Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think most would agree that the universe is a rationally intelligible system. We can discover structures, patterns, laws and symmetries within the system. Things that happen within the system seem to be related to those laws too. So given all this is it not at least reasonable to form the view that it is the work of an intelligent source? Isn't it at least as reasonable or arguably more reasonable to assume that as it is to assume it just so happens to exist with all these laws, patterns just there, with all that takes place in the universe just being fluke?

If we take some of the laws of physics too, we can write these down very succinctly using mathematics, indeed mathematics seems to be a language that is superb for describing things in the universe, a fine example being Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field. Theoretical physicists often say they feel that they are discovering these laws too:

So if the universe can be described in a language like mathematics doesn't that too strongly suggest an intelligent source? much as we'd infer if we stumbled upon clay tablets with writing on them or symbols carved into stone? Doesn't discovery of something written in a language, more or less prove an intelligent source?

So isn't this all reasonable? is there anything unreasonable about this position?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #289]

Your "simple reading" only shows that Luke wants to give the appearance of history. There are reasons to think that it was for literary effect rather than as an indication that Luke intended to write history:

So you are conceding that it is written in a way to at least make it appear that it was written as history. Not really with any evidence on why people would take as history.

From Acts in its Ancient Literary Context by Loveday Alexander, page 14:
We still have to take into account the negative fact that the conventions Luke uses in his preface, the most significant single place for ancient authors to make preliminary indications to their readers about genre and topic, are counter-indicative of Greek historiography. Of course, Luke might have just got his preface-etiquette wrong, or decided to do something different: but we have only to look at Josephus to see a Jewish contemporary who is painfully aware of the conventional code governing the composition of a historical preface. In other words, I would argue, a Greek reader would need strong generic indications within the narrative to outweigh the negative expectations induced by the preface.

I absolutely have no idea what this guy is talking about because John does the same thing in his opening in Revelation:

John,

To the seven churches in the province of Asia:

Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits[a] before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

Paul does the same thing in Romans

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from[c] faith for his name’s sake. 6 And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.

7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

And in 1 Corinthians 1

Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,

2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:

3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

The New Testament is a collection mainly of letters written to specific individuals. Luke is a letter written to a specific individual. So Alexander's conclusion is nothing more than wishful thinking.

The Gospels aren't quite as unified about the death and resurrection as you make them out to be, but they do consider them important. That doesn't imply that they're considered historical, though.

Who in the first century did not think they were written as a historical account of what happened?

Your evidence is that Christian apologists (the "extrabiblical sources") tried to support the Gospels as historical narrative. The bit about "The Acts of Pilate" being something other than another Christian "Acts" text (of which we have a number) is speculative.

Your treating these events as if they have no context in their time. Because there would be consequences for speaking non truth about Roman Senators.

• What reasons would Tertullian have to fabricate the story of Pilate's
  report, of Tiberius' proposed consecratio of Christ and of the senate's
  refusal, when he mentions these events incidentally, merely to explain the
  origin of anti-Christian laws? A Christian apologist would hardly have
  had any interest in inventing a story of a negative senate decision (senatus
  consultus) which offered a legal basis for future persecution of Christians.
  Moreover, could Tertullian have urged magistrates to "consult" their
  histories, if the facts to be verified did not exist in their records because
  they were solely a Christian fabrication? Considerations such as these lend
  support to the historicity of Pilate's report and of Tiberius' proposal,
  which are dated by Eusebius in his Chronicon to A.D. 35.22 The violent
  anti-Christian persecution, which, according to the canonical book of
  Acts, was stirred up at that time in Palestine by the Sanhedrin, could
  explain why Pilate deemed it necessary to inform Tiberius about the events
  which led to the establishment of Christianity and to its conflict with
  Judaism.23
  posting.php?mode=post_reply&f=17&t=3915 ... 37#preview

I'll also remind you again that it's polite to identify your sources.

I did, I gave you the entire article.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 10:19 am
Again who believes this actually happen?
Nobody. Nor should they. That's the point. Being described in historical terms and actually being historical aren't the same thing.

Just because you may like to believe something is true does not make it true. You have yet to show that any of what you are asserting is true. Gary Habermas did his Dr. dissertation at the highly religious institution of Michigan State on the historicity of the resurrection.

For more than 35 years, I have argued that, surrounding the end of Jesus’ life, there is a significant body of data that scholars of almost every religious and philosophical persuasion recognize as being historical. The historicity of each “fact” on the list is attested and supported by a variety of historical and other considerations. This motif began as the central tenet of my
PhD dissertation.2

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/ ... d_fac_pubs

Then you should have no problem quoting such scholars. I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that, though. I already supported that in my previous post, so you just asserting your claim again doesn't make much of a counterargument.

The following are the criteria that Gary Habermas, one of the foremost authorities on the resurrection, used to arrive at his minimal fact argument.

• I explain my use of the longer and shorter versions this way: since I have
  surveyed this material for decades, I can report that most contemporary critical scholars actually concede far more facts than those included even in the
  long list, let alone just the few Minimal Facts alone. But the problem is that,
  as the numbers of events expand, fewer scholars agree on each one. So there
  could be more give and take on “whose facts” ought to be utilized. Obviously then, longer lists would not fulfill especially the second strict criterion of
  the Minimal Facts method.
  
  So I decided to be even more selective than the majority of critical
  scholars by shortening the list in order to get more scholars (and especially
  the skeptics) on board. This methodological move has the benefit of bypassing the often protracted preliminary discussions of which data are permissible,
  by beginning with a “lowest common denominator” version of the facts.

These are the 12 facts that Habermas found pretty much all scholars believe are true.

• 1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
  
  2. He was buried. There’s nothing strange about this fact. People die and people are buried. (We’re not even designating a particular place or kind of burial.)
  
  3. Jesus’ death caused his disciples to despair and lose hope, believing his life had ended. This is psychologically natural and understandable, for sure: how would you feel if your best friend, on whose account you had left everything in order to follow, died very suddenly and horribly?
  
  4. Now I admit, as I likewise repeat all the time, that this next fact is not quite as widely held, but the majority of scholars still think that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later.
  
  5. Arguably the most crucial fact here beyond Jesus’ death is that his disciples had experiences that they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. In other words, they thought that Jesus appeared to them. I’m wording this very carefully, and it is held extraordinarily widely by scholars.
  
  6. Because of these experiences, the disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify themselves with Jesus, into bold proclaimers of his death and resurrection appearances. They were even willing to die for their faith in these gospel events.
  
  7. This message was the center of early church preaching. Remember Paul’s testimony: The events of Jesus Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and appearances were “of first importance.”
  
  8. This message was especially proclaimed in the environs of Jerusalem, the city where Jesus had died and was buried just shortly before.
  
  9. As a result of this preaching, the church was born and grew.
  
  10. Sunday became the primary day of worship, which is a significant fact especially for the initial Jewish believers.
  
  11. James, who had been a skeptical unbeliever, was converted to the faith most likely when he also believed that he had seen the resurrected Jesus.
  
  12. A few years later, Saul (Paul) was also converted by an experience which he, likewise, thought to be an appearance of the risen Jesus
  https://biblestudy.org.nz/12-widely-agr ... esus-life/

These are the historical FACTS that most scholars believe.

[Difflugia]

So you are conceding that it is written in a way to at least make it appear that it was written as history.

Sure.

I absolutely have no idea what this guy is talking about because John does the same thing in his opening in Revelation:

I'd forgotten that I hadn't had this argument with you in particular, yet, so I'll add a bit more context.

An old academic (and apparently current apologetic) argument is that the author of Luke's Gospel was presenting it as Greek historiography. A major factor of the argument is that though it doesn't match exactly, Luke's preface was at least similar to the prefaces of classical Greek historiographers (Herodotus, Pliny, Livy, and so on).

