Overview:my position
A. Religious Symbol and Historical Likelihood.
I affirm the literal resurrection of Christ, as I affirm the Nicene creed. Unfortunately, affirming it and proving it are two different things. Many apologists try to use the Resurrection as proof in itself that Jesus was the Son of God. The problem is, the event itself has to be proven, and is of equal dispute to the claims of Christ deity. Thus, I doubt that it makes a great tool for verifying the claims of the faith, since it is itself such a claim. On the other hand, let us ask ourselves, "was the true purpose of the resurrection as a proof of Jesus validity?" I think not. I think the true purpose was not offer modern scientific "courtroom evidence" of the event, but to confirm in a religious way, for insiders, by provision of an important symbol. Tillich says that a symbol participates in the thing it symbolizes. Thus a bull fighter dying young is a symbol of darning courage going awry, but a non specific figure like the American flag is not a symbol but an emblam. Thus the resurrection of Christ can be a theological symbol and stil be a real event! Thus the true importance of the event is its theological significance and not its market place value as an apologetical tool.
Be that as it may, the event of Christ's resurrection offers more to the unbeliever and the cause of Christian apologetics than one might think given what I wrote. Rather than give up on it as an argument, we need to put it into a different context: we need to abandon the "court room" model of proof in apologetics, and take up a historian's persecutive. The point is not that we can prove the resurrection "really happened." The importance of historical evidence surrounding resurrection is its possibility as a history making event. By that I mean, it's not as important to prove "conclusively" that it happened, as it is to show that the permitters shaped by the evidence still leave open the validity of the possibility that such an event occurred, once one clears away the ideological clutter of naturalism. The evidence need only point to the fact that the belief tenet is still "in the running" as a possibility, not that it actually happened, although we believe, as Christians, that it did happen. The event described cannot included as a historical event, because history as a modern social science is constructed upon naturalistic assumptions; but it can be understood as a history making event, one that shaped the nature of our society and culture.
B. Away with the Court Room Model
So much past apologetics has been based upon the model of a court room debate, then declared to "prove history." We see this most especially in McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Virdict (the classic case). We also see it in the works of a vast array of apologists who say things like, "the man who invented rules for evidence in court (Greenleif?) argued for the Resurrection, and he was a smart lawyer, so he must be right." But historians do not "prove" historical 'arguments' by holding courtroom debates! If we are going to make historical claims for the resurrection, we have to think like historians, and not like lawyers. We have to hold the evidence to the permitters of historical evidence, not to those of jurisprudence.
C. The View from the History Depeartment
History is probability. It's not mathematical probably, but it is probabilistic. One cannot go back in time and verify the assumptions of historians, all we can do is argue from extrapolated data as to the most likely conclusion based upon the "facts." But how are these "facts" ascertained? They are not derived from debate, they are not derived from physical artifacts, and they are certainly not given in any kind of absolute certainty. Many skeptics place the level of confirmation they seek on a par with a TV camera recording an event it happens. History is documents! History is not a documentary featuring live footage, although such material is no doubt going to be included in future historical records. But history is the impression we find most likely as a probabilistic guess based upon the data we find averrable in written documents of the past. Historians do debate documents, but they do not say things like, "would this be accepted in a courts of law?" Historians don't a flying spit wad about what is accepted in a court of law (but one hears that phrase in apologetics quite a bit). Thus, in accessing the prospects for the validity of the resurrection, one cannot worry about courtrooms, or about exact proof as though we could take a TV camera to the tomb and watch the angel move the stone. The best we can ever do is to access the possibility and its place int he likelihood of events, given our world view assumptions vis a vie, supernatural events.
III. The History Making Concept.
Skeptics are too quick to argue that the resurrection is not historical fact. Before they jump into this fray, they should first ask themselves about the nature of historical facts. Most historical "facts" are not proven. "History" (whatever that is) says that Davy Crockett died at the Alamo, yet evidence indicates he did not. History, like science is a social construct, and is determined by those with the clout to write history. In modernity we have gained an anti-supernatural bias, and so the believer is forced to ask rhetorical questions like "did Jesus raise form the dead?" and then to answer them rhetorically. The German Theologian Jurgen Moltmann changes the rules. Rather than ask if the resurrection is "historical" he merely argues that it doesn't have to be, it is history making. We change the rules of the debate because predicated upon the preaching of the resurrection is one of the most profound developments of world history; the growth of the Christian faith which has shaped the entire Western tradition. We view the Resurrection of Christ as history making because the belief in it did change history, the doctrine of it has made history, and belief today shapes the basis of all Christian doctrine. We put aside the hypocritical skepticism of naturalistic circular arguments and allow ourselves to accept the verdict of a history that has been made by faith in the event, in light of the fact that there is enough there to base faith upon. (see Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, 1968).
The doctrine furnishes the basis for hope, when grasped in faith, that offers a much more profound answer to any of questions about life and death than any form of skepticism or pride in confusion ever could. Rather than merely declare a rules change, I will argue that this rules change is warranted based upon the evidence. IN other words, not that the resurrection can be "proven" in the same sense that any other aspect of historical research can be proven, but that the resurrection evidence is credible enough that one can feel confident in asserting its truth as a tenet of faith. The actual case can never be proven, or disproven, but the evidence allows one to believe with impunity.
In keeping with my policy of enlightening the reader about my sources, I must point out that I do lean heavily upon two major evangelical sources here: F.F. Bruce, and William Lane Craig. Bruce is, however, one of the most highly respected Evangelical scholars, even among the liberal camp, and Craig is renown as a highly credible and effective apologist. The other sources such as D. E. H. Whiteley, Stephen Neil, Gaalyah Cornfeld, and Luke Timothy Johson are basically liberal or modernate.A few major liberal theologians, such as Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg have defended faith in the resurrection.
A. Historical Verdict Reversed
"The real case for skepticism of the resurrection of Christ was actually developed by 19th century liberal theology, and though they don't know it, the objections of most Internet skeptics today are echoes of those arguments. But in the postwar era even major liberal theologians began to defend the resurrection. Ernst Kasemann, student of Bultmann, at Marburg in 1953 argued that Bultmann's skepticism toward the historical Jesus was biased and Kasemann re-opened a new Quest for the historical Jesus. The great modern liberal theologian Wolfheart Paennberg argued for the resurrection of Jesus. Hans Grass argued that the resurrection cannot be dismissed as mere myth, and Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen defended the historical credibility of Jesus empty tomb." (in William Lane Craig, "Contemporary Scholarship and The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Chrsit," Truth, 1 (1985): 89-95.
"Equally startling is the declaration of one of the world's leading Jewish theologians Pinchas Lapid, that he is convinced on the basis of the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. Lapide twits New Testament critics like Bultmann and Marxsen for their unjustified skepticism and concludes that he believes on the basis of the evidence that the God of Israel raised Jesus from the dead."
(Craig, Ibid.)
"According to Jakob Kremer, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb" and he furnishes a list, to which his own name may be added, of twenty-eight prominent scholars in support. I can think of at least sixteen more names that he failed to mention. Thus, it is today widely recognized that the empty tomb of Jesus is a simple historical fact. As D. H. van Daalen has pointed out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." But assumptions may simply have to be changed in light of historical facts.:"(Ibid.)
B. Not Historical but history making
Jurgen Mosltmann, the greatest living Protestant theologian, has argued in Theology of Hope, that the rules of history exclude the miraculous. This is because historians, as heirs to the enlightenment, automatically exclude the supernatural. For this reason the resurrection cannot be seen as historical, a priori, for the rules of making history are set by an ideology of metaphysical assumptions which dogmatically exclude anything miraculous. History must be predicated upon the assumption of a coherent natural world, therefore, the supernatural cannot be part of history. (Motmann, 176)
Moltmann's solution: change the rules. The resurrection is not historical, it is history making. "The resurrection of Christ does not mean a possibility within the world and its history, but a new possibility altogether for the world, for existence, and for history. Only when the world can be understood as contingent creation out of the freedom of God...does the rising of Christ become intelligible as nova create [new creation]. ...it is necessary to expose the profound irrationality of the rational cosmos of the tech scientific world." (179)
"The resurrection of Christ is without prattle in the history known to us. But it can be for that very reason regarded as a 'history making event' in the light of which all other history is illumined, called into question and transformed." (180)
The point of making this distinction between history and history making is to change the rules which ideologically limit the possibility of God's actions in the world, and limit the horizon of hope for human being which responds in faith and is transformed in light of the resurrection. To claim that the resurrection is a historical even makes no seen for the reason that no such event could be, history exclude consideration of such things. But by the same token, the skeptic's objection that it is not historical and lacks "historical proof" is also meaningless. How could it help but lack historical proof? IT cannot be a historical assertion. Only faith can tell us about the resurrection. But the resurrection has make the faith of millions of people to an extent that that faith became a history making faith and altered the course of human events profoundly. It makes no sense to assert historically ether way, but the evidence suggests that there is a rational warrant to believe. There is a nice sturdy platform from which make a leap of faith. That being the case we can declare the history making aspects of the ressurrection.
The genius of Moltmann is the rules change afforded Christian thinkers by the history making concept. Modern historiogrophy and Historacism both forced upon us naturalistic assumptions in the form of history as a social science. In the making of modern hisotry, all supernatural assumptions are forbidden. Thus, the resurrection begins with the assumption that it has to be myth, within the ideological nature of modern thought. But Moltmann gets under that ideological assumtion and unseats it by chaning the rules. We aren't speaking of "history" but of "history making." In other words, before the apologist can even posit the turth of the resurrection, his truth is refutted by the very nature of historical "facts" as modern thought constures them; supernatural events cannot be part of history. But Moltmann turns this around on the nature of modern thought by arguing that before modern thought can posit a naturlistic history, the content of history is already shaped by supernatural claims.
III. Conclusion
The standard I set my arguments:The Resurrection was a history making event. Whatever truly happened, the actual events which are make by the claims of witnesses and faith in the veracity of those witnesses, the upshot of it all is that the historical probabilities suggest the likelihood of an event, and that event shaped the nature of history itself. The faith claims cannot be historical claims, but they don't have to be. The faith itself is justified, it cannot be ruled out by history, but instead lies at the base of modern history in some form. We can suggest throughout the strength of the evidence that those actual events were the very events attested to in the Gospels. We cannot prove this claim with absolute certainty, but the warrant provided by the evidence itself is strong enough to make the historical nature of the religious hope valid. Some religious hopes are just ruled out by the facts. For example, the idea that the Native Americans are part of the 10 lost tribes of Israel; this can be dispelled by genetics as well as dentistry. The Resurrection, on the other hand, can be accepted as likely Given the suspension of ideological objections of Naturalism.
