're engineers. There are no longer any answers in the back of the book.

... Oh, I see. That's a little different than the educational paradigm hammered into me during my Social Science/Education Master's. In that, they told me to remember: Once a student, you should always value the act of being a student, for life!

I do understand, though, what you're saying. There is a difference between being a constant reader of gardening books and the actual state of being "The Constant Garderner."

As I progressed toward my history degree, I worked with professors from a variety of different universities, and they all took an approach in teaching historiography that was similar to my approach with new engineers. Essentially, there is no one book.

I guess what you're saying here somewhat aligns with what Conkin and Stromberg (1989) say in the older Philosophy of History book of theirs which I just finished reading:

The first issue in any discussion of history is how one will use the ambiguous word. No firm semantic conventions control its use, even among professional historians. (p. 130)
​

From what you're saying, and I take your words on the matter as being fairly modern and substantive, it almost sounds like not much has changed theoretically in the past 30 years. Of course, I do have some other books on the subject sitting upon shelves that I haven't quite got around to reading yet ...

When I was an undergrad in history, my classes were primarily topic-focused: ancient history, recent history, American history, Japanese history. I only had one historiography-based class, and that was focused on guiding us as we wrote for our senior project.

Sounds to me like you had an interesting class load.

Once my graduate classes started, that flipped on it's head. Most of my classes were about historiography, and the subject matter, whatever it might happen to be, really only served as a case study for historiography. We were being prepared for our "seminar" and our oral exams, which means we were no longer focused on reading other people's history, but on writing our own.

This sounds like an approach and mindset through which a practitioner of Philosophical Hermeneutics might also do his/her work. Very interesting, indeed, Resha!

As such, I'd have to give you a list of books rather than just one book. With that said, I like the Oxford "Very Short Introductions" series ...

I wonder. Is such a topic worth the effort of a thread in this forum?

I think it is, because it essentially lies at the center of my own general praxis for how I approach and handle the Christian faith. The unfortunate thing is that for many others here on CF, I've noticed that all of this 'historiography' and/or philosophy of history "stuff" supposedly has little to do with the validity of the Christian faith; by this I mean that for others here, especially skeptical types, all of what is philosophically intrinsic and centrally important for me in the Christian faith is, for them, nothing more than Bantha Poo-doo, which is a kind of double- disregard.

 

[Silmarien]

I didn't say Quirinius was an emperor, you're insinuating that from a prior context which I didn't reference Quirinius as an emperor in the first place, I'm aware he was a lower level official relatively speaking.

Are you serious? You literally said here that there were demonstrable contradictions concerning the emperor at the time, I pointed out that all of the references to the Roman emperor in the New Testament were accurately dated, and you said that you were referring to Quirinius.

I'm not insinuating anything. This was literally what you said. If you don't want to get called on saying things that are inaccurate, take more care to not say things that are inaccurate. Until you're willing to acknowledge statements that you're making from one post to the next, I don't see how conversation with you is possible. There's no continuity whatsoever to anything you're saying.

 

[Resha Caner]

... Oh, I see. That's a little different than the educational paradigm hammered into me during my Social Science/Education Master's. In that, they told me to remember: Once a student, you should always value the act of being a student, for life!

Yes, I think you get what I'm saying, but we have to be careful not to conflate ideas about what it means to be a student. My usage was more aligned with the "toe the line" concept where you memorize and don't worry about understanding. Yours is probably more about remaining open-minded; not expecting everything to fit into a neat little box.

The first issue in any discussion of history is how one will use the ambiguous word. No firm semantic conventions control its use, even among professional historians. (p. 130)​

Yes, that sounds appropriate. My undergrad historiography began with the question, "What is history?" I couldn't answer that question until I finished my grad work. Even then, not all my fellow historians are particularly thrilled with my answer. My answer: History is the stories we tell about ourselves. On the surface it probably seems a flippant answer, but unpacking it reveals what brought me to history in the first place and the role I think history plays in culture … culture being one of the key ingredients of my historical research (church & education being the others).

From what you're saying, and I take your words on the matter as being fairly modern and substantive, it almost sounds like not much has changed theoretically in the past 30 years.