For his doctoral thesis, Dr. Alexander tested this by examining the prefaces of as many of the extant Greek manuscripts as he could find. His conclusion was that the preface of the Gospel of Luke most closely matched a type of literature known by the German term Fachprose. Fachprose is educational literature used as a kind of textbook. Alexander posits that Luke/Acts was intended as a sort of textbook for new Christians. Since some parts are clearly theological allegory that are ahistorical and the author has no apparent convention for distinguishing between what is allegory and what is history. That's not to say that none of it is necessarily ahistorical, but it does mean that we can't sidestep the evaluation of the content itself by simply pointing to the preface as evidence that it was presented as historiography. Alexander's argument is that it wasn't. If we are basing our evaluation on the preface alone, then we must place Luke/Acts in the genre of Fachprose, as contemporary Greek readers most likely would have done, rather than historiography.

It's not just that there is a preface, but that the style of the preface matches something that isn't historiography.

Luke is a letter written to a specific individual.

Luke isn't a "letter." First, it doesn't fit the Greek epistolary genre in form. For one obvious thing, the author doesn't name him- or herself. Compare with the actual epistles in the New Testament. Second, the author doesn't call it an epistole but a logos (Acts 1:1).

So Alexander's conclusion is nothing more than wishful thinking.

He'll probably have to give up his PhD now. I'm sure he'll be sad.

Who in the first century did not think they were written as a historical account of what happened?

Who in the first century did think they were written as a historical account?

Your treating these events as if they have no context in their time. Because there would be consequences for speaking non truth about Roman Senators.

Maybe. What would those consequences be? Do you have any references?

What reasons would Tertullian have to fabricate the story of Pilate's
report, of Tiberius' proposed consecratio of Christ and of the senate's
refusal, when he mentions these events incidentally, merely to explain the
origin of anti-Christian laws?

Tertullian wrote in the late second and early third centuries. There was plenty of time for someone to fabricate the Acts of Pilate. It didn't have to be Tertullian. For context, the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter were both likely written during the second century.

A Christian apologist would hardly have had any interest in inventing a story of a negative senate decision (senatus consultus) which offered a legal basis for future persecution of Christians.

I'm tired of doing the homework for both of us. If you want me to treat this argument as more than an appeal to authority, quote or link to the specific writing to which this argument refers.

Just because you may like to believe something is true does not make it true.

Exactly my point.

You have yet to show that any of what you are asserting is true.

You've done nothing to show that any of it's false, either. That includes the things that you said were "detach[ed] ... from reality." I also think that my evidence has been a bit higher quality than yours, but as there are no moderators (in the debate sense) and no good way to score, I'll just have to hope that I'm not deluding myself.

Gary Habermas did his Dr. dissertation at the highly religious institution of Michigan State on the historicity of the resurrection.

I suspect that the Divinity School of Michigan State to which he submitted his dissertation is a bit more forgiving of theological arguments than, say, the Journalism School. Note how he describes his dissertation in the final paragraph:

But it should always be remembered that this is an apologetic strategy. Thus, it is not a prescription for how a given text should be approached in the original languages and translated, or how a systematic theology is developed, or how a sermon is written.

Note also that the dissertation itself is merely describing his overall method rather than the "minimal facts" themselves. The jury committee only has to judge if the technique would have value to the history and philosophy of religion (the subject of Habermas' PhD). They didn't rule on whether Habermas either had competently applied it in the past or would do so in the future.

The following are the criteria that Gary Habermas, one of the foremost authorities on the resurrection, used to arrive at his minimal fact argument.

These are the 12 facts that Habermas found pretty much all scholars believe are true.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.

Yes. That's the current consensus.

2. He was buried. There’s nothing strange about this fact. People die and people are buried. (We’re not even designating a particular place or kind of burial.)

Yes.

3. Jesus’ death caused his disciples to despair and lose hope, believing his life had ended. This is psychologically natural and understandable, for sure: how would you feel if your best friend, on whose account you had left everything in order to follow, died very suddenly and horribly?

Sure.

4. Now I admit, as I likewise repeat all the time, that this next fact is not quite as widely held, but the majority of scholars still think that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later.

This is where Habermas starts to run off the rails. He has never published the data on which he bases his claim of "majority," so we can't know who he consideres scholars or what he accepts as belief in an empty tomb. At least consider that he qualifies his second "minimal fact" by "not even designating a particular place or kind of burial." Any scholar that thinks there was an empty tomb must believe that there was also a tomb to be empty. That's a "particular place or kind of burial." If he's got a majority here, I wouldn't think he'd need to qualify his number 2 to have an even larger majority.

The following is from Chapter 4 of Bart Ehrman's How Jesus Became God:

There are numerous reasons for doubting the tradition of Jesus’s burial by Joseph. For one thing, it is hard to make historical sense of this tradition just within the context of Mark’s narrative. Joseph’s identification as a respected member of the Sanhedrin should immediately raise questions. Mark himself said that at Jesus’s trial, which took place the previous evening, the “whole council” of the Sanhedrin (not just some or most of them—but all of them) tried to find evidence “against Jesus to put him to death” (14:55). At the end of this trial, because of Jesus’s statement that he was the Son of God (14:62), “they all condemned him as deserving death” (14:64). In other words, according to Mark, this unknown person, Joseph, was one of the people who had called for Jesus’s death just the night before he was crucified. Why, after Jesus is dead, is he suddenly risking himself (as implied by the fact that he had to gather up his courage) and seeking to do an act of mercy by arranging for a decent burial for Jesus’s corpse? Mark gives us no clue.

John Dominic Crossan has a similar observation in chapter 6 of Who Killed Jesus?. Note that this observation is to explain his belief that Jesus wasn't buried at all, which also eliminates him completely from Habermas' second "minimal fact:"

I consider Joseph of Arimathea to be a total Markan creation in name, in place, and in function. Mark’s problem is clear: those with power were against Jesus; those for him had no power. No power: not power to do, not power to request, not power to beg, not even power to bribe. What is needed is an in-between character, one somehow on the side of power and somehow on the side of Jesus. What is needed, in fact, is a never-never person.

Since Habermas' methodology requires a consensus to avoid what he himself called "preliminary discussions of which data are permissible," then we'll need more than his say-so when such prominent New Testament historians disagree.

5. Arguably the most crucial fact here beyond Jesus’ death is that his disciples had experiences that they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. In other words, they thought that Jesus appeared to them. I’m wording this very carefully, and it is held extraordinarily widely by scholars.

This is actually false. He uses the term "literal" when most scholars believe that whatever experiences the disciples had were more akin to visions. Chapter 15 of Crossan's book The Historical Jesus argues, for example, that the original resurrection tradition, that he calls the Cross Gospel tradition as recorded in the Acts of Peter, was of Jesus as an apparition that the Synoptic authors (particularly Mark) modified to suit their theological purposes:

Instead, for Mark, as seen above, Roman power believed not because of Jesus’ resurrectional apparition but because of Jesus’ exemplary death, and the Transfiguration, a foretaste not of resurrection but of parousia according to 9:9–10, was a rewritten relocation of the Cross Gospel’s resurrectional apparition back into the earthly life of Jesus.

6. Because of these experiences, the disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify themselves with Jesus, into bold proclaimers of his death and resurrection appearances. They were even willing to die for their faith in these gospel events.

7. This message was the center of early church preaching. Remember Paul’s testimony: The events of Jesus Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and appearances were “of first importance.”

8. This message was especially proclaimed in the environs of Jerusalem, the city where Jesus had died and was buried just shortly before.