Pages
▼
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Friday, March 18, 2005
Defending "No other Versions" Argument against Kirby
This is the refuation of one of my historical Jesus arguments by Peter Kirby, first appeared on Infidels.
The Orignal Argument is found here.
My argument says:
Kirby:
Meta:
But I think we will find that all of Kirby's refutations fail to meet the criteria I speicifed. They must alternate versions that came after the fourth century. Now I don't think I should be held to that in a strict way. After all, 200 years after the events is a long time. So if they come in AD233 that's a long time and doesnt' really present a serious challenge.
We also find that there are veriations, but none of them present a truely differnt story. None of them show Jesus being hung rather than curcified, none of them show that his mother's name is Louise or Zelda, rather than mary.
Now Kirby argues that if only one poit fails the calim is false. That's just too legalistic. He's playing debate games. A real scholar wouldn't try to impose such an arbitrary rule. The past logic of the argument stands even if some of the data is a bit off. But it wont be! I don't think any of them will fail.
I'll tell you now I'v refutted this several times on Boards, this version is no better. The Sec Webers assume Kirby's victory hands down, but I dont' think so!
Kirby:
Meta:
Sheer obfuscation, worthy of a highschool debater. So what if the figure "33 years" is off by four or seven. who cares? The point is he was a concrete historical figure. That sort of shilly shallying that is transforming Biblical schoalrship into cheap polemics, farnky I thought Peter was beyond that short of thing. Sorry to see that he's not.
In anyway, I think Sir William Ramsy put to bed thsi shollow nonsense about the census, and other more recent scholars have noted Quarinius was in twice. So this is all to read about on my Luke page:
Doxa: Luke
kirby
Meta:
This is all just pure obfuscation. He's trying to shift the focuss to his turf. He can't come up with an alternate version of the Jesus story, so he has to quibble with dates. let's say he's right and we can't establish 33 AD. But every version of the Jesus story in the houndreds of documents says that Jesus was crucified under Pilate. So that gives us a rough window for when the evetns transpired. Kriby's obfuscation not withstanding, he offers no alternate version with Jesus being hung, stabed, exiled or killed in any other way, or in any time period.
kirby
Meta:
Just doesnt' fit the criteia. First, I said I'm dealing with the first four centuries, this is form the foruth century. So that's out of the time preiod anyway. Secondly, it doesnt' deal with chaning anything, it's not an alterante version, it just bothers the tiem frame a bit, but not sigifnicantly.
kirby
Meta:
who says we need universal agreement on the date of his birth? that wasn't the nautrue of my argument. he's created his own argument to answer the way he sees fit. It doesnt' match the argument I made. Moreover, I would argue that the passage is misunderstood; otherwise, Epiphanias own contradictions disqualifyit as a valid source. But it doesn't constute another version of the story. I never said the exact date is what I had in mind when I spoke of "verions of the story.
kirby
Meta:
Of course there is, because the anti-missionary factions spread propaganda. That's not another version of the story, it's not put over as another version because it palys off of the version we know, the one and only version. It's just re-interpriteing the only version there is, and for obviously self intrested reasons!
kirby
Meta:
The info we have from Celsus is the same as that of the Mishna. Obviously it seems the Celsus used the Mishna. This plays off the only story we have, and it confirms that that story was around in the frist century.
kirby
Meta:
(1) My argument makes allowed for Gnostic veriations. this is clealry one. The idea of being born was anathema to the Gnsotics.
(2) Marcion was a couple of centuries after the events, so it's getting up there toward the end of the time frame. As Gnstoicism begins to sperad we can expect Gnstoic verisatoins on the story. But the basic story is already set in stone.
kirby
Meta:
I never said those were the only three, we can expect the casts to very. leaving one out in some peice is no proof that person wasnt' part of the doings. but the strong inclusion of Peter and mary indicates they must have been historical figures.
no one doubts Paul's historicity.
kirby
Meta:
I am truely amazed that someone of Kirby's intellgency and prfeciency in handling biblical schoalrship would make such an obvious mistake. While membership in the Jesus inner circle seems fluid--Kirby left out sever other soruces with the same resut such as Epistel of the Apostels--we find these obervations:
(1) the same basic three in every list he mentions; Peter, Mary M. and Andere or Johbn.
(2) most of the sources include most of the names of the 12,
(3) only the more obsrue members very
(4) someone like Bartholemew beign mentione din Epistel of the Apotels and not in Apochropon of JOhn is not indiative of fluidity in membership of the inner cirlce, nor it is another version of the story.
It's not indicative because there are at least 200 members to choose from. We know Christ sent out 70 preachers at one time. We know women traveled within at one ponit, we know his groupies grew over time, and he progbalby had a couple of hundred in his ontoroge when the rode the donkey into Jerusalem. So it's absurd to think every single source woud just mention every single follower. But the most prominmat and stable and present in almost every source Kirby meintions. i thin that stengthens my argument a lot. i have to thank Pete for helping.
kirby
Meta:
that's just padding the argument. Come on, he's not saying anything. we should expect his enemies to make propagandistic stamtents. We can't regard that as another version of the story, because it's just a matter of the way you look at one of them major elements; his followers say he was a wonder worker, his enemeis say he was a devil worker. Doesnt' amount to another version.
kirby
Meta:
Holding documents that Tacitus had a hobby of exposing false resurrections. Apollonias of Tyanna was said to have forged his miracles. I am not sure of the source, but there had to be a report from someone of that era to know the secrets.
but i'm not sure what this as to do with anytying. My argument was not that reports of Jesus' mriacles prove that he really worked miracles, but just that this is another stable charactoristic which we find in all versions of the story. taht's all I said. Its' an obvious one that doesn't prove anything along, fine. But it's still stable from one telling to the next. There are not other versions of it, except propaganda by his enemies.
They didn't have to quibble with the concept that miracles can be done, to argue that Jesus himself did not do them.
kirby
Meta:
At this point Peter is bending over backward to deny anything he can. Because, first he doesnt' really deny the point. Secondly, I dont' try to claim it's that importnat by tiself. Thirdly, his point about Thomas is just argument from silence. Just becasue not every source talks about Jesus' mircles, we cannot take that as deniel of them! Moreover, Thomas does speak of Jesus coming down from heaven in the flesh; one might take that to be a miracle.
kirby
Meta:
A pretty long time after the 400 year cut off date for my argument.
kirby
Meta:
Pete is the only guy I know who can contradict himself in mid sentence and make it sound like a srength. The Ebionites contraict his argument.
Moreover, one might observe the return form Egypt, Jesus leaning magic in egypt and so forth are things Edersheim quotes from Heberw sources. So this backs up my theory that Celsus used the mishna as his source. He dug into the richest vein of anti-Jesus propaganda, so if we read it backwards, to take out the negatives, we find it is good hisorical evidence supporting Jesus historicity in the first century.
kirby
Meta:
Good evidence for a late date to Thomas. In fact since Thomas is an early says source core within a latter Gnostic framework, we can expect that the Jewishness has been taken out.
kirby
Meta:
Again, Pete palys his most effective card, when you have nothing else to say, force them on to your turf and make the issue something you have a lot to say about. This actually has nothing to do with my arugment. It doesn't prove he wasn't crucified. he can't offer a single version that claims he was killed in any other manner, he's basically arguing about the date or the invovlement of Herod. It really has nothing to do with the argument. He's actually quibbeling over whose authority it was that grounded the execution, not the manner of exicution or its historical fact!
when I say he was crucified "under Pilate" I mean just that, in the reing of his administation, not necessary at his hand.
kirby
Meta:
the answer to that one, my dear fellow, is very very easy. It never really arose until guys like you arose it. We have second or third century work the Acts of Pilate, or the testimony of Nicademus, where the two talk years latter, they both take "credit" and guilt for it, they are both chrsitians. I'm sure that's not historical but the point is, the author doesnt' raise near the issue whith authority that modern day scholars do. The schoalrs you quote are modern, they are not from the days, ti's modern skpetical people who riase issues like this because they have to knitt pick at something.
kirby
Meta:
that argument doesnt' really make sense. it seems to assume that soneone would have consulted Herod of Pilate. Probably the common people would be left out of the loop on such an issue and no one would ask Herod or Pilate and neitehr would care to tell.
kirby
Meta:
Peter,...Peter, ...Peter, you should know better. To be "hanged" was a ephamism for crucifiction. See Raymond Brown, Death of the Messiah.
kirby
Meta:
I have to admit, here is an orignal list of side kicked. Although Matthai, might be derivative of Matthew, I can't say much for Nezer, Buni, or Toah but they sound like characters from the Wizard of Oz. "Todah, I don't think we are Kansas anymore."
kirby
Meta:
How do you know they didn't stone bfore crucifiction too? That's of course assuming the acuracy of the article. When was sanhedrin 43 penned? All the Minshic sources merely draw upon first century sources, but none of them were written then.
kirby
Meta:
Here again, it admits to the original story. Its' palying off the original story. It's a late source, Nag Hammadi stuff was fourth century, so its out of the boundaries I set up for the arugment. It's Gnostic, so of cousre they have to change the orignal enoguh to weasal out of their abhorance with flesh. So its' just mockneying with the orignial story, it's not an alternate version.
kirby
Meta:
None of this theological backfilling defeats the argument in any respect.
kirby
Meta:
This is not an alternate version. It alludes to and accepts the fact of the orignal. It is not another story. It doesnt' say Jesus died by stabbing or hanging, it says he given to appear to be crucified, as was factually known to the gernal public, but that fact is theolgically interprited to fit the crazy theology of the Gnostic group.
kirby
7) Around the time of the Passover.
Here the bias of this collection of eleven main points about Jesus is clear, as it is clearly constructed with an attempt to avoid contradiction, using the vague language of "around the time of the Passover." But there is a contradiction nonetheless. According to the synoptic gospels, Jesus shared the Passover meal with his disciples and was executed on the day of the Passover. According to the Gospel of John, Jesus was crucified at noon on the day before Passover, at the same time that the lambs are being slaughtered in the Temple (for the Passover meal). It is telling that only ambiguous language can force a point of agreement out of these disparate accounts.
