Religious Epistemology and Natural Explanations for the Resurrection of Jesus: An On-Line Debate

Berean = Shandon L. Guthrie

Start of #christian/debate buffer: Fri Jul 23 21:07:41 1999

<ogreogre> No, I don't believe Zeus ever existed other then as an abstract

concept, whereas I believe God is an actual being.

<Sastra> Ogre, why the distinction?

<Berean_> Hello, Stargazer.

<ogreogre> Stargazer, spiritual communication, I don't rule out more tangible

communication, like sound or visual.

<^Sophia^> Yes Lusion?

<Stargazer> So, what types of communication have you had?

<Sastra> For one thing, you're making God into something that could be played by

an actor if it was ever made into a movie. Look at the size and scope of the

universe: this is a little small, don't you think?

<Stargazer> with the HS I mean.

<ogreogre> Sastra, yes, I see.

<ogreogre> But I believe God calls men to him and reveals his will to them

spiritually.

<Sastra> How does 'spiritual communication' differ from regular communication,

or perhaps just intense meditation?

<ogreogre> Sastra, spiritual communication I see specifically as a change of

heart, the very source of our decision making process, which isn't necessarily

tangible in that I can show it to you.

<Sastra> And how do you tell true 'spirit communication' from false ones? After

all, there are an awful lot of very sincere, pious, and intensely convinced

Mormons, Hindus, and Muslims out there. Either they are mistaken, or God

doesn't care what people believe, or God is doing a very poor job at

communicating His will.

<Sastra> Ogre, and how do you tell spirit communication from you communicating

to yourself? Naturally, like all other people do.

<Berean_> People do not base their beliefs solely on communicative experiences;

rather, those experiences vindicate an already underscored belief.

<ogreogre> Sastra, I know my actions personally from my intentions and the

results they produce, the second being applicable to the actions of others.

<MagisterGolgotha> So what's the topic, in a nutshell?

<Sastra> Berean, and perhaps the exact same type of experiences experienced by

nontheists are understood and interpreted as natural parts of human nature,

and the human mind. Shouldn't this be our first assumption? Nature?

<Berean_> Sastra: I would not presume to say that experience determines belief

here. Instead, we should ask ourselves "Do I have a reason to reject my

experience?"

<Greylenseman> I live about two miles from a 500,000 watt clear channel radio

station that does a GREAT job of punching out it's signal. It even causes

phone interference. But, I do not listen to that station. The Radio station

cares....but I do not. The same is true with many people about God.

<Sastra> Berean> No, the question should be "do I have a reason to interpret

this experience as anything other than natural?"

<Sastra> The experience is real enough..that isn't what is at issue.

<ogreogre> I think Berean is more to the point

<Berean_> Sastra: You are asking for explanations. I am discussing

justifications.

<ogreogre> What if I see a mirage and claim it was the messiah?

<ogreogre> did the experience match the claim?

<ogreogre> justify it?

<Berean_> Of course if a natural experience has better explanatory power then it

should be considered.

<Sastra> Imagine for a moment that some ppl claimed that they had tunes running

through their head, and this was evidence that aliens from another planet were

beaming music waves into their brains. When you asked why it couldn't just be

a song in the mind, strongly remembered, they keep saying "you are denying my

experience. I tell you, I really am experiencing music." But they agree they

don't "hear" it in the usual way, through the ears.

<XLNT44> "experience(s)" can kill you....... Ref: John Kennedy Jr........ flying

at night...... no instrument training.... could not tell up from

down.....(centrifugal force)... some experience :-)

<Berean_> Sastra: The fact is, the experience exists. It is only when it

corresponds with any viable hypothesis does the experience holster an

explanation.

<Sastra> And when you ask why they assume this must be aliens from another

planet, they complain that you've closed your mind to the most likely

hypothesis. It "works" for them.

<ogreogre> Stargazer, how could you reduce the claim to a natural state?

<Berean_> Sastra: Unless we have reasons to reject it. The experience would

lose credibility.

<Sastra> Berean> unless people can rule out a natural explanation, assuming that

the only explanation must be an alien from another planet, or a Omnipotent

Being that permeates the universe and communicates by beaming thoughts into

your brain, is unwarranted.

<Berean_> Sastra: Well, now, you are saying that natural experiences are to be

preferred before supernatural ones. And I think that is just question-begging.