9. As a result of this preaching, the church was born and grew.

10. Sunday became the primary day of worship, which is a significant fact especially for the initial Jewish believers.

11. James, who had been a skeptical unbeliever, was converted to the faith most likely when he also believed that he had seen the resurrected Jesus.

12. A few years later, Saul (Paul) was also converted by an experience which he, likewise, thought to be an appearance of the risen Jesus

Even if we accept all of these as consensus "facts," they don't matter. If we accept, as actual historians seem to, that the resurrection experiences were visions of some sort, none of these would imply a physical resurrection.

Furthermore, all of these can be true and the bulk of the Gospels and Acts can still be allegory. Even if we accept the James of Galatians as Jesus' flesh-and-blood brother that had a change of heart, that doesn't offer us any good way to tell which stories are historical and which are not. In church, Christians answer that all of them are historical, even the contradictory and impossible ones. When arguing for historicity outside of church, the answer is usually that everything but the impossible ones happened. The biblical historians that I quoted generally take the approach that if the story is plausible (rather than merely "not impossible"), then it probably happened.

I'm not willing to grant even that much, but you and the other apologists haven't given me much more than indignant outrage to accept anything more than I have.

[JoeyKnothead]

Difflugia heads on into town, but hasta have a wheelbarrow to tote the brain...



Actual image.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #292]

Sorry, it took me so long to get back I was on vacation. It got a little log because I left a lot of comments from the previous posts.

An old academic (and apparently current apologetic) argument is that the author of Luke's Gospel was presenting it as Greek historiography. A major factor of the argument is that though it doesn't match exactly, Luke's preface was at least similar to the prefaces of classical Greek historiographers (Herodotus, Pliny, Livy, and so on).

For his doctoral thesis, Dr. Alexander tested this by examining the prefaces of as many of the extant Greek manuscripts as he could find. His conclusion was that the preface of the Gospel of Luke most closely matched a type of literature known by the German term Fachprose. Fachprose is educational literature used as a kind of textbook. Alexander posits that Luke/Acts was intended as a sort of textbook for new Christians. Since some parts are clearly theological allegory that are ahistorical and the author has no apparent convention for distinguishing between what is allegory and what is history. That's not to say that none of it is necessarily ahistorical, but it does mean that we can't sidestep the evaluation of the content itself by simply pointing to the preface as evidence that it was presented as historiography. Alexander's argument is that it wasn't. If we are basing our evaluation on the preface alone, then we must place Luke/Acts in the genre of Fachprose, as contemporary Greek readers most likely would have done, rather than historiography.

This Dr. Alexander did his doctoral thesis on “discovering” that Dr. Luke was writing educational literature, really?. Dr. Luke states that he is writing to educate Theophilus “ that you “he” may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught”. Wow that was some Doctoral thesis!!


Dr. Luke even tells us what he studied and based his “textbook on.”
“compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you”

So just like any history textbook does it places all of the events of the time in history it is describing in an order

Dr. Alexander is making an assumption about the author without any evidence for that assumption. If Dr. Luke "has no apparent convention for distinguishing between what is an allegory and what is history" as Dr. Alexander himself declares, then Dr. Luke's belief is that everything he is writing is history.

Dr. Alexander also states " by simply pointing to the preface as evidence that it was presented as historiography." That means that Dr. Alexander is admitting that the preface does present Luke as historiography and the only reason why he is trying to say that it is not historiography is that he does not like the content or the implications of the content in Luke and Acts which he so much as says when he states. “Since some parts are clearly theological allegory that is ahistorical and the author has no apparent convention for distinguishing between what is an allegory and what is history. "

In your quote Dr. Alexander does admit that it is written like history and that the preface does declare that it is history. If Dr. Alexander does not agree with the history that Dr. Luke is writing, all I can say is that Dr. Luke was there and Dr. Alexander was not.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 8:44 am
Luke is a letter written to a specific individual.
Luke isn't a "letter." First, it doesn't fit the Greek epistolary genre in form. For one obvious thing, the author doesn't name him- or herself. Compare with the actual epistles in the New Testament. Second, the author doesn't call it an epistole but a logos (Acts 1:1).

You are correct in saying that the introduction "doesn't fit the Greek epistolary genre in form," the prologue is written in "literary classical Greek. The rest of the gospel of Luke is written in common Greek and more like a letter.

By using this kind of Greek as he introduces his gospel, he is claiming a place for the gospel as a
classic. He is claiming a place for the gospel as a serious work, as a true work of literary, historical
worth to be given attention by the most sophisticated and highly educated Gentile or Greek reader.
Luke is claiming a place for Christianity among the classics. He's claiming a place for Christianity on
the stage of world history. And while much of the New Testament literature was written for the
church and therefore the common people, Luke had in mind the world and he wanted to make sure
that he included those who were at the very highest levels of education. As I said, other Greek
writers used a very similar prologue. In fact, the format here is very, very common to ancient Greek
classical writing. Dr. John MaCarthur

In this prologue he talks about his...his sources, as any good historian would. He talks about other
accounts that have been compiled. He talks about eye witnesses and servants of the Word who’ve
handed them down. This is not something He has invented. He has...he has carefully investigated,
verse 3 says, and researched everything carefully from the beginning. He is concerned about actual
history. He is concerned about precision as he says in verse 4, "exact truth." And so, this prologue
is very important in establishing Luke as a legitimate writer. Dr. John MaCarthur https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-lib ... -historian

If we compare Luke's prologue to other Greek prologues the similarity can be seen clearly.

This is the display of the inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, so that things done by man not be forgotten in time, and that great and marvelous deeds, some displayed by the Hellenes, some by the barbarians, not lose their glory, including among others what was the cause of their waging war on each other. Herodotus, The Histories https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... ection%3D0

Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the history of the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians, beginning at the moment that it broke out, and believing that it would be a great war, and more worthy of relation than any that had preceded it. This belief was not without its grounds. The preparations of both the combatants were in every department in the last state of perfection; and he could see the rest of the Hellenic race taking sides in the quarrel; those who delayed doing so at once having it in contemplation. [2] Indeed this was the greatest movement yet known in history, not only of the Hellenes, but of a large part of the barbarian world—I had almost said of mankind. [3] For though the events of remote antiquity, and even those that more immediately precede the war, could not from lapse of time be clearly ascertained, yet the evidences which an inquiry carried as far back as was practicable leads me to trust, all point to the conclusion that there was nothing on a great scale, either in war or in other matters. Thucydides, The Peloponnesian Warhttp://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=P ... 99.01.0200

Had the praise of History been passed over by former Chroniclers it would perhaps have been incumbent upon me to urge the choice and special study of records of this sort, as the readiest means men can have of correcting their knowledge of the past. But my predecessors have not been sparing in this respect. They have all begun and ended, so to speak, by enlarging on this theme: asserting again and again that the study of History is in the truest sense an education, and a training for political life; and that the most instructive, or rather the only, method of learning to bear with dignity the vicissitudes of fortune is to recall the catastrophes of others. It is evident, therefore, that no one need think it his duty to repeat what has been said by many, and said well. Least of all myself: for the surprising nature of the events which I have undertaken to relate is in itself sufficient to challenge and stimulate the attention of every one, old or young, to the study of my work. Can any one be so indifferent or idle as not to care to know by what means, and under what kind of polity, almost the whole inhabited world was conquered and
B. C. 219-167.
brought under the dominion of the single city of Rome, and that too within a period of not quite fifty-three years? Or who again can be so completely absorbed in other subjects of contemplation or study, as to think any of them superior in importance to the accurate understanding of an event for which the past affords no precedent. Polybius, Historieshttp://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=P ... 99.01.0234