Hopefully I'm still relevant. For personal reasons I had to take a step back from my original plan. Maybe someday. As with all things Western, the 1960s were a turbulent time for the study of history, what with all those Imperialist Pigs controlling history departments and so forth. The professor under whom I studied American Colonial history was a product of that. With that said, he had some compelling arguments that forced me to rethink American history. Oddly enough, there has been what an old man like me considers a relatively recent revolution (early 2000s) in historical views of what used to be called "World History" and "Western Civilization". With respect to American history, the man on the forefront of that revolution is Thomas Bender.

Sounds to me like you had an interesting class load.

I was hunting during my undergrad, so I tried to study as broadly as possible - probably more so than most. I had offer after offer to settle in a particular area, but didn't really decide on my focus until well into my graduate work. It made things a little messy. But I particularly remember fondly my undergrad classes in Chinese and Latin American history. That's where I finally realized how differently various cultures view the world - that, for example, Chinese culture is not just a pale imitation of the West, or Western ideas wearing Chinese clothing. Particularly with Chinese history I really struggled to understand it, and it was a great feeling to get there.

Thanks for a fun trip down memory lane.

I think it is, because it essentially lies at the center of my own general praxis for how I approach and handle the Christian faith. The unfortunate thing is that for many others here on CF, I've noticed that all of this 'historiography' and/or philosophy of history "stuff" supposedly has little to do with the validity of the Christian faith; by this I mean that for others here, especially skeptical types, all of what is philosophically intrinsic and centrally important for me in the Christian faith is, for them, nothing more than Bantha Poo-doo, which is a kind of double- disregard.

I'll try to put my thoughts together, and maybe within the next week or so I'll start a thread. At the moment I'm trying to convince myself I need money in 2020, which means I need to work, which means the holidays need to end. Sigh.

But, yeah, I know where you're coming from. I had a major existential crisis about 20 years back with respect to engineering that sent me off into a deep dive of the Philosophy of Science. I came back a changed man. My fellow engineers think I'm nuts. The irony is that they love the results I produce, and ask me to teach others to do it … but they don't want to hear all that "philosophy stuff".

I went through a similar wringer in history - specifically when I was writing a paper about Lutherans and slavery in the U.S. My sources seemed to me a confused mess of contradictory information, and I couldn't figure out what to do with it. Coming out the other side of that is when my view of history began to gel into what it is today.

There is a book called "The Historian and the Believer" by Harvey that I think every Christian historian should read - not because I agree with Harvey, I don't - but because he beautifully frames the issues facing Christians and history. However, it's one of those books you could easily read and not get if you haven't suffered for history. My personal example is Augustine's City of God. I slogged through that tome the first time and when it was done thought, "Meh." I had to go away, do other things, and come back to it a second time. He seemed much more profound the second time.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, I think you get what I'm saying, but we have to be careful not to conflate ideas about what it means to be a student. My usage was more aligned with the "toe the line" concept where you memorize and don't worry about understanding. Yours is probably more about remaining open-minded; not expecting everything to fit into a neat little box.

Yes, you've hit the nail on the head. They ...... I have to put it into 3rd person here as I relate my own experience in the graduate program I went through ...... they socked lots and lots of various adaptations of Marxism into my head, one of which was proposed by Paulo Freire for reorienting us "educators" through the pedagogy/androgogy of "the oppressed." Needless to say, I couldn't take everything he said hook-line-and-sinker, but I found enough there along the way in reading him that I thought he was pertinent. The funny thing is that also along the way, one of my Ex-Christian, atheist professors thought she'd push some Ernesto "Che" Guevara on us, but as it turned out to her chagrin, I actually had much more of a taste for Pierre Bourdieu, not exactly the Marxist that she had in mind.

Anyway, I'm just dropping names here because I know that you're seasoned and will have an idea as to what I'm saying from a very cursory, 2 minute look up on each of these guys. You'll likely know where I'm partly coming from when you and I refer to the "student/practitioner dynamic" in education.

Yes, that sounds appropriate. My undergrad historiography began with the question, "What is history?" I couldn't answer that question until I finished my grad work.