Meta:
Knitt picky bullshit! that's jut obfuscation. Obviously it's around the time of passover. there were several little Jewish groups that celibrated passover at different times, so if they used Qumran calender or the Temple clander it would change the time by a coupel of days. But no version of the story has him dying at chrismass, or in the summer or any other time of the year. it's all around passover by two or three days. So that means there are no other versions that do it differently.
kirby
Meta:
At that point it just doesn't make much difference. in all stories the death is associated with noone. No story has Jesus dying at 12 midnight or 6 in the morning.
kirby
Meta:
You can't estabish any validity for that soruce before the foruth century. Like all Nag Hammadi stuff it's a late source nothing historical there.
Meta:
that's not a version of the story. its' not a telling it plays off the telling. It's a refutation of the one and only version of the story. There are no other verisons. There are people who doubted the orignal, and it's a late srouce.
kirby
Meta:
that would seem to be a naturlaistic deniel of some supernatural element, but on the miracle section above Peter assures us that that coudln't happen back then.
kirby
Meta:
How do you know he didn't? WE don't have a list of who all he appeared to. We are told he appered to one skeptic who was the persecuting enemy of his followers; Saul of Tarsus, who became St. Paul. We also learn form second century sources that Pilate became a Christain latter. Not very realistic, but we don't know who he did and did not appear to.
kirby
10) Several women with Mary Magdalene discovered the empty tomb.
And the women named vary in each account.
Gospel of Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
Gospel of Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome
Gospel of Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women
Gospel of John: Mary Magdalene
Gospel of Peter: Mary Magdalene and her women friends
Epistula Apostolorum Coptic: Three women, Mary, she that was kin to Martha, and Mary Magdalene
Epistula Apostolorum Ethiopic: Sarrha, Martha, and Mary
Gospel of Nicodemus: Unnamed women
Meta:
But in all the most histoircally reputable soruces, the canonicals and GPete, the same basic core of two MM and Mary the mother are constant.
kirby
Meta:
they are not the first discover it after he's gone, they were part of the orignal emptying. so they already knew, they weren't discovering it.
but the piont is he women and the empty tomb. Peter is so good at knitt picking he loses sight of the spirit of the argumetn competely.
kirby
Meta:
I dont' know of any case where Egypt stands for Rome. Babylon stands for Rome. Revelation never uses Egypt for Rome But Babylon. So logically Egyt should be soemthing else, but to identiy if as the city where he was crucified assuems they would have know to begin with, that is' the tag to show what city is meant, not vice versa. So it should be clear that it's the commonly accept place.
kirby
Although others are free to draw their own conclusions, I have not catalogued these variant stories about Jesus in order to form an argument against the historicity of Jesus. I am responding to a positive argument for the historicity of Jesus, specifically that a non-historical Jesus would have resulted in multiple versions of the Jesus story. Although what it would mean for there to be multiple versions was not defined in a general way, the specific claim was made that no ancient account goes against eleven points enumerated of the Jesus story.
Meta:
Here Kirby is being more "greasy" as we used to in debate, than I've seen him. He's jsut reversing the common sense order of importance. First of all he's wrong in saing that I don't specify what it means to have multiple versions becasue I do so exaclty. What I do not do is get legalstic about times like noon or passover or the time of birth or whatever. When I say crucified around passover I mean no story has jesus being killed in June, it may be before or after or during passover by two or three days. that's unimportant. I find that Peter's arguments on this kind of picky nature the whole way through.
kirby
Meta:
Ive always had a lot respect for kirby. I'm sorry to see him fuding like this. No, I'm afriad not! You have not presetned a single tradition. Prapagandisttic refutaions are not traditions in the sense of tramissing a story. You need to show more than one source that reiterates such a detail before you can claim it as a tradition. We might be able to argue for a tradition that Jesus was older, based upon Iraneus statement that he was 50 and some of the things you have said. But none of that changes the basic story line. that is the point of my arugment, not the picky detials, but the basic fact that there is one version of the story. You do nothing to change that.
kirby
Meta:
YOu see what he's saying? "if we the list were drawn up with more details we would find more discrpencies." He's into the details. I am not into detials. i don't think the details proove the argument. What proves the argument is the overall sturcutre of the story.
Good Jewish boy from hinkerlands things the Messiah, works miracles, get's crucified raises form the dead. I did notice that a bunch of the details are always consistant like His girls friend is always Mary Magdelin. His side kick is always Peter. But be that as it may, my argument does not turn on the silly details such as was it on Passover or the day before passover.
the simple fact of the matter is, there are no other versions of the story. There is one Jesus story. People paly with it, the refute it, they revile it, they deify it, but no one every offers another one. If it was myth they would, becasue they always do. Its' only when the events are facts and no one can denty them that a story takes on a rock solid structure.
Kriby does' nothing to change that fact!
The Orignal Argument is found here.
My argument says:
1) Mythology tends to proliforate:multiple story versions are common
2) When historical facts are known to a wide audience, people tend not to deny the basic facts of an event.
a) eye witnesses keep it stairght
b) People who try to invent new aspects of the event are confronted with the fact that most everyone knows better.
c) people know the story for a fact and just dont' bother to change it.
3) Story proliforations would probably influence further tellings, thus creating many more documents with different versions of the same story.
4) If a myth proliforates we would tend to find more versions of the same story, when there is only one version we can accept a degree of certainty that the story did not proliforate.
5) We do not find a proliforation of versions of the Jesus story in any sources we know of.
6) The most logical way to account for this single Jesus story is through p2, that everyone knew it was the case, there were too many eye witnesses to spread new versions.
a) It is illogical to assume that everyone just liked it so they didn't add to it.
b) There was no canonization process in place in the early period, and the single unified verison existed from the earliest trace of the story.
7)Therefore, we can assume that it is probably the case that the masses were familiar with the story of Jesus because the story reflects events known by all to be factual.
The main thing that myths do is change. Given enough time, a myth will transmography until the names of the heroes are different, how they died is forgotten and retold so many times, there came to be multiple versions of their death. Myths change over time, but history does not. People remember a basic event they know its real, they don't forget it. Herclues has two deaths, in one he's poisaned, in another shot with an arrow. There are about 14 versions of the Tamuz myth. But there is only one way for the guys at the Alamo to die, there is only one death for Arthur, and there is only one way that Jesus Christ is ver portrayed as dying, that's by the cross. Why? Because that's how he really died. No one could deny it, so no one ever propossed another method.
I have made the argument, on message boards, that there are no alternate versions of the basic Gospel story. The point being, there are many versions of most myths. The fact that with tons of "other Gospels" not a one of them before the fourth century gives an alternate account of Jesus life, death, burial and resurrection is a good indication that everyone knew the basic facts, they were public knowledge because they were history; these things happened before the community of Jerusalem, the whole community was a witness and no one could deny it.Now skeptics have responded that certain alternate Gospels deny the resurrection. They name the Apochraphon of James. This is not true. As will be seen from what I quote below James does mention the resurrection. Some of the latter Gnostics denied the theology of the Virginal conception, but they still allude to the story. They denied that Jesus' death was real, but they do not deny that it happened, only that he was not a flesh and blood being and so could not die. What they accept is that the illusion of a flesh and blood man lived on the earth and was taken for a real person why all who saw him.
That is a fundamental mistake of Dohrtey (the champion of the "Christ-myth" theory), he thinks all the action originally was set in a heavily realm, that is not the case. The Gnostics generally accepted that the illusion of a man was seen on earth and seemed to be living among men. So they just spiritualized the history of Jesus.Below I will quote from several "other Gospels" to show that they affirm the deity of Christ, the resurrection, that they include references to many of the stories and periscopes in the canonical Gospels, and that they assume the general outline of the story that we call "fact."
Kirby:
A rebuttal to an argument for a historical Jesus.
by Peter Kirby (May 22, 2003)
This is an argument made by Metacrock for a historical Jesus:
No Alternate versions of Jesus' story
All of these mythical figures change over time, but not Jesus. There is basically one Jesus story and it's always the same.
1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.
2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary."
3) Same principal players: Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdalene.
4) That Jesus was known as a miracle worker.
5) He claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.
6) He was crucified under Pilate.
7) Around the time of the Passover.
8) At noon.
9) Rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.
10) Several women with Mary Magdalene discovered the empty tomb.
11) This was in Jerusalem.
There were hundreds of sources, different books and Gospels and Acts, that never made it into the New Testament. The Jesus story is re-told countless times from early days (around AD50 first written) to the fourth century, before there was ever a major alteration in any of these basic details. Even after that time, no one ever disagreed with these points listed above.
So, the claim is being made that the story of Jesus is told over and over again without significant variation, at least up through the time of the fourth century. As a definition of what it means to have the same story without variation, Metacrock offers a list of 11 basic details that never change in the telling.
Over against this argument, I contend that there is at least one document from the fourth century or earlier that reveals that some people did not agree with at least one of the basic details above. I will show my contention by actually pointing out disagreement with each of the eleven. But note well that only one of the eleven has to fail in order for the claim to be false that these basic details were unalterable. It is as though I am firing eleven cannon balls, and only one has to hit to sink the No Alternate Versions argumentative ship.
Meta:
But I think we will find that all of Kirby's refutations fail to meet the criteria I speicifed. They must alternate versions that came after the fourth century. Now I don't think I should be held to that in a strict way. After all, 200 years after the events is a long time. So if they come in AD233 that's a long time and doesnt' really present a serious challenge.
We also find that there are veriations, but none of them present a truely differnt story. None of them show Jesus being hung rather than curcified, none of them show that his mother's name is Louise or Zelda, rather than mary.
Now Kirby argues that if only one poit fails the calim is false. That's just too legalistic. He's playing debate games. A real scholar wouldn't try to impose such an arbitrary rule. The past logic of the argument stands even if some of the data is a bit off. But it wont be! I don't think any of them will fail.
I'll tell you now I'v refutted this several times on Boards, this version is no better. The Sec Webers assume Kirby's victory hands down, but I dont' think so!
Kirby:
1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.
Note the ambiguity in the first part of this statement. There are two basic pieces of data about the time of Jesus' birth in the Gospel of Luke, one of which is that it was before the death of Herod (circa 4 BCE) and the other is that it was during the census of Quirinius (circa 7 CE). There are ingenious attempts to harmonize this data, usually by placing Jesus' birth before 4 BCE. But we see already the tendenz of this list of eleven major points: it was designed so as to avoid mentioning details that actually disagree with each other in our sources (rather than simply picking out important claims). I intend to show that, despite this design, the list fails.