And finally Josephus

Those who undertake to write histories, do not, I perceive, take that trouble on one and the same account; but for many reasons, and those such as are very different one from another. For some of them apply themselves to this part of learning to shew their great skill in composition; and that they may therein acquire a reputation for speaking finely. Others of them there are, who write histories, in order to gratify those that happen to be concerned in them; and on that account have spared no pains, but rather gone beyond their own abilities in the performance. But others there are, who of necessity, and by force are driven to write history; because they were concerned in the facts: and so cannot excuse themselves from committing them to writing, for the advantage of posterity. Nay there are not a few, who are induced to draw their historical facts out of darkness into light, and to produce them for the benefit of the publick, on account of the great importance of the facts themselves with which they have been concerned. Now of these several reasons for writing history, I must profess the two last were my own reasons also. For since I was myself interested in that war which we Jews had with the Romans, and knew my self its particular actions, and what conclusion it had, I was forced to give the history of it, because I saw that others perverted the truth of those actions in their writings.
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-pref.html

The preface was presented as history by Dr. Luke just like the historians listed above. Dr. Luke presented how he researched the scope of his research of how he interviewed eyewitnesses. Dr. Alexander is letting his personal feeling about the message presented in Luke and Acts cloud his historical research because there is no evidence that Dr. Luke was trying to write allegorically.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 8:44 am
Who in the first century did not think they were written as a historical account of what happened?
Who in the first century did think they were written as a historical account?

Paul of Tarsus, "Apostle to the Gentiles", earliest New Testament author 45~65
Four Evangelists, traditionally identified as the authors of the canonical gospels 60~125
Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, apostolic father 68~107
Marcion of Sinope, evangelist and theologian, founder of Marcionism, published the first known canon of the New Testament,[1] 85~160
Clement of Rome, bishop of Rome, apostolic father 88~101
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, apostolic father 110~130
Polycarp of Smyrna, bishop of Smyrna, apostolic father 110~160
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... r=76431f0d

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 8:44 am
Your treating these events as if they have no context in their time. Because there would be consequences for speaking non truth about Roman Senators.
Maybe. What would those consequences be? Do you have any references?

The fustuarium was also the punishment for falsifying evidence and lying under oath, or for committing the same offense three times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fustuarium

Tertullian wrote in the late second and early third centuries. There was plenty of time for someone to fabricate the Acts of Pilate. It didn't have to be Tertullian. For context, the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter were both likely written during the second century.

Are you stating that as documented fact or is this more of your wishful thinking.

I suspect that the Divinity School of Michigan State to which he submitted his dissertation is a bit more forgiving of theological arguments than, say, the Journalism School. Note how he describes his dissertation in the final paragraph:
But it should always be remembered that this is an apologetic strategy.

Yes, he was comparing what FACTS scholars believe about the resurrection.

Which totally refutes your original premise.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 29, 2022, 10:25 am
What part of what I am saying are you saying is not correct? Are you trying to say that it is not written mainly as a narrative?
That it wasn't written mainly as a historical narrative, yes.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 29, 2022 10:25 am
Are you saying that the Bible was not actually describing the actions of individuals in historical events that were taking place?
Yes.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 29, 2022 10:25 am
Are you trying to say that the resurrection was not described as a historical event that actually took place?
Yes.

Note also that the dissertation itself is merely describing his overall method rather than the "minimal facts" themselves. The jury committee only has to judge if the technique would have value to the history and philosophy of religion (the subject of Habermas' Ph.D.). They didn't rule on whether Habermas either had competently applied it in the past or would do so in the future.

No that is not what Habermas was doing in his dissertation. "the main purpose is to endeavor to ascertain if this occurrence can be demonstrated to be historical or not." Habermas's conclusion was "The results show that the literal resurrection of Jesus is in all probability a historical fact." This was at Michigan State University.

The subject of this dissertation is the resurrection of Jesus, which is perceived to be the central doctrine of the Christian faith. The subject is treated rationally in regards to the possibility of the resurrection being a historical event.

Research in this topic falls into the realms of three disciples--religion, history and philosophy. The entire question is admittedly most related to Christian theology, but there has also been an upsurge in the amount of interest from contemporary history and philosophy as well. Some of these trends in intellectual thought are also investigated.

This dissertation therefore deals with the problems encountered in a rational approach to the resurrection. As stated above, the main purpose is to endeavor to ascertain if this occurrence can be demonstrated to be historical or not. However, there are other definite implications involved beyond this immediate purpose, for if the resurrection actually happened (or if it did not) this is surely much significance for Christian faith and theology.

Conclusion

The results show that the literal resurrection of Jesus is in all probability a historical fact. Alternate theories are thoroughly investigated as part of the three major possibilities outlined above. It is found that there are no naturalistic views which adequately explain the facts. In addition, there are several strong historical facts which also point to this even. Based upon such probabilities, the resurrection is affirmed as a historical even. There are also certain implications for Christian faith and theology because of this conclusion.
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/fac_dis/20/

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
Yes. That's the current consensus.

But your thesis was that the gospels were not historical. How are you defining the current consensus? Habermas at last count had cateloged over 3000 scholars opinions. Habermas was selling just his bibliography for big bucks to researchers. That was back when I took his apologetics class.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022, 8:44 am
2. He was buried. There’s nothing strange about this fact. People die and people are buried. (We’re not even designating a particular place or kind of burial.)
Yes.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 8:44 am
3. Jesus’ death caused his disciples to despair and lose hope, believing his life had ended. This is psychologically natural and understandable, for sure: how would you feel if your best friend, on whose account you had left everything in order to follow, died very suddenly and horribly?
Sure.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 8:44 am
4. Now I admit, as I likewise repeat all the time, that this next fact is not quite as widely held, but the majority of scholars still think that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later.
This is where Habermas starts to run off the rails. He has never published the data on which he bases his claim of "majority," so we can't know who he consideres scholars or what he accepts as belief in an empty tomb. At least consider that he qualifies his second "minimal fact" by "not even designating a particular place or kind of burial." Any scholar that thinks there was an empty tomb must believe that there was also a tomb to be empty. That's a "particular place or kind of burial." If he's got a majority here, I wouldn't think he'd need to qualify his number 2 to have an even larger majority.

Are you serious pick a book?

The Verdict of History
Evidence of the Historical Jesus
Risen Indeed: A Historical Investigation Into the Resurrection of Jesus this is his latest book
The Historical Jesus
The Case of the Resurrection of Jesus

The following is from Chapter 4 of Bart Ehrman's How Jesus Became God:
There are numerous reasons for doubting the tradition of Jesus’s burial by Joseph. For one thing, it is hard to make historical sense of this tradition just within the context of Mark’s narrative. Joseph’s identification as a respected member of the Sanhedrin should immediately raise questions. Mark himself said that at Jesus’s trial, which took place the previous evening, the “whole council” of the Sanhedrin (not just some or most of them—but all of them) tried to find evidence “against Jesus to put him to death” (14:55). At the end of this trial, because of Jesus’s statement that he was the Son of God (14:62), “they all condemned him as deserving death” (14:64). In other words, according to Mark, this unknown person, Joseph, was one of the people who had called for Jesus’s death just the night before he was crucified. Why, after Jesus is dead, is he suddenly risking himself (as implied by the fact that he had to gather up his courage) and seeking to do an act of mercy by arranging for a decent burial for Jesus’s corpse? Mark gives us no clue.
John Dominic Crossan has a similar observation in chapter 6 of Who Killed Jesus?. Note that this observation is to explain his belief that Jesus wasn't buried at all, which also eliminates him completely from Habermas' second "minimal fact:"
I consider Joseph of Arimathea to be a total Markan creation in name, in place, and in function. Mark’s problem is clear: those with power were against Jesus; those for him had no power. No power: not power to do, not power to request, not power to beg, not even power to bribe. What is needed is an in-between character, one somehow on the side of power and somehow on the side of Jesus. What is needed, in fact, is a never-never person.
Since Habermas' methodology requires a consensus to avoid what he himself called "preliminary discussions of which data are permissible," then we'll need more than his say-so when such prominent New Testament historians disagree.