I suppose it would since, as luck has it, that quote I just gave you in the previous post above from Conkin & Stromberg comes from a chapter in their book, appropriately titled, "What Is History?" ..........Good call, Bro!

Even then, not all my fellow historians are particularly thrilled with my answer. My answer: History is the stories we tell about ourselves. On the surface it probably seems a flippant answer, but unpacking it reveals what brought me to history in the first place and the role I think history plays in culture … culture being one of the key ingredients of my historical research (church & education being the others).

You're fellow historians might not be thrilled with your answer, but from this fellow non-specifically focused, amateur historian [i.e. me], I like the general direction you've been going in your historical conceptualization. I'm confident that there are some other Christians here who would at least partly find some reassurance in what you're saying here, too. I won't name names because ... well ... I'm sure they'll pop up soon enough since they're already hang'n around here anyway.

Hopefully I'm still relevant. For personal reasons I had to take a step back from my original plan. Maybe someday. As with all things Western, the 1960s were a turbulent time for the study of history, what with all those Imperialist Pigs controlling history departments and so forth. The professor under whom I studied American Colonial history was a product of that. With that said, he had some compelling arguments that forced me to rethink American history. Oddly enough, there has been what an old man like me considers a relatively recent revolution (early 2000s) in historical views of what used to be called "World History" and "Western Civilization". With respect to American history, the man on the forefront of that revolution is Thomas Bender.

Thomas Bender, ay? I haven't heard of him, but I quickly looked him up and he seems interesting, a historical theorist that I could add to my existing roster.

I was hunting during my undergrad, so I tried to study as broadly as possible - probably more so than most. I had offer after offer to settle in a particular area, but didn't really decide on my focus until well into my graduate work. It made things a little messy. But I particularly remember fondly my undergrad classes in Chinese and Latin American history. That's where I finally realized how differently various cultures view the world - that, for example, Chinese culture is not just a pale imitation of the West, or Western ideas wearing Chinese clothing. Particularly with Chinese history I really struggled to understand it, and it was a great feeling to get there.

That's all good to know, and I do find it piquing to my own interests. As for your general view of American history and of World History (and for me, Russian History as opposed to Chinese History), I'm guessing we're not too far apart, although I'll admit up front that the incidentals of my own studies make me posture in some very oddly Reformed-esque kind of ways ... and I'm not even Reformed.

Thanks for a fun trip down memory lane.

You're welcome! But now, I'm wondering just how "old" you are, bro! (Not that it matters, really.)

I'll try to put my thoughts together, and maybe within the next week or so I'll start a thread. At the moment I'm trying to convince myself I need money in 2020, which means I need to work, which means the holidays need to end. Sigh.

But, yeah, I know where you're coming from. I had a major existential crisis about 20 years back with respect to engineering that sent me off into a deep dive of the Philosophy of Science. I came back a changed man. My fellow engineers think I'm nuts. The irony is that they love the results I produce, and ask me to teach others to do it … but they don't want to hear all that "philosophy stuff".

Oh, how sad, sad, that is, for your fellow engineers. They're missing out on so many interesting realizations about Reality ...

I went through a similar wringer in history - specifically when I was writing a paper about Lutherans and slavery in the U.S. My sources seemed to me a confused mess of contradictory information, and I couldn't figure out what to do with it. Coming out the other side of that is when my view of history began to gel into what it is today.

That must have been quite a head-turning time.

There is a book called "The Historian and the Believer" by Harvey that I think every Christian historian should read - not because I agree with Harvey, I don't - but because he beautifully frames the issues facing Christians and history. However, it's one of those books you could easily read and not get if you haven't suffered for history. My personal example is Augustine's City of God. I slogged through that tome the first time and when it was done thought, "Meh." I had to go away, do other things, and come back to it a second time. He seemed much more profound the second time.

Harvey, who?

 

[muichimotsu]

Are you serious? You literally said here that there were demonstrable contradictions concerning the emperor at the time, I pointed out that all of the references to the Roman emperor in the New Testament were accurately dated, and you said that you were referring to Quirinius.