Meta:
Sheer obfuscation, worthy of a highschool debater. So what if the figure "33 years" is off by four or seven. who cares? The point is he was a concrete historical figure. That sort of shilly shallying that is transforming Biblical schoalrship into cheap polemics, farnky I thought Peter was beyond that short of thing. Sorry to see that he's not.
In anyway, I think Sir William Ramsy put to bed thsi shollow nonsense about the census, and other more recent scholars have noted Quarinius was in twice. So this is all to read about on my Luke page:
Doxa: Luke
kirby
From the data provided by Josephus, we estimate that Pilate was prefect of Judea from 26 to 36 CE. The canonical Gospels do tell us that the crucifixion of Jesus was under Pilate and that its day was in some relation to the Passover, which after much puzzling over calendrical systems has produced the dates of 30 and 33 as the most popular years for scholars to place the death of Jesus. (Meier's A Marginal Jew, vol. 1, is a good source for this scholarship, with a favored year of 30 CE.) But none of the canonical Gospels give us data that would allow us to fix the date at 33 CE precisely. The closest thing to an absolute reference for dating in the Gospels is in reference to the start of John the Baptist's ministry in "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (Luke 3:1) which may be 27 or 28 or 29 CE depending on the method of calculation of the regnal years. Even if there were no data that contradicted a date of the death of Jesus as being 33 CE, there is no ancient source that says this in the first place, so it shouldn't be on the list.
Meta:
This is all just pure obfuscation. He's trying to shift the focuss to his turf. He can't come up with an alternate version of the Jesus story, so he has to quibble with dates. let's say he's right and we can't establish 33 AD. But every version of the Jesus story in the houndreds of documents says that Jesus was crucified under Pilate. So that gives us a rough window for when the evetns transpired. Kriby's obfuscation not withstanding, he offers no alternate version with Jesus being hung, stabed, exiled or killed in any other way, or in any time period.
kirby
But there is a fourth century tradition that Jesus was executed long before 33 CE. Maximin Daia published an "Acts of Pilate" (around 311 CE) that bear a date of circa 20 or 21 CE. F. F. Bruce writes: "These 'Acts', which were full of outrageous assertions about Jesus, had to be read and memorized by schoolchildren. They were manifestly forged, as Eusebius historian pointed out at the time; among other things, their dating was quite wrong, as they placed the death of Jesus in the seventh year of Tiberius (AD 20), whereas the testimony of Josephus' is plain that Pilate not become procurator of Judaea till Tiberius' Twelfth year (not to mention the evidence of Luke iii. 1, according to which John the Baptist began to preach in fifteenth year of Tiberius)." (The New Testament Documents) It would be interesting to know what else was contained in this document, but no copy survives.
Meta:
Just doesnt' fit the criteia. First, I said I'm dealing with the first four centuries, this is form the foruth century. So that's out of the time preiod anyway. Secondly, it doesnt' deal with chaning anything, it's not an alterante version, it just bothers the tiem frame a bit, but not sigifnicantly.
kirby
The following statement is made by Epiphanius (Haer., xxix. 3): "Now the throne and kingly seat of David is the priestly office in Holy Church; for the Lord combined the kingly and high-priestly dignities into one and the same office, and bestowed them upon His Holy Church, transferring to her the throne of David, which ceases not as long as the world endues. The throne of David continued by succession up to that time - namely, till Christ Himself - without any failure from the princes of Judah, until it came unto Him for whom were 'the things that are stored up,' who is Himself 'the expectation of the nations.' For with the advent of the Christ, the succession of the princes from Judah, who reigned until the Christ Himself, ceased. The order [of succession] failed and stopped at the time when He was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, in the days of Alexander, who was of high-priestly and royal race; and after this Alexander this lot failed, from the times of himself and Salina, who is also called Alexandra, for the times of Herod the King and Augustus Emperor of the Romans ; and this Alexander, one of the anointed (or Christs) and ruling princes placed the crown on his own head. . . . After this a foreign king, Herod, and those who were no longer of the family of David, assumed the crown." Although Epiphanius elsewhere places the birth of Christ in the forty-second year of Augustus (about 2 BCE), this passage places the life of Jesus around 100 BCE. There is an analysis of this and similar Jewish traditions in G. R. S. Mead's book reproduced here: Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?
So, while we might regard these alternative traditions about the period of Christ's life as dubious, we cannot argue as if there is universal agreement on the dates of his birth and death.
Meta:
who says we need universal agreement on the date of his birth? that wasn't the nautrue of my argument. he's created his own argument to answer the way he sees fit. It doesnt' match the argument I made. Moreover, I would argue that the passage is misunderstood; otherwise, Epiphanias own contradictions disqualifyit as a valid source. But it doesn't constute another version of the story. I never said the exact date is what I had in mind when I spoke of "verions of the story.
kirby
2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary."
I am not aware of any tradition in which the mother of Jesus is given a name other than Mary. But there is disagreement on whether Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus.
Meta:
Of course there is, because the anti-missionary factions spread propaganda. That's not another version of the story, it's not put over as another version because it palys off of the version we know, the one and only version. It's just re-interpriteing the only version there is, and for obviously self intrested reasons!
kirby
Origen quotes the Jewish interlocutor of Celsus in Contra Celsum 1.32: "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera." This is a tradition that denies the Virgin birth.
Meta:
The info we have from Celsus is the same as that of the Mishna. Obviously it seems the Celsus used the Mishna. This plays off the only story we have, and it confirms that that story was around in the frist century.
kirby
In fact, there is disagreement on whether Jesus was born at all. Hippolytus of Rome writes in his Refutation of All Heresies, book 7, chapter 19: "Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour. He considered it to be absurd that tinder the (category of a) creature fashioned by destructive Discord should have been the Logos that was an auxiliary to Friendship--that is, the Good Deity. (His doctrine,) however, was that, independent of birth, (the Logos) Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues. For if He is a Mediator, He has been, he says, liberated from the entire nature of the Evil Deity. Now, as he affirms, the Demiurge is evil, and his works. For this reason, he affirms, Jesus came down unbegotten, in order that He might be liberated from all (admixture of) evil."
Meta:
(1) My argument makes allowed for Gnostic veriations. this is clealry one. The idea of being born was anathema to the Gnsotics.
(2) Marcion was a couple of centuries after the events, so it's getting up there toward the end of the time frame. As Gnstoicism begins to sperad we can expect Gnstoic verisatoins on the story. But the basic story is already set in stone.
kirby
3) Same principal players: Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdalene.
Here is some data on the "principal players" mentioned in early Christian writings.
1 Clement mentions Peter and Paul.
The Ignatian Epistles mention Peter and Paul as well as Mary.
The Gospel of Thomas mentions Thomas, James the Just, Simon Peter, Matthew, Mary, and Salome.
Meta:
I never said those were the only three, we can expect the casts to very. leaving one out in some peice is no proof that person wasnt' part of the doings. but the strong inclusion of Peter and mary indicates they must have been historical figures.
no one doubts Paul's historicity.
kirby
The Gospel of Peter mentions Mary Magdalene, Simon Peter, Andrew, Levi the son of Alphaeus, and most likely others in the lost portions of the text.
The Apocalypse of Peter mentions the twelve disciples but not by name.
The Secret Book of James mentions the 'twelve disciples' as well as James, Peter, and John.
The Preaching of Peter mentions the 'twelve' as well as Peter.
The Gospel of the Egyptians mentions Salome.
The Gospel of the Hebrews mentions James the Just and Simon.
The Gospel of the Ebionites mentions Simon Peter, John and James the sons of Zebedee, Simon, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, James the son of Alphaeus, Thomas, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas the Iscariot.
The Gospel of the Nazoreans mentions Simon.
The Traditions of Matthias mentions Zaccheus whom they call Matthias, the tax collector.
The Apology of Aristides mentions the 'twelve disciples'.
The epistle of Polycarp mentions Paul and 'the rest of the apostles'.
Papias mentions Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, and Judas.
The Gospel of Mary mentions Mary, Peter, and Andrew.
The Dialogue of the Savior mentions Judas, Matthew, and Mary.
Second Clement mentions Peter.
The Epistula Apostolorum mentions John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Batholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas as well as Joseph and Mary.
I have also written an essay on the tradition of The Seven Apostles.
It is apparent, then, that the main players are not fixed in early Christian literature. Indeed it is one of the most fluid variables.
Meta:
I am truely amazed that someone of Kirby's intellgency and prfeciency in handling biblical schoalrship would make such an obvious mistake. While membership in the Jesus inner circle seems fluid--Kirby left out sever other soruces with the same resut such as Epistel of the Apostels--we find these obervations:
(1) the same basic three in every list he mentions; Peter, Mary M. and Andere or Johbn.
(2) most of the sources include most of the names of the 12,
(3) only the more obsrue members very
(4) someone like Bartholemew beign mentione din Epistel of the Apotels and not in Apochropon of JOhn is not indiative of fluidity in membership of the inner cirlce, nor it is another version of the story.
It's not indicative because there are at least 200 members to choose from. We know Christ sent out 70 preachers at one time. We know women traveled within at one ponit, we know his groupies grew over time, and he progbalby had a couple of hundred in his ontoroge when the rode the donkey into Jerusalem. So it's absurd to think every single source woud just mention every single follower. But the most prominmat and stable and present in almost every source Kirby meintions. i thin that stengthens my argument a lot. i have to thank Pete for helping.
kirby
4) That Jesus was known as a miracle worker.
This point I may have to concede, if only for the reason that anyone could be a "miracle worker" in ancient times, and the rules of riposte dictate that the refutation of a claim to miraculous powers is the charge of magic or devilry. These two charges are found frequently enough, expressing disagreement over who Jesus was and what he did.
On Jesus being in league with the devil, we need look no further than the canonical four (Mark 3:22 etc.). On Jesus as a magician, the Jewish Encyclopedia notes:
According to Celsus (in Origen, "Contra Celsum," i. 28) and to the Talmud (Shab. 104b), Jesus learned magic in Egypt and performed his miracles by means of it; the latter work, in addition, states that he cut the magic formulas into his skin. It does not mention, however, the nature of his magic performances (Tosef., Shab. xi. 4; Yer. Shab. 13d); but as it states that the disciples of Jesus healed the sick "in the name of Jesus Pandera" (Yer. Shab. 14d; 'Ab. Zarah 27b; Eccl. R. i. 8) it may be assumed that its author held the miracles of Jesus also to have been miraculous cures. Different in nature is the witchcraft attributed to Jesus in the "Toledot." When Jesus was expelled from the circle of scholars, he is said to have returned secretly from Galilee to Jerusalem, where he inserted a parchment containing the "declared name of God" ("Shem ha-Meforash"), which was guarded in the Temple, into his skin, carried it away, and then, taking it out of his skin, he performed his miracles by its means. This magic formula then had to be recovered from him, and Judah the Gardener (a personage of the "Toledot" corresponding to Judas Iscariot) offered to do it; he and Jesus then engaged in an aerial battle (borrowed from the legend of Simon Magus), in which Judah remained victor and Jesus fled.