You already conceded that Jesus died by Crucifixion. Jesus had to be buried somewhere. Pick a tomb if you do not like Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb. But if the tomb was not empty then where did the body of Jesus go?

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 8:44 am
5. Arguably the most crucial fact here beyond Jesus’ death is that his disciples had experiences that they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. In other words, they thought that Jesus appeared to them. I’m wording this very carefully, and it is held extraordinarily widely by scholars.
This is actually false. He uses the term "literal" when most scholars believe that whatever experiences the disciples had were more akin to visions. Chapter 15 of Crossan's book The Historical Jesus argues, for example, that the original resurrection tradition, that he calls the Cross Gospel tradition as recorded in the Acts of Peter, was of Jesus as an apparition that the Synoptic authors (particularly Mark) modified to suit their theological purposes:

Instead, for Mark, as seen above, Roman power believed not because of Jesus’ resurrectional apparition but because of Jesus’ exemplary death, and the Transfiguration, a foretaste not of resurrection but of parousia according to 9:9–10, was a rewritten relocation of the Cross Gospel’s resurrectional apparition back into the earthly life of Jesus.

The fact is “that his disciples had experiences that they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.”
Erhman himself concedes the point that groups of people believe what they thought was the risen Jesus.
“ Groups of people do indeed claim to have had visions of Jesus and probably actually think they saw Jesus.” https://ehrmanblog.org/what-really-happ ... p-visions/

The following is Erhmans attempt to explain how groups of people can see the risen Jesus.

On October 4, 1992, an El Al Boeing 707 that had just taken off from Schipfol Airport in Amsterdam lost power in two engines. The pilot tried to return to the airport but couldn’t make it. The plane crashed into an eleven-story apartment building in the Amsterdam suburb of Bijlmermeer. The four crew members and thirty-nine people in the building were killed. The crash was, understandably, the leading news story in the Netherlands for days.
Ten months later, in August 1993, Dutch psychology professor Hans Crombag and two colleagues gave a survey to 193 university professors, staff, and students in the country. Among the questions was the following: “Did you see the television film of the moment the plane hit the apartment building?” In their responses 107 of those surveyed (55%) said Yes, they had seen the film. Sometime later the researchers gave a similar survey with the same question to 93 law school students. In this instance, 62 (66%) of the respondents indicated that they had seen the film. There was just one problem. There was no film. https://ehrmanblog.org/what-really-happ ... p-visions/

The problem with his story is that the event he is describing in his example actually did happen. It was reported on the news. The people could go by the building that was burnt. They could see the grief of those that lost loved ones.

In the case of the resurrection this is even greater evidence that the resurrection did occur. Because these groups of people would have:
seen the remorse of the disciples when Jesus died on the cross.
They would have seen the exaltation when they saw the risen Jesus
They could go the tomb and see that it was empty

Erhman’s example is really just further evidence that Jesus did raise from the dead.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 8:44 am
6. Because of these experiences, the disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify themselves with Jesus, into bold proclaimers of his death and resurrection appearances. They were even willing to die for their faith in these gospel events.

7. This message was the center of early church preaching. Remember Paul’s testimony: The events of Jesus Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and appearances were “of first importance.”

8. This message was especially proclaimed in the environs of Jerusalem, the city where Jesus had died and was buried just shortly before.

9. As a result of this preaching, the church was born and grew.

10. Sunday became the primary day of worship, which is a significant fact especially for the initial Jewish believers.

11. James, who had been a skeptical unbeliever, was converted to the faith most likely when he also believed that he had seen the resurrected Jesus.

12. A few years later, Saul (Paul) was also converted by an experience which he, likewise, thought to be an appearance of the risen Jesus
Even if we accept all of these as consensus "facts," they don't matter. If we accept, as actual historians seem to, that the resurrection experiences were visions of some sort, none of these would imply a physical resurrection.

Furthermore, all of these can be true and the bulk of the Gospels and Acts can still be an allegory. Even if we accept the James of Galatians as Jesus' flesh-and-blood brother that had a change of heart, that doesn't offer us any good way to tell which stories are historical and which are not. In church, Christians answer that all of them are historical, even the contradictory and impossible ones. When arguing for historicity outside of church, the answer is usually that everything but the impossible ones happened. The biblical historians that I quoted generally take the approach that if the story is plausible (rather than merely "not impossible"), then it probably happened.

If these facts are true then the gospel account is true. The central message of Christianity is that Jesus died and rose again. You have yet to say what you believe is allegorical in the gospels. If you are conceding that all fo the above facts are true then there is little hope of proving anything in the gospel account is allegorical.

[Clownboat]

You already conceded that Jesus died by Crucifixion. Jesus had to be buried somewhere. Pick a tomb if you do not like Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb. But if the tomb was not empty then where did the body of Jesus go?

Matthew 27:64
New International Version
64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.”

The people who presented the story of a risen Christ to Jerusalem and ultimetly the world, were the very same people whom the chief priest suspected of planning to spread that very rumor.
Consider who were the 'eye witnesses' to the resurrected man? His disciples and only his disciples. Did Jesus appear to the astonished crowds in Jerusalem for all to see? Nope, as he had already flown up into the clouds. Now who is it that witnessed this miracle? Once again, his disciples and only his disciples.

Readers... ask yourselves. Is a missing corpse more likely the result of actions taken by the living, or actions taken by the corpse?

Did the disciples have motive to relocate the body from a tomb? According to the chief priests they did and the disciples had access to it. Perhaps why they loaded his body of with so much fragrence (100 lbs of myrrh and aloes) was so they could make the trip back to his homeland to be burried according to custom? I know, a crazy thought!

So to recap:
The disciples had access and motive. We last read about the disciples preparing it with 100 lbs of aromatic spices mixed into the wrappings. Now where did the disciples go following the execution? That's right, they journeyed to the dead mans home region of Galilee. The dead mans mother also disappears from the story during this period. She is at the crucifixion, but not at the empty tomb on Sunday morning. Guess where we next pick her up? With the disciples some six weeks later, freshly returned from Galilee.

[Difflugia]

This Dr. Alexander did his doctoral thesis on “discovering” that Dr. Luke was writing educational literature, really?. Dr. Luke states that he is writing to educate Theophilus “ that you “he” may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught”. Wow that was some Doctoral thesis!!

Incredulity at your own straw man of Dr. Alexander's thesis? What's that supposed to support?

So just like any history textbook does it places all of the events of the time in history it is describing in an order

Being a textbook of Christianity doesn't mean that it's a history textbook or historiography. It may be, but you haven't supported that.

Dr. Alexander is making an assumption about the author without any evidence for that assumption. If Dr. Luke "has no apparent convention for distinguishing between what is an allegory and what is history" as Dr. Alexander himself declares, then Dr. Luke's belief is that everything he is writing is history.

That means that you're the one making the assumption about "Dr." Luke.

Dr. Alexander also states " by simply pointing to the preface as evidence that it was presented as historiography." That means that Dr. Alexander is admitting that the preface does present Luke as historiography

No, he's admitting that it's incorrectly interpreted as such by others.

all I can say is that Dr. Luke was there and Dr. Alexander was not.

You haven't supported that "Dr." Luke was there. You've certainly asserted it repeatedly, though.

The rest of the gospel of Luke is written in common Greek and more like a letter.