I'm not insinuating anything. This was literally what you said. If you don't want to get called on saying things that are inaccurate, take more care to not say things that are inaccurate. Until you're willing to acknowledge statements that you're making from one post to the next, I don't see how conversation with you is possible. There's no continuity whatsoever to anything you're saying.

Fine, I'll admit I said that, but the contradiction stands regardless of that mistake, because it's still inaccurate historically.

I'm more than willing to admit those mistakes and there being no continuity seems to be requiring some fixation on the forum and such rather than doing ANYTHING else to get away from the stress that fixation can cause if that's all one focuses on

 

[muichimotsu]

So you're not agnostic about it?

That word has so much needless baggage I barely use it, because it can be interpreted in that fence-sitting more Pyrrhonist idea rather than the epistemological intent supposedly used by Huxley when he formed the idea in contrast to gnosticism. I honestly don't care that much if Jesus existed as an historical figure anymore than I would care if some other religious zealot existed or not

Ok. And so? You're not convinced by various Christian arguments. I get that. And I'm not convinced that I have some kind of epistemological 'burden of proof' to demonstrate otherwise to concerned skeptics and atheists, especially NOT where any kind of social or political obligation is being imputed upon me by other individuals. So, being that you guys [i.e. you skeptics] aren't convinced, what is it that you'd like for us Christians to realize about this state of the matter, such as it stands in various social contexts in this new decade? Surely, all of this constant badgering of Christians doesn't come by some kind of commitment to a New-Skeptical ideological warfare against Christianity, right? It's just that you like to discuss this "Christianity stuff" and what you think are it's shortcomings, right?

If Christianity is supposed to be a VERY important thing, would it not behoove you to take it as seriously as possible to point out the basis for the claims made that are important as also being factual?

Let's not get into a victim complex notion, like Christians have had it as hard as, say, Jews, historically in the grand scheme of things. And Christianity's own text kind of reinforces a persecution complex anyway, suggesting that being seen as bad means you must be "right" and justified because of being faithful to "God" or whatnot.

I like to point out how the feelings associated with something are insufficient even if you can find some reasonable framework to present it in, Christianity's just especially common in manifesting that way in response to people criticizing it

It would only be an "emotionally satisfying scenario" if it were actually an emotionally satisfying scenario for me, in some very full sense of satisfaction [but it's not ...] (despite whatever you think being satisfied is and as to what it might mean for you in all of this), and if I perceived my Christian faith to be 'merely' an aesthetic response. However, I've never claimed that I think my faith is 'merely' an aesthetic response, even though I've already acknowledged elsewhere that such a response does play some significant part in my own cognitive processes pertaining to how I appropriate and support of my Christian faith ... but it isn't the whole ball of wax. [Such as in the link below to one of my older threads ...]

I didn't qualify it as full sense of satisfaction, that's not necessarily the requirement at all. Not sure where I reduced it to an aesthetic experience in its entirety, only that the justification seems aesthetic at the core, or based in rhetoric and credulity, not logic.

I don't expect you to understand this, especially since I can't help how you perceive the way in which I may perceive and thereby conceive of the nature of my own faith. You may not like the way I do it; of course, this isn't to say that you've actually, at any time, genuinely engaged my point of view.

Not sure what you think is genuinely engaging, because I don't have to take what are questionable bases in existential thinking (which has validity in the subjectivity aspect, but not in more grand conclusions made, like Kierkegaard's leap of faith) or such as true. Understanding a belief does not mean entertaining its truth, but the line of thinking and reasoning made by the believer.[/QUOTE]

 

[cvanwey]

Actually, these days, a teacher of History just might say at least a few things along the lines of what I've been saying, especially if she has a degree in Social Science Education and is philosophically inclined (or also educated in that field as well), as well as attuned to Diversity issues among people groups, all of which includes a familiarity with the sub-field of Multi-Cultural studies which, then too, includes recognizing diverse modes of epistemology. Not that the West doesn't already have its share of diversity within the field of Epistemology ... all of which then feed into the process of going round and round and round through the Hermeneutic Circle which is part and parcel of doing just about anything that deals with the pesky area of "human thought and interpretation."