The accusation of magic is frequently brought against Jesus. Jerome mentions it, quoting the Jews: "Magum vocant et JudÃ?i Dominum meum" ("Ep. lv., ad Ascellam," i. 196, ed. Vallarsi); Marcus, of the sect of the Valentinians, was, according to Jerome, a native of Egypt, and was accused of being, like Jesus, a magician (Hilgenfeld, "Ketzergesch." p. 370, Leipsic, 1884).
Meta:
that's just padding the argument. Come on, he's not saying anything. we should expect his enemies to make propagandistic stamtents. We can't regard that as another version of the story, because it's just a matter of the way you look at one of them major elements; his followers say he was a wonder worker, his enemeis say he was a devil worker. Doesnt' amount to another version.
kirby
Now, we might say that the sources agree in Jesus working "apparent miracles" and that the cause was interpreted variously. But, then, I cannot think of a single example in ancient literature in which it is denied that a person worked "apparent miracles." That would become an issue with the rise of naturalistic inquiry during the Enlightenment.
Meta:
Holding documents that Tacitus had a hobby of exposing false resurrections. Apollonias of Tyanna was said to have forged his miracles. I am not sure of the source, but there had to be a report from someone of that era to know the secrets.
but i'm not sure what this as to do with anytying. My argument was not that reports of Jesus' mriacles prove that he really worked miracles, but just that this is another stable charactoristic which we find in all versions of the story. taht's all I said. Its' an obvious one that doesn't prove anything along, fine. But it's still stable from one telling to the next. There are not other versions of it, except propaganda by his enemies.
They didn't have to quibble with the concept that miracles can be done, to argue that Jesus himself did not do them.
kirby
The ancients denied the power of Jesus by accusing him of working magic, which was a regular profession in ancient times. It would make no more sense to say that Jesus didn't perform "apparent miracles" than it would to deny that he was a carpenter. Consider the statement of Julian the Apostate: "Yet Jesus, who won over the least worthy of you, has been known by name for but little more than three hundred years; and during his lifetime he accomplished nothing worth hearing of, unless anyone thinks that to heal crooked and blind men and to exorcize those who were possessed by evil demons in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany can be classed as a mighty achievement." Consider also the statement of Celsus as reported by Origen:
But after this, Celsus, having a suspicion that the great works performed by Jesus, of which we have named a few out of a great number, would be brought forward to view, affects to grant that those statements may be true which are made regarding His cures, or His resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude with a few loaves, from which many fragments remained over, or those other stories which Celsus thinks the disciples have recorded as of a marvellous nature; and he adds: "Well, let us believe that these were actually wrought by you." But then he immediately compares them to the tricks of jugglers, who profess to do more wonderful things, and to the feats performed by those who have been taught by Egyptians, who in the middle of the market-place, in return for a few obols, will impart the knowledge of their most venerated arts, and will expel demons from men, and dispel diseases, and invoke the souls of heroes, and exhibit expensive banquets, and tables, and dishes, and dainties having no real existence, and who will put in motion, as if alive, what are not really living animals, but which have only the appearance of life. And he asks, "Since, then, these persons can perform such feats, shall we of necessity conclude that they are 'sons of God,' or must we admit that they are the proceedings of wicked men under the influence of an evil spirit?" You see that by these expressions he allows, as it were, the existence of magic.
Granting this lack of contradiction, though, the appearance of the miracle tradition is not universal. In particular, the Gospel of Thomas presents over 114 sayings of Jesus without mentioning any of his miracles. It would not be far-fetched to suppose that the authors had no belief in Jesus as a miracle worker.
Meta:
At this point Peter is bending over backward to deny anything he can. Because, first he doesnt' really deny the point. Secondly, I dont' try to claim it's that importnat by tiself. Thirdly, his point about Thomas is just argument from silence. Just becasue not every source talks about Jesus' mircles, we cannot take that as deniel of them! Moreover, Thomas does speak of Jesus coming down from heaven in the flesh; one might take that to be a miracle.
kirby
5) He claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.
The medieval Gospel of Barnabas has Jesus saying, "I am not the Messiah." It is rather ridiculous to imagine that is historical, of course, unless it played out like a scene in the Life of Brian, with would-be devotees forcing an unwilling man to be the Messiah (and they should know, they've followed a few).
Meta:
A pretty long time after the 400 year cut off date for my argument.
kirby
Even Celsus had Jesus return from Egypt, puffed up by magical prowess, claiming to be a son of God. Paradoxically, the type of people who would circulate the idea that Jesus didn't claim to be the son of God would only be those who respected what Jesus said and thought Jesus wasn't supernatural. I am not aware of any such people until modern times, with the possible exception of the Ebionites. The Ebionites did say that Jesus was only a man, and they are recorded in the second century on that count, but I am not aware of a specific passage in which the Ebionites said Jesus didn't claim to be the Messiah.
Meta:
Pete is the only guy I know who can contradict himself in mid sentence and make it sound like a srength. The Ebionites contraict his argument.
Moreover, one might observe the return form Egypt, Jesus leaning magic in egypt and so forth are things Edersheim quotes from Heberw sources. So this backs up my theory that Celsus used the mishna as his source. He dug into the richest vein of anti-Jesus propaganda, so if we read it backwards, to take out the negatives, we find it is good hisorical evidence supporting Jesus historicity in the first century.
kirby
Again, though, we do have documents that are silent on any messianic claims made by Jesus, including the collection of sayings known as the Gospel of Thomas. If these people thought Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, why wouldn't that be important enough to include in their collection?
Meta:
Good evidence for a late date to Thomas. In fact since Thomas is an early says source core within a latter Gnostic framework, we can expect that the Jewishness has been taken out.
kirby
6) He was crucified under Pilate.
This is three factoids in one: Jesus died between 26 and 36, Jesus' execution was ordered by Pilate, and the manner of his execution was crucifixion. The first factoid is touched upon in the first item of the eleven; the second two will be addressed here.
Unlike the other gospels, in the Gospel of Luke and in the Gospel of Peter, Herod Antipas plays a role in the trying of Jesus. Robert Price writes about this in Deconstructing Jesus, p. 249:
Jesus' connection with the Roman governor Pilate on one end of his biography need be no more historical than his connection with the Roman governor Quirinius on the other. Even greater doubt is thrown on the matter by the parallel tradition, still extant but just barely, that Jesus was executed under Herod Antipas! The Gospel of Peter has Herod consult with Pilate but see to the execution himself. And, as Alfred Loisy noted long ago, Luke seems to have had access to a version of the Passion in which it was Herod who had Jesus killed, not Pilate. [The Origins of the New Testament, p. 192] This becomes evident when one examines the cumbersome and improbable sequence involving Jesus being tried before Pilate, then Herod Antipas, then Pilate again. No one has ever come up with a plausible reason for Pilate remanding Jesus to Antipas, as Luke has him do. Once Jesus gets to Herod's court, it is Herod's troops who mock him, not Pilate's as in the other gospels, implying that Luke was trying to harmonize the Markan Pilate-Passion with another set in Herod's court and had to choose between mockings. The most flagrant mark of indelicate editing is Herod's acquittal of Jesus--then sending him back to Pilate! It is clear Luke must have had one Passion story in front of him, Mark's, in which Pilate ordered Jesus' execution, and another, like that in the Gospel of Peter, in which it was Herod Antipas who condemned him. To use both, he had to change Herod's verdict from guilty to innocent (otherwise, as in the Gospel of Peter, he must have Herod send him to the cross). But instead of having Herod let Jesus go in peace, as an acquittal surely would demand, he has Herod send Jesus back to Pilate--for what? And if Pilate awaited Herod's verdict, why did he not let him go, too, since Herod had acquitted Jesus? Luke has too many cooks in the kitchen, and the stew is spoiled.
Meta:
Again, Pete palys his most effective card, when you have nothing else to say, force them on to your turf and make the issue something you have a lot to say about. This actually has nothing to do with my arugment. It doesn't prove he wasn't crucified. he can't offer a single version that claims he was killed in any other manner, he's basically arguing about the date or the invovlement of Herod. It really has nothing to do with the argument. He's actually quibbeling over whose authority it was that grounded the execution, not the manner of exicution or its historical fact!
when I say he was crucified "under Pilate" I mean just that, in the reing of his administation, not necessary at his hand.
kirby
But the key question is, if Jesus was known to have been crucified quite recently in dramatic public circumstances, at the behest either of Pilate or of Herod, how on earth could uncertainty over who killed him ever have arisen?
Meta:
the answer to that one, my dear fellow, is very very easy. It never really arose until guys like you arose it. We have second or third century work the Acts of Pilate, or the testimony of Nicademus, where the two talk years latter, they both take "credit" and guilt for it, they are both chrsitians. I'm sure that's not historical but the point is, the author doesnt' raise near the issue whith authority that modern day scholars do. The schoalrs you quote are modern, they are not from the days, ti's modern skpetical people who riase issues like this because they have to knitt pick at something.
kirby
If either Herod or Pilate had recently executed him, how could any belief about the involvement of the other have come about? But, on the other hand, if both were merely educated guesses as to who killed Jesus, we can easily see how the confusion arose.
Meta:
that argument doesnt' really make sense. it seems to assume that soneone would have consulted Herod of Pilate. Probably the common people would be left out of the loop on such an issue and no one would ask Herod or Pilate and neitehr would care to tell.
kirby
And was it always said that the manner of Jesus' death was crucifixion? Apparently not. Here is what is written in Baraitha Bab. Sanhedrin 43a:
On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged.
Meta:
Peter,...Peter, ...Peter, you should know better. To be "hanged" was a ephamism for crucifiction. See Raymond Brown, Death of the Messiah.
kirby
For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! - Ulla retorted: Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning him Scripture says, Neither shalt though spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government for royalty [i.e., influential]. Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah.