<Sastra> Berean, though some people may be lying, in most cases I think ppl sincere

when they claim to have had an experience of God, or an abduction by aliens,

or a memory of a past life, or an out of body flying experience. The question

is whether these things tell us more about the human mind, or about a

spiritual realm of reality.

<Berean_> Sastra: Epistemologically, they are sincere. Ontologically, they may

be way off.

<Greylenseman> Any claim "could" be valid, but as adults we have to use our

education, training, experience, judgement and wisdom to decide which are, or

are not valid. It's just like flying a plane. If we are good...we MAY live.

If we are bad at it...we MAY die. (probably die).

<Sastra> Berean, not really..in real life, we always prefer the most likely and

common explanations. There are a thousand supernatural explanations for every

occurance, if we want to think about it. But we don't, because we go with what

is more likely. Until we don't *want* to. Then we throw out the rules and

"restrictions," and claim we need a new method on this belief.

<ogreogre> Circumstances dictate discernment...?

<MagisterGolgotha> Just blame it on the invisible pink unicorn, I say

<Berean_> Sastra: Well, the resurrection of Jesus (as an example) does not

afford any natural explanation and, therefore, the supernatural occurrence is

to be preferred. But even if what you say is true, the point is that an experience can be

vindicated as supernatural so long as any natural explanation has low explanatory power.

<Sastra> why would you reject the very sincere claims of ppl who have been

abducted by aliens, flown through the air, been possessed by demons or

channelled by entities fron Atlantis, and then, when someone has an experience

that confirms your own special supernatural paranormal event, say "well, this

is good evidence here..."

<ogreogre> Sincere claims seems to be the point of contention...

<Berean_> Sastra: I never use experience as evidence, only as added

justification should the evidence already warrant such a belief.

<Meteo1999> That's wise.

<Sastra> Berean, even assuming that account in the gospels more or less

accurate, it's still more likely that the body was stolen, or was not dead to

begin with. Some scholars have pointed out possible evidence for either in the

text. Even if you think these theories unlikely, they are more likely than an

actual supernatural event.

<Greylenseman> Just because (and this is an assumption) all of our friends are

sane, rational and intrinsically good does not mean that the world isn't

CRAMMED with evil people, charlatains, con men, rascals, and every manner of

deceptive person...most of which smile and tell a convincing story.

<Sastra> Give the age and hearsay evidence, I'd say much more likely something

has been garbled or changed.

<Meteo1999> Sastra, there was no motive to steal his body though

<Berean_> Sastra: The only way that a non-resurrection theory can be tenable is

if the resurrection never occurred. But that appears to be the issue. Did it

occur? I disagree with your assessment of the resurrection wholeheartedly.

<Stargazer> The Christians had a huge motive.

<Sastra> Grey, and many of these ppl have managed to fool themselves as well.

That is very common. James Randi, who tests paranormal claims, said that most

'psychics' believe they are real, that they can bend keys or find water or

read palms

<Greylenseman> Sastra: agreed

<Meteo1999> Stargazer, the only Christians who really cared at the time were the

apostles and it is unlikely they would have stolen it. all but one of them

died the death of a martyr. no one dies for something they think is fake.

<Berean_> Psychic phenomenon does not explain the empty tomb of Jesus.

<Stargazer> Why is that unlikely?

<Greylenseman> That's how people who claim to follow the "Prince of Peace"

rationalize killing each other in warfare.

<Sastra> Berean> There is no way that the resurrection can stand up under modern

critical scrutiny. We don;'t even have the original texts or eyewitnesses, or

anything concrete. Add in length of time and the religious motivation, and it

can't be verified in a scientific sense.

<XLNT44> If the resurrection did not occur.......why didn't the Jews just parade

Jesus' body through the town.......or if as you say the body was stolen......

how.... it was guarded by the Romans...... very efficient warriors..

<Stargazer> A missing body would "prove" a resurrection.

<MagisterGolgotha> the other alternative is that Jesus never even died

<ogreogre> Greylensman, no, that isn't a good argument

<MagisterGolgotha> (not during the crucifixion, anyway)

<Meteo1999> Star, again they died because of these beliefs. no one dies for

something they know is fake

<Stargazer> Why would the jews care, xlnt?

<Stargazer> Meteo, many many people die for false beliefs.

<XLNT44> It was in their interest.

<ogreogre> Christians have been on battlefields and killed people but why?

because they submitted to authorities.