A teacher might 'teach' the historical events, as told of 'Jesus.' The teacher may include (or) exclude reported supernatural claimed events, which also accompany Jesus; just like any other historical figure from antiquity. Regardless of the 'source' location -- (i.e) the Bible or elsewhere, such historical evaluations, probabilities, and-the-like, then weigh upon each own's personal evaluation(s). In my case, I gladly divulge my crude criteria, as outlined in post #303. As I told @Resha Caner , the Bible may offer 'facts' about antiquity (i.e.) places, events, people, and acts of history. Just like the Holy Qur'an, or other competing claimed holy text(s).

However, when any publication starts to <also> invoke supernatural causation, further scrutiny seems logical to impose.

In this case, my ONLY concern here, in this thread/topic, is the claim of a man rising from His tomb, after being dead for 3 days. What evidence supports this claim? As I've told others, seems as though first-hand eyewitness attestation might be (some) of the only means to verify a one-time past event?.?.?.? Then, going back to said criteria, in post #303, does such claims hold water?

As you can probably surmise, the Biblical attestation(s) of a man rising from the dead, do not appear to pass, in my 'book'? Not by a long shot.

I don't "know" that He did; and neither do you know that He didn't. We're both in the same epistemic and time worn situation here, cvanwey, one that requires more discernment than what the typical skeptic these days is willing to promote. If we're willing--and some folks aren't willing--we have to discern the difference between Christian Epistemology from that of either the kind of epistemology we might use in ascertaining historical 'facts' of the past, or that which can be involved in a variety of scientific inquiries and technological fabrication.

I've laid my cards on the table. Can you do the same? Why does the claim of a man rising from His tomb pass your test? Your prior response doesn't seem to really explain the 'evidence' which lead you to the belief that a man rose from the dead, after being dead for three says?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A teacher might 'teach' the historical events, as told of 'Jesus.' The teacher may include (or) exclude reported supernatural claimed events, which also accompany Jesus; just like any other historical figure from antiquity. Regardless of the 'source' location -- (i.e) the Bible or elsewhere, such historical evaluations, probabilities, and-the-like, then weigh upon each own's personal evaluation(s). In my case, I gladly divulge my crude criteria, as outlined in post #303. As I told @Resha Caner , the Bible may offer 'facts' about antiquity (i.e.) places, events, people, and acts of history. Just like the Holy Qur'an, or other competing claimed holy text(s).

Have you even read the Qu'ran or other 'holy texts' like the Bhagavad Gita ? Because, if you had, I don't think you'd be saying what you just said .......... there is no "just like" between the bible and other holy texts.

However, when any publication starts to <also> invoke supernatural causation, further scrutiny seems logical to impose.

I don't know about that. It'll depend not only upon whichever form of logic you think you're using, but also upon whatever epistemological system you think you (arbitrarily) will need to employ to make your own personal evaluations while using your supposed 'logic.'

In this case, my ONLY concern here, in this thread/topic, is the claim of a man rising from His tomb, after being dead for 3 days. What evidence supports this claim? As I've told others, seems as though first-hand eyewitness attestation might be (some) of the only means to verify a one-time past event?.?.?.? Then, going back to said criteria, in post #303, does such claims hold water?

Whether or not Jesus rose again from the dead has obviously been left by God in a kind of historicized limbo, one in which we all have to look at the little evidence we have and make a Leap of Faith based on the totality of how the concept of Jesus's Resurrection fits together with other things we understand from both the Bible and the ongoing state of the World in which we live. If you don't feel drawn to follow, then you don't feel drawn to follow.

As you can probably surmise, the Biblical attestation(s) of a man rising from the dead, do not appear to pass, in my 'book'? Not by a long shot.

Ok. The Resurrection doesn't "pass" in your book. Fine. Let's just be clear that what you think is 'logical' hasn't been vetted, and even IF your system of evaluation happened to be correct or vastly robust in measure, that wouldn't by necessity imply that my own epistemological approach is somehow deficient.

This is all I'll try to get you to understand at this point.

I've laid my cards on the table. Can you do the same? Why does the claim of a man rising from His tomb pass your test? Your prior response doesn't seem to really explain the 'evidence' which lead you to the belief that a man rose from the dead, after being dead for three says?