Meta:
I have to admit, here is an orignal list of side kicked. Although Matthai, might be derivative of Matthew, I can't say much for Nezer, Buni, or Toah but they sound like characters from the Wizard of Oz. "Todah, I don't think we are Kansas anymore."
kirby
I used to think that "hanged" in this passage was a euphemism for crucifixion. But that cannot be. The passage clearly states that Jesus is going forth to be stoned. And, of course, the prescription for those stoned included hanging after death. To read crucifixion into this passage is to Christianize a fully Jewish account of Jesus, one in which Jesus is stoned by Jewish authorities for violating Jewish laws and leading Israel astray.
Meta:
How do you know they didn't stone bfore crucifiction too? That's of course assuming the acuracy of the article. When was sanhedrin 43 penned? All the Minshic sources merely draw upon first century sources, but none of them were written then.
kirby
But we don't have to turn to Jewish traditions to find those who disagree that Jesus was crucified. This is found in the Apocalypse of Peter in the Nag Hammadi Library:
When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"
The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."
Sure, this passage says that some substitute was placed on the cross instead of Jesus, but is that the best we can do? The fundamental bedrock is that someone, which some people thought to be Jesus, was crucified under Pilate, even if the real Jesus could have been laughing at the whole affair? It strains credulity to say that this is the same story that is always told by Christians everywhere. The difference is significant, which is why the church fathers objected. Hippolytus, in a tract formerly attributed to Tertullian under the title Against All Heresies, writes of the second century Basilides:
Meta:
Here again, it admits to the original story. Its' palying off the original story. It's a late source, Nag Hammadi stuff was fourth century, so its out of the boundaries I set up for the arugment. It's Gnostic, so of cousre they have to change the orignal enoguh to weasal out of their abhorance with flesh. So its' just mockneying with the orignial story, it's not an alternate version.
kirby
Afterwards broke out the heretic Basilides. He affirms that there is a supreme Deity, by name Abraxas, . . . Christ, moreover, he affirms to have been sent, not by this maker of the world, but by the above-named Abraxas; and to have come in a phantasm, and been destitute of the substance of flesh: that it was not He who suffered among the Jews, but that Simon was crucified in His stead: whence, again, there must be no believing on him who was crucified, lest one confess to having believed on Simon. Martyrdoms, he says, are not to be endured. The resurrection of the flesh he strenuously impugns, affirming that salvation has not been promised to bodies.
Meta:
None of this theological backfilling defeats the argument in any respect.
kirby
The difference is crucial: according to these, Jesus was not crucified, and those who worship one crucified are in error. So it clear that even the matter of the crucifixion of Jesus under Pilate is not a uniform trait of ancient accounts of Jesus.
Meta:
This is not an alternate version. It alludes to and accepts the fact of the orignal. It is not another story. It doesnt' say Jesus died by stabbing or hanging, it says he given to appear to be crucified, as was factually known to the gernal public, but that fact is theolgically interprited to fit the crazy theology of the Gnostic group.
kirby
7) Around the time of the Passover.
Here the bias of this collection of eleven main points about Jesus is clear, as it is clearly constructed with an attempt to avoid contradiction, using the vague language of "around the time of the Passover." But there is a contradiction nonetheless. According to the synoptic gospels, Jesus shared the Passover meal with his disciples and was executed on the day of the Passover. According to the Gospel of John, Jesus was crucified at noon on the day before Passover, at the same time that the lambs are being slaughtered in the Temple (for the Passover meal). It is telling that only ambiguous language can force a point of agreement out of these disparate accounts.
Meta:
Knitt picky bullshit! that's jut obfuscation. Obviously it's around the time of passover. there were several little Jewish groups that celibrated passover at different times, so if they used Qumran calender or the Temple clander it would change the time by a coupel of days. But no version of the story has him dying at chrismass, or in the summer or any other time of the year. it's all around passover by two or three days. So that means there are no other versions that do it differently.
kirby
8) At noon.
Here again there is a discrepancy between the synoptics and John. According to the Gospel of John, Jesus was still not crucified until noon. John says: "About the sixth hour . . . they shouted, 'Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!'" (John 19:14-15 NIV) People in the ancient Roman empire reckoned daytime from 6 A.M. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is already crucified at 9 A.M.: "And it was the third hour when they crucified Him." (Mark 15:25) The most common way to reconcile these accounts--and it's a stretch--is to say that the Gospel of John is counting from midnight, and thus that these crowds are shouting at 6 A.M. Not only does this go against the standard reckoning of time, but it would still contradict Metacrock's point: Metacrock has the crucifixion timed at noon. Of course, if Metacrock is saying merely that the period of crucifixion extended through the noon hour, then this would apply to almost all crucifixions. It was (usually) a slow death
Meta:
At that point it just doesn't make much difference. in all stories the death is associated with noone. No story has Jesus dying at 12 midnight or 6 in the morning.
kirby
9) Rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.
I have a brief section on the burial traditions as part of my empty tomb essay on the Secular Web. Note especially the Secret Book of James. It is known from a copy in Coptic found at Nag Hammadi. The setting of the work is a post-resurrection encounter with the risen Lord. The summary description of the hardships undergone by Jesus includes that Jesus was buried "in the sand." This Coptic phrase is sometimes translated nonliterally to mean "shamefully," but it should be made clear that the very reason why the burial is shameful is that it is a burial in the sand. To be wrapped in a new linen cloth and placed in a rock-hewn tomb is not the description of a shameful burial. Thus, the Secret Book of James reflects a tradition that Jesus was buried in the sand or, to speak generally, in a dishonorable makeshift shallow grave instead of in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.
Meta:
You can't estabish any validity for that soruce before the foruth century. Like all Nag Hammadi stuff it's a late source nothing historical there.
Of course, most non-Christians contended that Jesus didn't rise from the dead at all. The hallucination theory can be traced back as far as Celsus (Origen, Contra Celsum, Book II, Chapter 60):
Meta:
that's not a version of the story. its' not a telling it plays off the telling. It's a refutation of the one and only version of the story. There are no other verisons. There are people who doubted the orignal, and it's a late srouce.
kirby
In the next place, as if this were possible, viz., that the image of a man who was dead could appear to another as if he were still living, he adopts this opinion as an Epicurean, and says, "That some one having so dreamed owing to a peculiar state of mind, or having, under the influence of a perverted imagination, formed such an appearance as he himself desired, reported that such had been seen; and this," he continues, "has been the case with numberless individuals." But even if this statement of his seems to have a considerable degree of force, it is nevertheless only fitted to confirm a necessary doctrine, that the soul of the dead exists in a separate state (from the body); and he who adopts such an opinion does not believe without good reason in the immortality, or at least continued existence, of the soul, as even Plato says in his treatise on the Soul that shadowy phantoms of persons already dead have appeared to some around their sepulchres. Now the phantoms which exist about the soul of the dead are produced by some substance, and this substance is in the soul, which exists apart in a body said to be of splendid appearance.146 But Celsus, unwilling to admit any such view, will have it that some dreamed a waking dream,147 and, under the influence of a perverted imagination, formed to themselves such an image as they desired. Now it is not irrational to believe that a dream may take place while one is asleep; but to suppose a waking vision in the case of those who are not altogether out of their senses, and under the influence of delirium or hypochondria, is incredible. And Celsus, seeing this, called the woman "half-mad,"-a statement which is not made by the history recording the fact, but from which he took occasion to charge the occurrences with being untrue.
Meta:
that would seem to be a naturlaistic deniel of some supernatural element, but on the miracle section above Peter assures us that that coudln't happen back then.
kirby
Celsus goes on to argue, "if Jesus desired to show that his power was really divine, he ought to have appeared to those who had ill-treated him, and to him who had condemned him, and to all men universally." The resurrection of Jesus must have been disbelieved by many others besides Celsus who had heard about Jesus.
Meta:
How do you know he didn't? WE don't have a list of who all he appeared to. We are told he appered to one skeptic who was the persecuting enemy of his followers; Saul of Tarsus, who became St. Paul. We also learn form second century sources that Pilate became a Christain latter. Not very realistic, but we don't know who he did and did not appear to.
kirby
10) Several women with Mary Magdalene discovered the empty tomb.
And the women named vary in each account.
Gospel of Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
Gospel of Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome
Gospel of Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women
Gospel of John: Mary Magdalene
Gospel of Peter: Mary Magdalene and her women friends
Epistula Apostolorum Coptic: Three women, Mary, she that was kin to Martha, and Mary Magdalene
Epistula Apostolorum Ethiopic: Sarrha, Martha, and Mary
Gospel of Nicodemus: Unnamed women
Meta:
But in all the most histoircally reputable soruces, the canonicals and GPete, the same basic core of two MM and Mary the mother are constant.
kirby
Of course, in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Peter, the guards are the first to discover the empty tomb.
Meta:
they are not the first discover it after he's gone, they were part of the orignal emptying. so they already knew, they weren't discovering it.
but the piont is he women and the empty tomb. Peter is so good at knitt picking he loses sight of the spirit of the argumetn competely.
kirby
11) This was in Jerusalem.
At first I thought that this one was unassailable, but by chance I crossed a reference that could show the contrary. Revelation 11:8 says, "Their corpses will lie in the main street of the great city, which has the symbolic names 'Sodom' and 'Egypt,' where indeed their Lord was crucified." The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 2, p. 481, states: "the great city: This expression is constantly used in the Apocalypse for Bablyon, i.e., Rome (14:8; 16:19; 17:5,18; 18:2,10,21), and it is difficult, in spite of the following characteristics, to see Jerusalem in this passage." As the "following chracteristics," the JBC refers solely to "where their Lord was crucified: Some commentators consider this detail a gloss, and although it seems to clinch the argument that the 'great city' is Jerusalem, such an interpretation would contradict the beginning of the verse. The most acceptable of many different interpretations is the one that universalizes the entire passage. Both Rome and Jerusalem furnish details that John applies to the terrestrial city of evil, i.e., the pagan world inimical to God and his people. This city is eager to annihilate the Church; it continues to crucify Christ in his faithful." Of course, the only necessity for such a universalizing interpretation is the axiom that the Lord was crucified in Jerusalem and not Rome. If this axiom is removed from our system of thought, the conclusion is permitted that Revelation speaks of the Lord being crucified in the 'great city' that is the object of its attacks throughout the document, namely Rome. Although I have argued against the identification, perhaps it is right to think of the Jews in Rome acting up under Claudius, as Suetonius reports, at the instigation of Christ!