<Stargazer> As the heaven's gate people that joined the comet.

<XLNT44> it would have been in the Jews' interest to show the body......

<Sastra> You are talking about anecdotal evidence, and examining miracle claims

today, looking at what people claim about the paranormal and supernatural, we see

that ppl are not reliable. Anecdotes do not make a science. If you accept the

resurrection, you do it on Faith. You are not compelled by the strong evidence.

<SeaBeast> Ogreogre, it is biblical to kill people

<Berean_> Sastra: That is a loaded statement. The majority of New Testament

scholars agree that the tomb was found empty on Easter Sunday; that the

disciples witnessed appearances of Jesus alive after his death; and that the

disciples' belief was that Jesus rose from the dead. How else can that be

explained?

<ogreogre> seabeast?

<SeaBeast> just read the old and new testament

<Sastra> Meteo> so all martyrs are correct? You've no idea what ppl thought at

the time: and there is no evidence that the apostles died as martyrs

<MagisterGolgotha> Berean_: that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross is quite

plausible.

<ogreogre> Seabeast, yes and the rest of recorded history

<SeaBeast> In the bible, if you add it all up, from the recorded numbers god has

killed over 60,000 people

<Greylenseman> Ogre: Their allegiances were misplaced. Serving Czars, Kings,

Dictators, Presidents, Constitutions, etc, instead of their sworn King, Jesus.

<XLNT44> The followers of Christ (Matt, John, Peter, etc) were not ignorant.

They knew the difference between fact and fable.

<SeaBeast> 'vengeance is mine, thus saith the lord' romans 12:19

<ogreogre> were Vietnam veterans allegiances misplaced?

<Berean_> Sastra: How did Jesus perform a sort of "swoon" on the cross and yet

manage to "rise in glory" the third day. He would have been half-alive.

Further, where in the world would they have come up with that idea in the

first place?

<Stargazer> What do you base that statement on xlnt?

<Berean_> Oops. That is to MagisterGolgotha.

<Sastra> the gospel writers were writing a religous narrative, not a fact based

history.

<Greylenseman> Ogre: Only if they were Christians. If not...who knows?

<Meteo1999> Sastra, all but one died as a martyr. That's documented. Of course

martyrs have been wrong. But in those cases, they were delusional --

sincerely believing to the death their cause. I'm just saying that there is

absolutely no one who is willing to die for something they know is false.

<ogreogre> Grey, no, many were drafted and Christianity teaches to submit to

authorities, which they did.

<Berean_> Sastra: What exactly is a "religious narrative." There is no such

genre. Most historiographers see the gospels in the genre of history.

<XLNT44> Paul challenged his readers to talk to the over 400 witnesses who saw

Christ AFTER his resurrection.

<MagisterGolgotha> Berean_: The idea comes from the 'dying and rising' god

myths, predominant in Egypt at the time.. and since he pretty much 'went'

after the attempt to revive him with 'vinegar', it's quite likely he was

drugged.

<Berean_> Actually, it was 500 witnesses.

<XLNT44> most of whom were still alive, tho some sleep

<Sastra> Berean> come up with the idea? It doesn't seem that strange to me. All

I'm saying is that the Gospels are not strong evidence, because they are not

direct testimony..and even if they were, we have all sorts of direct testimony

of paranormal claims which, when investigated with scientific rigor, fall

apart. Urban legends and problems with memory

<Berean_> MagisterGolgotha: There are no parallels to the pagan savior-gods.

<Berean_> Sastra: They would not have come up with an isolated resurrection of

any one individual. That was contrary to Jewish belief.

<Stargazer> Krishna was seen by his followers after his death too. why do u

doubt them?

<MagisterGolgotha> Berean_: heheh.. oh there is.. You just have to look ;)

<XLNT44> Sastra.....ever heard of Dr. Simon Greenleaf.?

<Greylenseman> Render Caesar's things to Caesar...But God's things to God. What

does the second half of that verse mean? If you give your life, your fortune,

your sacred honor to your country...what is left to give to the Christ.

Nothing.

<Berean_> MagisterGolgotha: I've done some research in that field. I assure

you, only amateur unknowledgeable atheists like Farrell Till still dare to

parade it.

<ogreogre> What does the first half mean?

<MagisterGolgotha> Berean_: hehe.. either way, I disbelieve that he even died on

the cross, let alone come back from the dead

<Stargazer> Farrel Till is an unknowledgeable atheist?