More like a letter than what? What literary conventions that are diagnostic of the epistolary genre do Luke's Gospel share?

If we compare Luke's prologue to other Greek prologues the similarity can be seen clearly.

Assume that I can't see it clearly. Please explain the points of similarity. Explain why the similarities that you're pointing out are diagnostic of historiography in particular as opposed to other litery forms.

As an example, here is a preface from an actual physician, Apollonius of Citium, to a commentary on a treatise by Hippocrates, written at the behest of King Ptolemy. This is not historiography, but a summation and explanation of a topic based on another source. Note the similarities to Luke's preface:

I observe that you are disposed in a way friendly-toward-doctors, King Ptolemy, and, since you see that I am eagerly accomplishing your orders, (of those things devised for the aid of men by the most divine Hippocrates in his writing on instruments) I thought it good to interpret those things written by him about dislocation, necessarily starting with the [things written] about the setting of the shoulder, which you ordered me to present you at present. (Hellenistic Science at Court by Marquis Berrey p. 138

Note in particular that "Dr." Luke didn't identify himself (three of your four quoted prefaces include the author's self-identification), but like "Dr." Luke's, this preface does identify a recipient in a position of political power. The author describes that the purpose is to narrate a specific topic to a particular person. Marquis Berry describes the particular genre this way on p. 127 of the same book:

Apollonius’ treatise is what I will call a “court science treatise”, any literary text written by a practicing scientist to a court official with political power.

All four of your offered prefaces claim instead that their purpose is to preserve history qua history. Is that not perhaps an important diagnostic feature of historiography? If not, how would you align "Dr." Luke's preface with historiography in a way that distinguishes it from the example of Fachprose above?

The preface was presented as history by Dr. Luke just like the historians listed above.

No, if "Dr." Luke was presenting history, he was presenting it differently than the other historians were. That's Dr. Alexander's critical observation.

Dr. Luke presented how he researched the scope of his research of how he interviewed eyewitnesses.

He didn't claim that. He claimed that he "traced the course of all things accurately from the first." It's your personal feeling that he did so by interviews, let alone with the "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." His claim is that the group he was part of, the Christians to whom the story was "delivered," began with "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." That doesn't indicate either way whether he had access to those early Christians and the description of them as "from the beginning" would indicate that he didn't.

Dr. Alexander is letting his personal feeling about the message presented in Luke and Acts cloud his historical research because there is no evidence that Dr. Luke was trying to write allegorically.

Luke and Acts are both full of obvious allegory. "Dr." Luke repeatedly quotes the Old Testament to underscore the theological import of the events being reported, many of which are supernatural. I'm pretty sure that it's not Dr. Alexander's judgement that's clouded by "personal feelings" here.

Who in the first century did think they were written as a historical account?

Paul of Tarsus, "Apostle to the Gentiles", earliest New Testament author 45~65

The only events that Paul mentions from the Gospel accounts are the crucifixion and resurrection and those without any other detail.

Four Evangelists, traditionally identified as the authors of the canonical gospels 60~125

That's a circular argument.

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, apostolic father 68~107

This is the closest you're going to get. They're potentially from the middle of the second century even if genuine and there's no consensus on them being genuine. If they're genuine and from the first century, then they're barely so.

They do seem to know the Gospels, however, and treat at least certain historical claims as doctrine (execution by Pilate, for example).

Marcion of Sinope, evangelist and theologian, founder of Marcionism, published the first known canon of the New Testament,[1] 85~160

Aside from some of the Pauline epistles, Marcion's canon only included a part of Luke's Gospel. It omitted the other Gospels completely, as well as Acts. He was a docetist that didn't think that Jesus was either Jewish or a flesh-and-blood human being. That's not really a ringing endorsement for any form of historicity.

Clement of Rome, bishop of Rome, apostolic father 88~101

The letter we have from Clement includes no more assurance of a historical Jesus than the Pauline epistles and includes no events from the Gospels. It only mentions two apostles, Paul and Peter, and there's no indication that the apostles knew a pre-resurrection Jesus.

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, apostolic father 110~130

Like Ignatius, if the writings of Papias are in the first century, then they're barely so. It's also unclear if Papias knew any of our extant Gospels. The best you can say is that Papias believed that Peter accompanied Jesus. Eusebius said that Papias quoted from 1 John and 1 Peter, neither of which references stories from the Gospels.

Polycarp of Smyrna, bishop of Smyrna, apostolic father 110~160
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... r=76431f0d

Polycarp is pretty solidly second century. Aside from the affirmation that "Jesus Christ came in the flesh," there's no connection in Polycarp to the Philippians to any stories from the Gospels.

Now, since I know what quality of examples is acceptable, that means that Cerinthus is solidly in my camp, with Carpocrates, Saturninus, and Basilides by virtue of merely being born in the first century like Ignatius, Clement, Papias, and Marcion. I'd also claim Marcion for myself since he apparently intentionally removed most of what you're trying to claim that he believed. To the extent that any of them used our Gospels, they treated them as at least partial allegory, yet were still Christians.

Your treating these events as if they have no context in their time. Because there would be consequences for speaking non truth about Roman Senators.

Maybe. What would those consequences be? Do you have any references?

The fustuarium was also the punishment for falsifying evidence and lying under oath, or for committing the same offense three times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fustuarium

If you had mentioned lying in court, that would have answered the question. You didn't, though, so it doesn't.

Tertullian wrote in the late second and early third centuries. There was plenty of time for someone to fabricate the Acts of Pilate. It didn't have to be Tertullian. For context, the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter were both likely written during the second century.

Are you stating that as documented fact or is this more of your wishful thinking.

I don't know which part you mean, but the whole thing is documented fact. Tertullian lived from AD 155 to AD 220. The Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter are both dated to the second century.

Note also that the dissertation itself is merely describing his overall method

No that is not what Habermas was doing in his dissertation. "the main purpose is to endeavor to ascertain if this occurrence can be demonstrated to be historical or not." Habermas's conclusion was "The results show that the literal resurrection of Jesus is in all probability a historical fact." This was at Michigan State University.

Then he backed off on his claim when he wrote the summary.

I read through his dissertation and he's making a similar argument to the one that he makes in other places. His dissertation doesn't claim a majority of Bible scholars for his minimal facts, but a majority of Christian theologians. That's a crucial difference. His argument is that he's using a historical method agreed to by particular historians, but applying to facts as presented in the New Testament to which theologians agree:

These, then, are the historical facts which must be dealt with and explained. The gospels and New Testament as a whole agree with all ten of these either explicitly or implicitly. None of them is denied in any of the writings of the New Testament. In addition, as we have seen at various points in this work, the majority of theologians accept these as historical facts as well.

This offers an approach that would convince those that are already Christian, perhaps even those that are theologically liberal. One of his stated goals, though, is to present a set of facts over which there's at least a scholarly consensus among Bible scholars and he hasn't done that, or at least hasn't demonstrated that he's done that.

But your thesis was that the gospels were not historical.

That is my thesis and there consensus views with which I disagree, but that has nothing to do with Habermas' claim. He's not appealing to what I think, but to the consensus and the current consensus is that Jesus was crucified. I don't think even that's true, but Habermas is correct in claiming that it's the consensus view of scholars.

How are you defining the current consensus?

I'd claim a majority of currently and recently publishing scholars as reported by several of those scholars. I suppose that could be fuzzy and if you think you have a better measure, I'll consider it. More to the point, though, I don't know how Habermas is defining it and I've presented reasons for thinking that it conflicts with what current scholars would consider the consensus.

Habermas at last count had cateloged over 3000 scholars opinions. Habermas was selling just his bibliography for big bucks to researchers. That was back when I took his apologetics class.