I've been laying my cards on the table in all of the threads I've created and in all of the posts I've written, but I've noticed something: no matter what I say, the response from most of you more 'forceful' skeptics is that what I have to say is essentially not worth listening to.

So, it kind of goes without saying that IF %&%$$ **%&%$@)@! @N& *&*!$$ #$, THEN ^%*&!@%$#!*^&.

And that's about the sum of it!

Otherwise, Habermas' Minimal Facts approach to the Resurrection is about a good as it's gonna get as a starting point, and if that doesn't float your boat, and you're not interested in learning and applying Philosophy of History, Historiography and Philosophical Hermeneutics to your overall existentially laden praxis, then what else is there to say here in Apologetics Land?

 

[cvanwey]

Before I respond, I wanted to point out two things

1. Believe or not, I do value your responses.
2. I answer them where I can. However, I'm not in 'your' mind. Thus, some of your responses, appear to me, anyways, as if I first need a 'secret decoder ring'

Maybe instead of continually 'proving' your scholarship, via 'name dropping', maybe speak more plainly about your conclusions. This is a forum arena environment, not an upper level class in studies. Many come here to get answers to questions. When reading some of your responses, I gather it might be safe to conclude, some read your responses while scratching their heads I mean no disrespect.

Have you even read the Qu'ran or other 'holy texts' like the Bhagavad Gita ? Because, if you had, I don't think you'd be saying what you just said .......... there is no "just like" between the bible and other holy texts.

I feel my point was lost entirely. As I told you prior, you can read books, watch movies, etc. Many/all may contain some/many 'facts'.

Regardless of how many facts are issued, the supernatural attestations seem to require 'more'. Do you agree?

Case/point: Your best friend never lies to you, that you know of, is considered a trustworthy citizen known by many. One day, he/she claims he/she saw a unicorn. Sure, you may take such a claim more seriously, verses a random transient from the street making the same claim, but still...

I don't know about that. It'll depend not only upon whichever form of logic you think you're using, but also upon whatever epistemological system you think you (arbitrarily) will need to employ to make your own personal evaluations while using your supposed 'logic.'

Well, let me ask you then.... Seems as though, thus far, you place trust/faith in a resurrection claim, not based upon it's own provided and robust evidence, but instead because we have validated many other 'facts' from the Bible? Am I remotely close? If not, please enlighten me

Whether or not Jesus rose again from the dead has obviously been left by God in a kind of historicized limbo, one in which we all have to look at the little evidence we have and make a Leap of Faith based on the totality of how the concept of Jesus's Resurrection fits together with other things we understand from both the Bible and the ongoing state of the World in which we live. If you don't feel drawn to follow, then you don't feel drawn to follow.

It sounds as if you are openly admitting that the claim of a man rising from the dead, after 3 days, lacks in evidence. And that it may require a giant leap of faith? If this is the case, how is your 'framework' any more reliable than pure hope?

Furthermore, are you admitting that my skepticism to this claim seems validated/warranted in your eyes; even though your position differs?

Ok. The Resurrection doesn't "pass" in your book. Fine. Let's just be clear that what you think is 'logical' hasn't been vetted, and even IF your system of evaluation happened to be correct or vastly robust in measure, that wouldn't by necessity imply that my own epistemological approach is somehow deficient.

You have made no attempt in 'vetting' it. I gather because you may agree with at least, in part, some of my criteria for evaluations here?

Again, the claim of Him rising from His tomb, rises and falls upon the evidence of the claim itself - APART from any/all other claims from the very same 66 Chapter/40 person(s) authors Book. And as the Bible even eludes to itself..:

"14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith"

So, how do we know He is risen?

And yes, maybe your method is not severely lacking/flawed/other? However, thus far, all I can conclude - is a 'leap of faith', and 'hope'?

If the crux of Christianity rises and/or falls based upon this one claim alone, seems as though a scholar, such as yourself, would be able to clearly provide 'evidence' for the claim. Surely you are not asking me to induce 'faith' alone?

I've been laying my cards on the table in all of the threads I've created and in all of the posts I've written, but I've noticed something: no matter what I say, the response from most of you more 'forceful' skeptics is that what I have to say is essentially not worth listening to.