<MagisterGolgotha> the pesher method leads to some interesting interpretations

<Turba> Stargazer: When you're a believer, anyone who disagrees with you is

"unknowledgeable".

<Meteo1999> grey, there are things that the state can never own.

<Berean_> MagisterGolgotha: Then, why do the New Testament manuscripts

collectively agree that Jesus died on the cross (not to mention Jewish and

Roman history also confirms it)?

<Meteo1999> Turba, I would never take that position

<Turba> Stargazer: it's a thinly veiled attempt at discrediting those who

disagree.

<ogreogre> Turba, Berean isn't arguing solely from belief

<Greylenseman> Ogre: Depends on who you ask. In the case of medal of honor

winner Alvin C. York, it meant serve his country as it's instrument of death.

He started out as a conscientious objector, but changed his mind.

*** Krista has joined #christian/debate

<MagisterGolgotha> Berean_: because the NT manuscripts were crafted with the

pesher method in mind, and the Roman soldiers would have been a bit lax with

their checks, since they'd rather be at home with their families on the Friday

night.. they didn't even break his legs :)

<ogreogre> greylensman, my point is that even while one serves Christ, we are

called to be held accountable for our worldly responsibilities.

<ogreogre> pay taxes, obey the law, etc.

<Berean_> MagisterGolgotha: So, the entire seat of the Roman Empire decided to

go home to their families instead of publicly crucifying Jesus as was promised

to the masses?

<Berean_> MagisterGolgotha: And if Jesus was not crucified, why didn't the Jews

just say "Jesus never died. He's an old man living in the wharfs of Galilee

right now fishing."?

<MagisterGolgotha> Berean_: Oh he got stuck up, there's no doubt there.. but why

was his stay there so short, and routine differed from normal? the vinegar

that's supposed to revive them, took Jesus out.. you figure it out.

<MagisterGolgotha> he was drugged

<Sastra> There were so many saviors, so many zealots. Judas of Galilee was just

one more...

*** Sastra has left #Christian/Debate

<Krista> Why are you guys even wasting your time arguing about this, it never

happend, its only a story...like the Cat in the Hat...is the cat still alive?

<ogreogre> Greylensman, i didn't know

<Berean_> MagisterGolgotha: How does a man succumbing to asphyxiation and a

piercing in his side by a Roman lance avoid dying? And why are you

being hypocritical about accepting Jesus being on the cross yet denying the facts about his death?

That is intellectual hypocrisy.

<Greylenseman> How many other churches go that far to respect the laws of the

land that do not conflict with God's laws. None, that I am aware of.

<MagisterGolgotha> Berean_: The piercing was a non-fatal cut to the intestines

(how else do u explain the 'blood and water'?)

<XLNT44> The evidence of the witnesses (writers) of the Gospels would stand up in

court

<Turba> Berean_: It's really quite simple......thus far, there has NEVER been

a documented case of a human being returning to life after death.....thusly,

the story of Jesus is automatically suspect.....it requires extremely strong

evidence to make it believable.

<MagisterGolgotha> Jesus being nailed up and drugged to seem like death seems to

make more sense than some 'divine' explanation ;)

<Turba> XLNT44: are you kidding? It would be summarily tossed out as "hearsay"

<Berean_> MagisterGolgotha: So, the account of the Roman lance is authentic but

his death, as recorded by the same sources you derive the lance story, is

somehow false? The fact is, it is the pericardium of the heart or lungs that would yield blood and water.

His heart pericardium (or a lung) was punctured.

<XLNT44> Turba.,have you ever heard of Dr Simon Greenleaf?

<Turba> Berean_: puncturing the bladder would provide the same result, and

would hardly be fatal.

<Berean_> MagisterGolgotha: And that is what desperate atheists have to do to

deny the resurrection. If I were you, I would be shaking in my boots if I had

to believe that to deny the resurrection.

<Greylenseman> Magister: The way Jesus was impaled caused the pericardium of his

heart (sheath) to fill with inflammation (water). Jesus actually died of a

suffocating heart attack. When his side was pierced the water ran out.

<Turba> XLNT44: nope

<MagisterGolgotha> Berean_: I'm not an atheist

<Berean_> I am categorizing in general. You share the sentiments of all

atheists.

<XLNT44> Dr. Simon Greenleaf...Royal Professor Law at Harvard University wrote a

three volume work "A Treatsie on the Law of Evidence".... still in use today

<XLNT44> You might want to gander at that... Turba?