Find a copy of it and we'll talk. Alternatively, find someone reliable that has investigated his bibliography and tendered an opinion of his claims.

As it stands, all we have is that the claims of an apologist match what you think is true. That's hardly news.

He has never published the data on which he bases his claim of "majority," so we can't know who he consideres scholars or what he accepts as belief in an empty tomb.

Are you serious pick a book?

The Verdict of History
Evidence of the Historical Jesus
Risen Indeed: A Historical Investigation Into the Resurrection of Jesus this is his latest book
The Historical Jesus
The Case of the Resurrection of Jesus

From your list, I personally own copies of Evidence of the Historical Jesus and The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. In both, he claims that the majority of scholars agree with his facts, but he doesn't explain his method for arriving at that majority. Since he includes things that, as I pointed out, important modern scholars specifically disclaim, I have reason to doubt his claim, or at least that we mean the same thing by "consensus of scholars." As it is, I suspect that he's including outdated scholarship, overinterpreting broad statements as support for his narrow ones, or both, as both are mainstays of Christian apologetics. If his definition of "consensus" includes either of those, then I have reason to doubt his conclusion.

You already conceded that Jesus died by Crucifixion. Jesus had to be buried somewhere.

His body must have gone somewhere, but "left in a ditch" isn't "buried" unless that's how you (and Habermas) are defining "buried." In that case, the "minimal fact" becomes meaningless.

Pick a tomb if you do not like Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb.

Buried doesn't necessarily imply a tomb. We now have three broad possibilities: the body was left exposed, the body was buried somewhere other than a tomb, or the body was buried in a tomb.

But if the tomb was not empty then where did the body of Jesus go?

If there was a tomb and the tomb wasn't empty, then the body was still in the tomb.

Your logical construct doesn't get us from "dead guy" to "empty tomb."

The fact is “that his disciples had experiences that they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.”

Erhman himself concedes the point that groups of people believe what they thought was the risen Jesus.
“ Groups of people do indeed claim to have had visions of Jesus and probably actually think they saw Jesus.”

That's not quite the "concession" that you think it is. "Actually saw what they thought was Jesus" doesn't mean "actually saw a flesh-and-blood Jesus," but again, just means that they thought the vision was real in some sense. If that's what Habermas means by "literal appearance," then I don't know what he means by it as opposed to non-literal.

Erhman’s example is really just further evidence that Jesus did raise from the dead.

If Ehrman's example proves that people claim to remember things that didn't happen, how can it be evidence that Jesus really came back from the dead?

If these facts are true then the gospel account is true. The central message of Christianity is that Jesus died and rose again. You have yet to say what you believe is allegorical in the gospels. If you are conceding that all fo the above facts are true then there is little hope of proving anything in the gospel account is allegorical.

Your and Habermas' entire exercise is an attempt to get from "people experienced Jesus in some way" to "Jesus really came back from the dead." "People hallucinated Jesus" and "group reinforcement convinced them that they saw Jesus" explain the remaining set of "facts" just as well as "Jesus came back from the dead." Since no combination of those "facts" creates a way to distinguish between "Jesus physically returned" and some version of "they were mistaken, but mistaken" then it doesn't matter if they're true or not.

If you want to talk about what I think is allegorical and why, we can. That's not the conversation that we're currently having, though.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #296]

Being a textbook of Christianity doesn't mean that it's a history textbook or historiography. It may be, but you haven't supported that.

Again Dr. Luke said that he was writing a detailed account that Luke himself investigated. You or Dr. Alexander have not explained why you believe that Luke is not writing history. Dr. Alexander said, "has no apparent convention for distinguishing between what is an allegory and what is history." So he admits that some is history and that some is allegory and that Dr. Luke does not indicate a difference in his writing. If Luke does not make a difference between history and allegory why call it an allegory? Why not just say what that would indicate? If Dr. Luke did not say that he was making an allegory then that means that he was lying and trying to deceive Theophilus. Why did Dr. Alexander not just say that Luke was lying.

The problem with saying that Dr. Luke was lying produces an other question that needs to answered. Why would people die for a lie or even be persecuted for a lie?

Paul Maier concludes, “Rarely do both friendly and hostile sources agree on anything, but the persecution of Christians is one of them.” https://www.impact360institute.org/arti ... t-century/

You conceded to this point:

3. Jesus’ death caused his disciples to despair and lose hope, believing his life had ended. This is psychologically natural and understandable, for sure: how would you feel if your best friend, on whose account you had left everything in order to follow, died very suddenly and horribly?

This is what is believed by most historians so Dr. Luke could not be lying if the disciples were in despair when Jesus died.

Because of the above reasoning Dr. Luke had to be writing what he believed was actual history otherwise Dr. Luke would not be writing allegory he would be lying.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 1:16 pm
The rest of the gospel of Luke is written in common Greek and more like a letter.
More like a letter than what? What literary conventions that are diagnostic of the epistolary genre do Luke's Gospel share?

Dr. MacArthur did.

As an example, here is a preface from an actual physician, Apollonius of Citium, to a commentary on a treatise by Hippocrates, written at the behest of King Ptolemy. This is not historiography, but a summation and explanation of a topic based on another source. Note the similarities to Luke's preface:

I observe that you are disposed in a way friendly-toward-doctors, King Ptolemy, and, since you see that I am eagerly accomplishing your orders, (of those things devised for the aid of men by the most divine Hippocrates in his writing on instruments) I thought it good to interpret those things written by him about dislocation, necessarily starting with the [things written] about the setting of the shoulder, which you ordered me to present you at present. (Hellenistic Science at Court by Marquis Berrey p. 138

Dr. Apollonius was describing what he researched as truth, just like Dr. Luke. Still does not prove that Luke was lying in his gospel. All this proves is that Dr. Luke was writing what he believed was history. As a historian or as an educator it does not matter. This really has not relevance to the discussion. A history book is a history book written by a historian or an educator it really doesn't matter. You and Dr. Alexander have failed to describe the difference and why would Dr. Luke be lying, if he did not give any indication of what parts were allegory and what parts were history.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 1:16 pm
Dr. Luke presented how he researched the scope of his research of how he interviewed eyewitnesses.
He didn't claim that. He claimed that he "traced the course of all things accurately from the first." It's your personal feeling that he did so by interviews, let alone with the "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." His claim is that the group he was part of, the Christians to whom the story was "delivered," began with "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." That doesn't indicate either way whether he had access to those early Christians and the description of them as "from the beginning" would indicate that he didn't.

I imagine that this would lead us a discussion of when Luke was written. Which is really not needed unless you really want to go in that direction.

Luke and Acts are both full of obvious allegory. "Dr." Luke repeatedly quotes the Old Testament to underscore the theological import of the events being reported, many of which are supernatural. I'm pretty sure that it's not Dr. Alexander's judgement that's clouded by "personal feelings" here.

So are you saying that Dr. Luke was lying in his account, because Dr. Luke does not indicate that he was writing allegory according to Dr. Alexander. Dr. Luke thought that these "theological imports" actually happened. You can say that they did not happen but that definitely does not come from the text. That comes from someone's interpretation of the text or their "personal feelings".

The only events that Paul mentions from the Gospel accounts are the crucifixion and resurrection and those without any other detail.

Here is a summary of what Paul says about Jesus' life.