Meta:
I dont' know of any case where Egypt stands for Rome. Babylon stands for Rome. Revelation never uses Egypt for Rome But Babylon. So logically Egyt should be soemthing else, but to identiy if as the city where he was crucified assuems they would have know to begin with, that is' the tag to show what city is meant, not vice versa. So it should be clear that it's the commonly accept place.
kirby
Although others are free to draw their own conclusions, I have not catalogued these variant stories about Jesus in order to form an argument against the historicity of Jesus. I am responding to a positive argument for the historicity of Jesus, specifically that a non-historical Jesus would have resulted in multiple versions of the Jesus story. Although what it would mean for there to be multiple versions was not defined in a general way, the specific claim was made that no ancient account goes against eleven points enumerated of the Jesus story.
Meta:
Here Kirby is being more "greasy" as we used to in debate, than I've seen him. He's jsut reversing the common sense order of importance. First of all he's wrong in saing that I don't specify what it means to have multiple versions becasue I do so exaclty. What I do not do is get legalstic about times like noon or passover or the time of birth or whatever. When I say crucified around passover I mean no story has jesus being killed in June, it may be before or after or during passover by two or three days. that's unimportant. I find that Peter's arguments on this kind of picky nature the whole way through.
kirby
Even though this list was specifically designed to avoid contrary stories, there are still traditions that vary on these very points.
Meta:
Ive always had a lot respect for kirby. I'm sorry to see him fuding like this. No, I'm afriad not! You have not presetned a single tradition. Prapagandisttic refutaions are not traditions in the sense of tramissing a story. You need to show more than one source that reiterates such a detail before you can claim it as a tradition. We might be able to argue for a tradition that Jesus was older, based upon Iraneus statement that he was 50 and some of the things you have said. But none of that changes the basic story line. that is the point of my arugment, not the picky detials, but the basic fact that there is one version of the story. You do nothing to change that.
kirby
If a list of major points were drawn up without attention to possible contradictions, we would have seen even more discrepancies, such as the matter of whether the Temple cleansing occurred at the very start or near the end of Jesus' ministry. And, naturally, there is the unproven premise that a non-factual story will always have wildly variant versions (which could be disproven if a definition of "multiple versions" were provided). No evidence for the historical Jesus is found in this argument.
Meta:
YOu see what he's saying? "if we the list were drawn up with more details we would find more discrpencies." He's into the details. I am not into detials. i don't think the details proove the argument. What proves the argument is the overall sturcutre of the story.
Good Jewish boy from hinkerlands things the Messiah, works miracles, get's crucified raises form the dead. I did notice that a bunch of the details are always consistant like His girls friend is always Mary Magdelin. His side kick is always Peter. But be that as it may, my argument does not turn on the silly details such as was it on Passover or the day before passover.
the simple fact of the matter is, there are no other versions of the story. There is one Jesus story. People paly with it, the refute it, they revile it, they deify it, but no one every offers another one. If it was myth they would, becasue they always do. Its' only when the events are facts and no one can denty them that a story takes on a rock solid structure.
Kriby does' nothing to change that fact!
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Problem of identity in god Arguments
This is a discussion for my message board, between myself and Tiny Thinker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)Transendental Signifier (TS):
The signification mark (word) which refurs to the top of metphysical hieararchy; the organizing principle which makes sense of all sense data and groups it into a meaningful and coherent whole, through which meaning can be understood.The corrolary, the thing the Transcendental Signifier signifies, is the "Trnascendental Signified (designated as TSed)"
(2) Signifier:
The term used of writtern words in the linguistic theories know as "structurailsm" and in the theories of French Linguist Ferdenand Sassure. A signifer is a "marK," that is writting, which designates a concept forming a word, that which points to an object as the thing that it is and no other. ie, a phsyical tree is the signified, the object of the signifier "t-r-e-e."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary Observations:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Any rational, coherent and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose an oranizing principle which makes sense of the universe and explains the hierarchy of conceptualization.
(2) Organizing principles are summed up in a single first principle which grounds any sort of metaphysical hierarchy, the Transcendental Signifier (TS)
(3) It is impossible to do without a Trancendental Signifyer, all attempts to do so have ended in the re-establishment of a new TS. This is because we caannot organize the universe without a princinple of organizing.
(4)TS functions Uniquely as Top of The Metaphysical Heirarchy.It's function is mutually exclusive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P1) TS's function is mutually exclusive, no other principle can superceed that of the TS since it alone grounds all principles and bestows meaning through orgnaization of concepts.
P2)We have no choice but to assume the relaity of some form of TSed since we cannot function coherently without a TS
P3) We have no choice but to assume the reality of some form of TSed since the universe does seem to fall into line with the meaning we bestow upon it.
P4) The logical conclusion would be that There must be a TSed which actually creates and organizes the Universe.
P5) The sifnifier "God" is one version of the TS, that is to say, God functions in the divine ecnomy exacly as the TS functions in a metaphysical hierarchy.
P6) Since "God" is a version of the TS, and since TS and God concept share a unique function which should be mutually exclusive, the logical conculusion is that: God and TS share identity.ie "God" concept is descrition of the Transcendental Signified.
P7)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Singified, and thus is an actual reality.
rational warrent for belief in God's existence, QED..
MetacrockSense of the Numinous.
Edited by: Metacrock at: 3/15/05 7:55 am
Tiny Thinker
Namo Buddha
Posts: 893
(3/15/05 9:03 pm)
67.165.91.10
Reply | Edit | Del
ezSupporter
Re: Re-written version of TS argument
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except that, again, going from T4 to T5 is wishful thinking. It may or may not be true, but there is no necessity for going from the first set of statements to the next. It's nice to show that "God" and "TS" aren't incompatible, but there is no reason given why the two must (or even should) be equated.
"When you help others, you can't help helping yourself."
--from the broadway musical Avenue Q
Metacrock
ezOP
Posts: 1410
(3/16/05 5:59 am)
205.188.116.6
Reply | Edit | Del
ezSupporter
Re: Re-written version of TS argument
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
obviously they should be equated because they function the same in their respective economies and becasue they mutuatlly exclusive. that is, no other thing can be the TS bu thte TS, and no other thing can be God but God, yet they seem to do the same things. So the lgoical conclusion would be that they are the same
Is that so God damn stupid that that Davidson mother @#%$ was justified in his lies?.
MetacrockSense of the Numinous.
Tiny Thinker
Namo Buddha
Posts: 894
(3/16/05 2:07 pm)
67.165.91.10
Reply | Edit | Del
ezSupporter
Re: Re-written version of TS argument
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
obviously they should be equated because they function the same in their respective economies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so. Zurbzug tastes like strawberries. Strawberries taste like strawberries. Zurbzug must therefore be equated with strawberries and since we have an argument for the existence of strawberries we have an argument for the existence of Zurbzug. I say again, God just appears out of nowhere in the argument defined in a way that makes God similar to the TS, but why accept you notion of God or the divine economy in the *first* place. Arguing for the similarity or equivalence of a model of God and the TS does not make that model of God real, just similar to the TS. If, on the other hand, you want to claim that God is just a name for the TS, then you are starting only with the fundamental or essential definition/properties of the TS and *still* need additional arguments for extra-definitional features which distinguish your model of God.
"When you help others, you can't help helping yourself."
--from the broadway musical Avenue Q
Metacrock
ezOP
Posts: 1415
(3/17/05 2:28 pm)
152.163.100.6
Reply | Edit | Del
ezSupporter
Re: Re-written version of TS argument
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so. Zurbzug tastes like strawberries. Strawberries taste like strawberries. Zurbzug must therefore be equated with strawberries and since we have an argument for the existence of strawberries we have an argument for the existence of Zurbzug.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Where could get this Zurbzug? Sounds interesting. Are they natural? do they grow on trees? are they berries? Is it a man-made substance?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I say again, God just appears out of nowhere in the argument defined in a way that makes God similar to the TS, but why accept you notion of God or the divine economy in the *first* place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
god doesn't appear out of Nowhere. its' called "a God argument." So you know from the outset the reason I"m giving it. God arguments don't have to be little scinetific experinces, we are observing something emprically, will it turn out to be this or that? No it's a construct, it's desiged in the mind to reflect a certain reality and demosntrate its' truth. So you know up front God is going to figure into it.
God's function in the divine economy is a de*****ion of the God concept. That seem pretty obtuse to expect that there has to be empirical being to observe or you can't theorize a contrsuct of such a being and compare it to reality to see if anything is really like that.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguing for the similarity or equivalence of a model of God and the TS does not make that model of God real, just similar to the TS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well sure, but if the points of similarity are exclusive... I mean for example if I say "Batman is a guy who wears a bat-like costum, uses amazing little gadgets and goes around finding and beatign criminals" the I find a guy doing that, can I not call him Batman? I mean he's not the guy in the comic books. Mabye he's not Bruce Wayne and there's no Gothom city, and even if there is, it's not identically the one in the comic books, its' the one in real life. But it's still close enough, what are the odds that anyone else would do that? Couldn't I say "this is the real life batman?"
S0 why can't we supposse that the guys int he Bible and I experinced the same reality that we both "God." when it's mutally exclusive and nothing else could be like it?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If, on the other hand, you want to claim that God is just a name for the TS, then you are starting only with the fundamental or essential definition/properties of the TS and *still* need additional arguments for extra-definitional features which distinguish your model of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmmmm ok so what if I say "there is an x such that X is the object of my ultimate concenrs, and this a propery object of my religous devotion?" Then can't I say there is a "a god" since I have an object of religious devotion and that's essentailly what God is?
dont forget I"m assumming there's this mutually excluive quailty, such that no two things could share these qualities, thus anything that fits the de*****ion is pretty much it.
MetacrockSense of the Numinous.
Metacrock
ezOP
Posts: 1416
(3/17/05 2:34 pm)
152.163.101.10
Reply | Edit | Del
ezSupporter
Re: Re-written version of TS argument
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this may be a better example.
Clark Kent is known to exist. sueprman is rumored to exist. Certain things have happened in Metropolis of late, sotries of a strong man in a red cape flying over the city, fantastic accounts of this caped-man of steel rescuing innocent people from trains and things, but no one really knows for sure if thse stories are true.
a new development, someone brought in an object that this 'Superman' (as he is now doubed) has touched. The finger prints off that object were accidently compared to those of reproter Clark Kent, and it turns out that they are identical. But how can that be? That would mean that kent has to be this Superman, but how can he be? Superman doesnt' exist!