<Turba> XLNT44: merely one man's opinion.

<MagisterGolgotha> Berean_: Oh come on, trying to judge me from what little

you've seen and lumping me into the 'oh just an atheist' pile? lol!

<Berean_> MagisterGolgotha: Just deal with the objection.

<MagisterGolgotha> Berean_: well considering that I believe my side (with

supportive evidence) and you believe yours (with supportive evidence) we're

getting nowhere :)

<Berean_> MagisterGolgotha: I haven't seen any evidence for your side yet. You

have managed only to espouse your beliefs to me so far.

<MagisterGolgotha> Berean_: That's because I'm currently hunting for my

documentation in the background.. finding the #c/d webpage when the cjb.net

redirector is down is though

<Berean_> MagisterGolgotha: Are you making a conclusion and then looking for

reasons to back it up or are you recalling some facts you came across?

<MagisterGolgotha> Berean_: I've been working from the memory of a document I

read about 3 months ago

<MagisterGolgotha> it's an essay that appeared on internet infidels called "why

I don't buy the ressurection story".. can't recall the author's name, but I'm

hunting for it as I type

<Berean_> MagisterGolgotha: I was just curious because it seems that you are

constructing a narrative of the crucifixion story that accepts certain

elements of the gospels but, yet, arbitrarily denies the others.

<Berean_> MagisterGolgotha: Jeff Lowder does a decent synopsis of various views.

<MagisterGolgotha> got the cd page, brb

<Berean_> MagisterGolgotha: Fine. We can deal with the views of another author.

I was hoping for your personal views.

<MagisterGolgotha> Berean_: my personal views aren't really important (nor

overly welcome at times ;) ) so I normally stick to other's work

<MagisterGolgotha> ops: Permission to post a URL?

<Berean_> MagisterGolgotha: You may. Would you consider sincerely investigating

the resurrection account from other sources?

<virgio> sure

<MagisterGolgotha> http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ercc20/jesus.html

<Turba> XLNT44: BTW, I note that the Harvard Law School website doesn't make

any mention of your "esteemed" Simon Greenfield.

<MagisterGolgotha> Berean_: considering I don't really care if Jesus is/was the

son of God or not (it's irrelevant in my world view), I think that a sincere

investigation is quite unlikely

<Turba> or Greenleaf, or whatever his name is....:) The only references I can

find on him revolve around a Christian apologetics website.....:)

<ogreogre> Without sincere investigation, you cannot give a sincere answer...

<MagisterGolgotha> Ogreogre: my sincere answer is that I'm not a christian, nor

do I intent to change to being one

<MagisterGolgotha> I've found my path, and I'm on it

<Berean_> MagisterGolgotha: So, don't confuse you with the facts you have

already made up your mind? Fine. I often wonder why non-Christians are the

ones called "freethinkers" when precisely the opposite seems to be true.

<Berean_> MagisterGolgotha: I will be releasing my essay on the resurrection

this August on my web site:

<ogreogre> Magister, you have no sincere interest yet deny Christianity is true,

saying specifically it is false. Why not just say I am indifferent as you

claim?

<Berean_> http://members.tripod.com/~sguthrie/officeslg.htm

<piercedchick`> Berean, i dont think you can generalize who are freethinkers and

who aren't, freethinkers are those who come up with their own answers, that

can be Christians or not.

<Berean_> http://members.tripod.com/~sguthrie/officeslg.htm

<Turba> Berean_: I think one of your shortcomings is your liberal use of the

word "facts".

<MagisterGolgotha> Berean_: oh I'm quite open-minded.. I've already investigated

many belief systems and Christianity simply isn't for me.

<XLNT44> Turba,,,,,,,i guess you will have to find out about Greenleaf the old

fashioned way........ visit a library.

<MagisterGolgotha> Ogreogre: I didn't claim that Christianity wasn't true.. I

claimed that it wasn't true FOR ME

<MagisterGolgotha> subjective vs. objective truth

<Turba> XLNT44: I found the Greenleaf Center Apologetics website.....that's

enough for me......

<Berean_> Truth is not "for you"? It seems that death and taxes are two truths

I would like to do without, too, but they are unfortunate realities for me nonetheless. Take

care, all, and good night.

*** Disconnected

End of #christian/debate buffer Fri Jul 23 21:07:41 1999