1. He descended from Abraham (Gal 3:16).
2. He was a Son of David (Rom 1:3).
3. He was naturally born but supernaturally conceived (Gal 4:4).
4. He was born and lived under the Jewish law (Gal 4:4).
5. He welcomed people (Rom 15:5, 7).
6. His lifestyle was one of humility and service (Phil 2:7–8).
7. He was abused and insulted during his life (Rom 15:3).
8. He had a brother named James (Gal 1:19) and other brothers (1 Cor 9:5).
9. His disciple Peter was married (1 Cor 9:5; cf. Mk 1:30).
10. He instituted a memorial meal on the night of his betrayal (1 Cor 11:23–25).
11. He was betrayed (1 Cor 11:23).
12. He gave testimony before Pontius Pilate (1 Tim 6:13).
13. He was killed by Jews of Judea (1 Thess 2:14–15).
14. He was buried, rose on the third day and was thereafter seen alive on a number of occasions
by many witnesses (1 Cor 15:4–8).
https://www.csmedia1.com/delreychurch.c ... -jesus.pdf

There is also

Philippians 2:5: Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross

That does look like a summary of the Gospel of Luke and the rest of the Gospels.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 1:16 pm
Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, apostolic father 68~107
This is the closest you're going to get. They're potentially from the middle of the second century even if genuine and there's no consensus on them being genuine. If they're genuine and from the first century, then they're barely so.

They do seem to know the Gospels, however, and treat at least certain historical claims as doctrine (execution by Pilate, for example).

I was just grabbing ones off of Wikipedia knowing that you would agree with them because that would be a liberal source. Not that I agree with them. And you simply said that no one wrote in the first century and that is incorrect.

Ignatius was born in AD 35 and Died in AD 107 I believe he was solidly in the first century. Not that all of this really matters because the Bible was written 1st century.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/histo ... r=7b6ecff0

wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 1:16 pm
Clement of Rome, bishop of Rome, apostolic father 88~101
The letter we have from Clement includes no more assurance of a historical Jesus than the Pauline epistles and includes no events from the Gospels. It only mentions two apostles, Paul and Peter, and there's no indication that the apostles knew a pre-resurrection Jesus.

What do you think the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is? It is simply that Jesus died and rose again for the forgiveness of sins. That is what you have to believe to have your sins forgiven. It is a simple message. Why do you think that there would more than that to the message. That is the message of the gospel. Theology comes from that message.

The question that sceptics like yourself have to answer is why would anyone believe that Jesus died and rose again.

Like Ignatius, if the writings of Papias are in the first century, then they're barely so. It's also unclear if Papias knew any of our extant Gospels. The best you can say is that Papias believed that Peter accompanied Jesus. Eusebius said that Papias quoted from 1 John and 1 Peter, neither of which references stories from the Gospels.

Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter. The statement that Matthew wrote down sayings of Jesus in Hebrew was affirmed by Papias. Irenaeus understood this as a reference to Hebraisms in Matthew’s Gospel, whereas Origen took this to mean that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. https://christianpublishinghouse.co/202 ... -and-mark/

I don't know which part you mean, but the whole thing is documented fact. Tertullian lived from AD 155 to AD 220. The Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter are both dated to the second century.

Evidence that Tertullian's writings were changed.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 1:16 pm
Note also that the dissertation itself is merely describing his overall method
No that is not what Habermas was doing in his dissertation. "the main purpose is to endeavor to ascertain if this occurrence can be demonstrated to be historical or not." Habermas's conclusion was "The results show that the literal resurrection of Jesus is in all probability a historical fact." This was at Michigan State University.

You made the claim "Note also that the dissertation itself is merely describing his overall method" That was not correct.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 1:16 pm
But your thesis was that the gospels were not historical.
That is my thesis and there consensus views with which I disagree, but that has nothing to do with Habermas' claim. He's not appealing to what I think, but to the consensus and the current consensus is that Jesus was crucified. I don't think even that's true, but Habermas is correct in claiming that it's the consensus view of scholars.

The you have yet to show this AT ALL. You would have to give some reason why the current consensus is incorrect. Bart Erhman as far as I know does not go that far because he claims to be a agnostic not an atheist.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 1:16 pm
How are you defining the current consensus?
I'd claim a majority of currently and recently publishing scholars as reported by several of those scholars. I suppose that could be fuzzy and if you think you have a better measure, I'll consider it. More to the point, though, I don't know how Habermas is defining it and I've presented reasons for thinking that it conflicts with what current scholars would consider the consensus.

So "scholars" that agree with you that is convenient.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 1:16 pm
Habermas at last count had cateloged over 3000 scholars opinions. Habermas was selling just his bibliography for big bucks to researchers. That was back when I took his apologetics class.
Find a copy of it and we'll talk. Alternatively, find someone reliable that has investigated his bibliography and tendered an opinion of his claims.

He will sell it to you if you want to pay for it. Email him at Liberty University

This really is not a problem in debates that he has. You would think that if scholars that had problems with this they would bring it up in debates.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 1:16 pm
You already conceded that Jesus died by Crucifixion. Jesus had to be buried somewhere.
His body must have gone somewhere, but "left in a ditch" isn't "buried" unless that's how you (and Habermas) are defining "buried." In that case, the "minimal fact" becomes meaningless.

The disciples left there friend in a ditch really.


EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 1:16 pm
The fact is “that his disciples had experiences that they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.”

Erhman himself concedes the point that groups of people believe what they thought was the risen Jesus.
“ Groups of people do indeed claim to have had visions of Jesus and probably actually think they saw Jesus.”
That's not quite the "concession" that you think it is. "Actually saw what they thought was Jesus" doesn't mean "actually saw a flesh-and-blood Jesus," but again, just means that they thought the vision was real in some sense. If that's what Habermas means by "literal appearance," then I don't know what he means by it as opposed to non-literal.

If Ehrman's example proves that people claim to remember things that didn't happen, how can it be evidence that Jesus really came back from the dead?

Again they did not claim to remember things that did not happen the Crash happened. People watched in on the news for days or weeks. I am sure that had video of how the crash did happen.

Same thing would have happened when Jesus rose from the dead. Everyone would have been talking about the events that took place.

Your and Habermas' entire exercise is an attempt to get from "people experienced Jesus in some way" to "Jesus really came back from the dead." "People hallucinated Jesus" and "group reinforcement convinced them that they saw Jesus" explain the remaining set of "facts" just as well as "Jesus came back from the dead." Since no combination of those "facts" creates a way to distinguish between "Jesus physically returned" and some version of "they were mistaken, but mistaken" then it doesn't matter if they're true or not.

It is not possible for people to have group hallucinations. Even if you use Erhman's example you still cannot get away from the FACT that Jesus rose from the Grave for the forgiveness of sins.

Happy Easter

[JoeyKnothead]

...
This is what is believed by most historians so Dr. Luke could not be lying if the disciples were in despair when Jesus died.
...

Argumentum ad a goodbunchofem.

I was in despair when Ol' Yeller died.

Any y'all wanna hear how he died to save ya from himself?

[Clownboat]

The problem with saying that Dr. Luke was lying produces an other question that needs to answered. Why would people die for a lie or even be persecuted for a lie?

Please see and take note of the Heavens Gate movement.

- Heaven's Gate was an American new religious movement,
- Nettles and Applewhite first met in 1972 and went on a journey of spiritual discovery, identifying themselves as the two witnesses of Revelation
- Scholars have described the theology of Heaven's Gate as a mixture of Christian millenarianism, New Age, and ufology
- On March 26, 1997, deputies of the San Diego County Sheriff's Department discovered the bodies of the 39 active members of the group, including that of Applewhite, in a house in the San Diego suburb of Rancho Santa Fe. They had participated in a mass suicide, a coordinated series of ritual suicides, coinciding with the closest approach of Comet Hale–Bopp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27 ... ous_group)

Now why would they die for a lie?

[Swami]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]

Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

To win over atheists all you need to say is that the Creator is impersonal. No one can argue with that since everything comes from something, whether it be a being or non-being.