Let me ask you honestly @2PhiloVoid .. Please read your own response, and tell me how this furnishes any evidence for the claims of a man rising from the dead?

"we have to discern the difference between Christian Epistemology from that of either the kind of epistemology we might use in ascertaining historical 'facts' of the past, or that which can be involved in a variety of scientific inquiries and technological fabrication."

Again, why do I need to get my 'mind right' to be presented the left behind evidence for the claims of a man rising from His tomb?

So, it kind of goes without saying that IF %&%$$ **%&%$@)@! @N& *&*!$$ #$, THEN ^%*&!@%$#!*^&.

Please do not get frustrated. I'm just pressing you for (your) reasons you believe this claim, that's all. And all I see, quite honestly, is quite a bit of tap dancing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Before I respond, I wanted to point out two things

1. Believe or not, I do value your responses.
2. I answer them where I can. However, I'm not in 'your' mind. Thus, some of your responses, appear to me, anyways, as if I first need a 'secret decoder ring'

Maybe instead of continually 'proving' your scholarship, via 'name dropping', maybe speak more plainly about your conclusions. This is a forum arena environment, not an upper level class in studies. Many come here to get answers to questions. When reading some of your responses, I gather it might be safe to conclude, some read your responses while scratching their heads I mean no disrespect.



I feel my point was lost entirely. As I told you prior, you can read books, watch movies, etc. Many/all may contain some/many 'facts'.

Regardless of how many facts are issued, the supernatural attestations seem to require 'more'. Do you agree?

Case/point: Your best friend never lies to you, that you know of, is considered a trustworthy citizen known by many. One day, he/she claims he/she saw a unicorn. Sure, you may take such a claim more seriously, verses a random transient from the street making the same claim, but still...



Well, let me ask you then.... Seems as though, thus far, you place trust/faith in a resurrection claim, not based upon it's own provided and robust evidence, but instead because we have validated many other 'facts' from the Bible? Am I remotely close? If not, please enlighten me



It sounds as if you are openly admitting that the claim of a man rising from the dead, after 3 days, lacks in evidence. And that it may require a giant leap of faith? If this is the case, how is your 'framework' any more reliable than pure hope?

Furthermore, are you admitting that my skepticism to this claim seems validated/warranted in your eyes; even though your position differs?



You have made no attempt in 'vetting' it. I gather because you may agree with at least, in part, some of my criteria for evaluations here?

Again, the claim of Him rising from His tomb, rises and falls upon the evidence of the claim itself - APART from any/all other claims from the very same 66 Chapter/40 person(s) authors Book. And as the Bible even eludes to itself..:

"14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith"

So, how do we know He is risen?

And yes, maybe your method is not severely lacking/flawed/other? However, thus far, all I can conclude - is a 'leap of faith', and 'hope'?

If the crux of Christianity rises and/or falls based upon this one claim alone, seems as though a scholar, such as yourself, would be able to clearly provide 'evidence' for the claim. Surely you are not asking me to induce 'faith' alone?



Let me ask you honestly @2PhiloVoid .. Please read your own response, and tell me how this furnishes any evidence for the claims of a man rising from the dead?

"we have to discern the difference between Christian Epistemology from that of either the kind of epistemology we might use in ascertaining historical 'facts' of the past, or that which can be involved in a variety of scientific inquiries and technological fabrication."

Again, why do I need to get my 'mind right' to be presented the left behind evidence for the claims of a man rising from His tomb?



Please do not get frustrated. I'm just pressing you for (your) reasons you believe this claim, that's all. And all I see, quite honestly, is quite a bit of tap dancing.

 

[cvanwey]

I understand you are leaving the apologetics forum? If so, I leave you with a statement I made to you a long time back...

If someone feels as if their position is not validated, they often times, (but not all), resort to three kinds of 'responses':

1. They stop responding or ignore the engagement entirely
2. They change the subject
3. They make an attempt instead at an insult.

Maybe in your case, you are just burned out? Maybe you feel it is a fruitless endeavor? Maybe other? Who knows?

However, your last response, seems quite telling... That you too admit, that to believe a man rose from a tomb, may require some level of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Starcomet]

There is no physical evidence of a resurrection. It was a spiritual event that the disciples experienced and thanks to time got taken to have been physical.

 

[cvanwey]

To @2PhiloVoid from thread Why did God make Gospel so confusing? (post#56)

I'm not here for a book list. I'm not here for a study session. I'm here to debate venerable topics. I'm asking you questions in earnest, and you are dancing all around them. I'm not looking for a reading buddy. If I did, I would join a book club.

My purpose here is to converse with individuals whom believe. I'm pressing them for why they believe what they believe. I ask you, and you immediately become 'cryptic.'

Now, my turn to 'generalize', as you have done on several occasions, in this thread, and others....

What I find ironic, is that some Christians want to shift the burden a bit. Some here want to tell the unbeliever as to what they are doing wrong, or how they go about their conclusions as faulty. And yet, when I press for the reasons HERE, in arguably the MOST IMPORTANT claim in history, I get very little reason/evidence/rationale/logic.

Thus far, it seems I get very little, as to the request of my very simple, and very direct request(s). Instead, people want to point out how my question(s) need further clarification(s).

Does anyone have anything worth exploring, or is @2PhiloVoid on the money here?

 

[cvanwey]

There is no physical evidence of a resurrection. It was a spiritual event that the disciples experienced and thanks to time got taken to have been physical.

Why do you believe it then? Can you furnish tangible reason?

 

[Starcomet]

Why do you believe it then? Can you furnish tangible reason?

Like I said, it is a spiritual event that the disciples believed to have experience. You will not get evidence because no such evidence can possibly be produced. I believe that the disciples experienced some sort of event that caused them to believe Jesus was still active in some way and present. Later on it likely turned into a literal "He rose from the dead" belief, but initially I think it was more along the lines of "He still lives on through us."

 

[cvanwey]

Like I said, it is a spiritual event that the disciples believed to have experience. You will not get evidence because no such evidence can possibly be produced. I believe that the disciples experienced some sort of event that caused them to believe Jesus was still active in some way and present. Later on it likely turned into a literal "He rose from the dead" belief, but initially I think it was more along the lines of "He still lives on through us."

Okay. But I presume you reject the claims of people whom claim they have been witness to opposing god(s), right? If yes, then please proceed below.

Why are you apt to believe this claim, but then reject all others?

Personally, I doubt them all, including yours. Why should this one be so special?

 

[Starcomet]

Why are you apt to believe this claim, but then reject all others?

Personally, I doubt them all, including yours. Why should this one be so special?

I believe, or have faith, in this as it makes the most logical sense to me as I do not believe the writers purely made it up given how ridiculous it sounds (though to first century people it might have been believable). And I am by no means saying this view holds a special position or that you must accept it. But most scholars agree that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, but what happened after that is speculation and faith.

 

[cvanwey]

I believe, or have faith, in this as it makes the most logical sense to me as I do not believe the writers purely made it up given how ridiculous it sounds (though to first century people it might have been believable). And I am by no means saying this view holds a special position or that you must accept it. But most scholars agree that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, but what happened after that is speculation and faith.

Thank you for your honesty. And I think you touched on an important point here. Its likely, in the first century, that people might have been more apt to believe superstitious claims. Is it possible that such claims of a resurrection were of mere oral tradition, and after decades of unfettered stories, legend grew, which resulted later in the Gospel accounts?

I'm not quite sure if you are up for further exploration. If you are, let us proceed.

As I've stated to others, we can read from the most credible document, filled with 'facts'. In the case for the Bible, we may even be able to conclude people, places, and events in corroborated historical recordings. HOWEVER, claims of the supernatural, must be elevated to another standard? Agree?

Maybe the Bible writers, whom were not direct witnesses to the claimed resurrection, truly did believe it, and thus, were not lying; but believed it to be true?

So, what might that standard be?

Is 'faith' reliable? Regardless of whatever definition you personally apply to faith, does it yield a reliable result? Or, are you instead admitting faith to be synonymous with hope, trust, and wishes --- despite your own personal/necessary/needed evidence to support the claim?