Anyway, others have ponited out that kent looks exactly like superman, but we can dismiss that out of hand since he wears glasses and the other doesn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)Transendental Signifier (TS):
The signification mark (word) which refurs to the top of metphysical hieararchy; the organizing principle which makes sense of all sense data and groups it into a meaningful and coherent whole, through which meaning can be understood.The corrolary, the thing the Transcendental Signifier signifies, is the "Trnascendental Signified (designated as TSed)"
(2) Signifier:
The term used of writtern words in the linguistic theories know as "structurailsm" and in the theories of French Linguist Ferdenand Sassure. A signifer is a "marK," that is writting, which designates a concept forming a word, that which points to an object as the thing that it is and no other. ie, a phsyical tree is the signified, the object of the signifier "t-r-e-e."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary Observations:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Any rational, coherent and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose an oranizing principle which makes sense of the universe and explains the hierarchy of conceptualization.
(2) Organizing principles are summed up in a single first principle which grounds any sort of metaphysical hierarchy, the Transcendental Signifier (TS)
(3) It is impossible to do without a Trancendental Signifyer, all attempts to do so have ended in the re-establishment of a new TS. This is because we caannot organize the universe without a princinple of organizing.
(4)TS functions Uniquely as Top of The Metaphysical Heirarchy.It's function is mutually exclusive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P1) TS's function is mutually exclusive, no other principle can superceed that of the TS since it alone grounds all principles and bestows meaning through orgnaization of concepts.
P2)We have no choice but to assume the relaity of some form of TSed since we cannot function coherently without a TS
P3) We have no choice but to assume the reality of some form of TSed since the universe does seem to fall into line with the meaning we bestow upon it.
P4) The logical conclusion would be that There must be a TSed which actually creates and organizes the Universe.
P5) The sifnifier "God" is one version of the TS, that is to say, God functions in the divine ecnomy exacly as the TS functions in a metaphysical hierarchy.
P6) Since "God" is a version of the TS, and since TS and God concept share a unique function which should be mutually exclusive, the logical conculusion is that: God and TS share identity.ie "God" concept is descrition of the Transcendental Signified.
P7)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Singified, and thus is an actual reality.
rational warrent for belief in God's existence, QED..
MetacrockSense of the Numinous.
Edited by: Metacrock at: 3/15/05 7:55 am
Tiny Thinker
Namo Buddha
Posts: 893
(3/15/05 9:03 pm)
67.165.91.10
Reply | Edit | Del
ezSupporter
Re: Re-written version of TS argument
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except that, again, going from T4 to T5 is wishful thinking. It may or may not be true, but there is no necessity for going from the first set of statements to the next. It's nice to show that "God" and "TS" aren't incompatible, but there is no reason given why the two must (or even should) be equated.
"When you help others, you can't help helping yourself."
--from the broadway musical Avenue Q
Metacrock
ezOP
Posts: 1410
(3/16/05 5:59 am)
205.188.116.6
Reply | Edit | Del
ezSupporter
Re: Re-written version of TS argument
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
obviously they should be equated because they function the same in their respective economies and becasue they mutuatlly exclusive. that is, no other thing can be the TS bu thte TS, and no other thing can be God but God, yet they seem to do the same things. So the lgoical conclusion would be that they are the same
Is that so God damn stupid that that Davidson mother @#%$ was justified in his lies?.
MetacrockSense of the Numinous.
Tiny Thinker
Namo Buddha
Posts: 894
(3/16/05 2:07 pm)
67.165.91.10
Reply | Edit | Del
ezSupporter
Re: Re-written version of TS argument
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
obviously they should be equated because they function the same in their respective economies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so. Zurbzug tastes like strawberries. Strawberries taste like strawberries. Zurbzug must therefore be equated with strawberries and since we have an argument for the existence of strawberries we have an argument for the existence of Zurbzug. I say again, God just appears out of nowhere in the argument defined in a way that makes God similar to the TS, but why accept you notion of God or the divine economy in the *first* place. Arguing for the similarity or equivalence of a model of God and the TS does not make that model of God real, just similar to the TS. If, on the other hand, you want to claim that God is just a name for the TS, then you are starting only with the fundamental or essential definition/properties of the TS and *still* need additional arguments for extra-definitional features which distinguish your model of God.
"When you help others, you can't help helping yourself."
--from the broadway musical Avenue Q
Metacrock
ezOP
Posts: 1415
(3/17/05 2:28 pm)
152.163.100.6
Reply | Edit | Del
ezSupporter
Re: Re-written version of TS argument
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so. Zurbzug tastes like strawberries. Strawberries taste like strawberries. Zurbzug must therefore be equated with strawberries and since we have an argument for the existence of strawberries we have an argument for the existence of Zurbzug.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Where could get this Zurbzug? Sounds interesting. Are they natural? do they grow on trees? are they berries? Is it a man-made substance?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I say again, God just appears out of nowhere in the argument defined in a way that makes God similar to the TS, but why accept you notion of God or the divine economy in the *first* place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
god doesn't appear out of Nowhere. its' called "a God argument." So you know from the outset the reason I"m giving it. God arguments don't have to be little scinetific experinces, we are observing something emprically, will it turn out to be this or that? No it's a construct, it's desiged in the mind to reflect a certain reality and demosntrate its' truth. So you know up front God is going to figure into it.
God's function in the divine economy is a de*****ion of the God concept. That seem pretty obtuse to expect that there has to be empirical being to observe or you can't theorize a contrsuct of such a being and compare it to reality to see if anything is really like that.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguing for the similarity or equivalence of a model of God and the TS does not make that model of God real, just similar to the TS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well sure, but if the points of similarity are exclusive... I mean for example if I say "Batman is a guy who wears a bat-like costum, uses amazing little gadgets and goes around finding and beatign criminals" the I find a guy doing that, can I not call him Batman? I mean he's not the guy in the comic books. Mabye he's not Bruce Wayne and there's no Gothom city, and even if there is, it's not identically the one in the comic books, its' the one in real life. But it's still close enough, what are the odds that anyone else would do that? Couldn't I say "this is the real life batman?"
S0 why can't we supposse that the guys int he Bible and I experinced the same reality that we both "God." when it's mutally exclusive and nothing else could be like it?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If, on the other hand, you want to claim that God is just a name for the TS, then you are starting only with the fundamental or essential definition/properties of the TS and *still* need additional arguments for extra-definitional features which distinguish your model of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmmmm ok so what if I say "there is an x such that X is the object of my ultimate concenrs, and this a propery object of my religous devotion?" Then can't I say there is a "a god" since I have an object of religious devotion and that's essentailly what God is?
dont forget I"m assumming there's this mutually excluive quailty, such that no two things could share these qualities, thus anything that fits the de*****ion is pretty much it.
MetacrockSense of the Numinous.
Metacrock
ezOP
Posts: 1416
(3/17/05 2:34 pm)
152.163.101.10
Reply | Edit | Del
ezSupporter
Re: Re-written version of TS argument
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this may be a better example.
Clark Kent is known to exist. sueprman is rumored to exist. Certain things have happened in Metropolis of late, sotries of a strong man in a red cape flying over the city, fantastic accounts of this caped-man of steel rescuing innocent people from trains and things, but no one really knows for sure if thse stories are true.
a new development, someone brought in an object that this 'Superman' (as he is now doubed) has touched. The finger prints off that object were accidently compared to those of reproter Clark Kent, and it turns out that they are identical. But how can that be? That would mean that kent has to be this Superman, but how can he be? Superman doesnt' exist!
Anyway, others have ponited out that kent looks exactly like superman, but we can dismiss that out of hand since he wears glasses and the other doesn't.
Transendental Siginifer Argument
Definitions:
(1)Transendental Signifier (TS):
The signification mark (word) which refurs to the top of metphysical hieararchy; the organizing principle which makes sense of all sense data and groups it into a meaningful and coherent whole, through which meaning can be understood.The corrolary, the thing the Transcendental Signifier signifies, is the "Trnascendental Signified (designated as TSed)"
(2) Signifier:
The term used of writtern words in the linguistic theories know as "structurailsm" and in the theories of French Linguist Ferdenand Sassure. A signifer is a "marK," that is writting, which designates a concept forming a word, that which points to an object as the thing that it is and no other. ie, a phsyical tree is the signified, the object of the signifier "t-r-e-e."
_______________________
Preliminary Observations:
(1) Any rational, coherent and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose an oranizing principle which makes sense of the universe and explains the hierarchy of conceptualization.
(2) Organizing principles are summed up in a single first principle which grounds any sort of metaphysical hierarchy, the Transcendental Signifier (TS)
(3) It is impossible to do without a Trancendental Signifyer, all attempts to do so have ended in the re-establishment of a new TS. This is because we caannot organize the universe without a princinple of organizing.
(4)TS functions Uniquely as Top of The Metaphysical Heirarchy.It's function is mutually exclusive.
__________________
Argument:
__________________
P1) TS's function is mutually exclusive, no other principle can superceed that of the TS since it alone grounds all principles and bestows meaning through orgnaization of concepts.
P2)We have no choice but to assume the relaity of some form of TSed since we cannot function coherently without a TSP
3) We have no choice but to assume the reality of some form of TSed since the universe does seem to fall into line with the meaning we bestow upon it.
P4) The logical conclusion would be that There must be a TSed which actually creates and organizes the Universe.
P5) The sifnifier "God" is one version of the TS, that is to say, God functions in the divine ecnomy exacly as the TS functions in a metaphysical hierarchy.
P6) Since "God" is a version of the TS, and since TS and God concept share a unique function which should be mutually exclusive, the logical conculusion is that: God and TS share identity.ie "God" concept is descrition of the Transcendental Signified.
P7)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Singified, and thus is an actual reality.rational warrent for belief in God's existence, QED.. ____________________
______________________________________
It was my hope that this argument would suffice as a Postmodern update of the Ontological argument. I wont go into all the reason why I consider it to be an ontological argument. My only concern here is, do I have a decent idea here, or has it been so long since I studied Derrida that I've forgotten everything?
Like most of my arguments in recent years it turns on the notion of identity, linking God to some aspect of reality that we know or must agree exists, and then demonstrating mutual identity in a manner that is mutually execlusive; such that to share quality x is to share identity. But since we don't have an already proven God to compare it to, I'm comparing a god concept to this quality. I feel like that will get me in trouble. It must be the violation of some formal fallacy or other, but it seems logical and I've thought about it from any stand points. In that sense it's like saying X fits the discrition of Y so X must be Y. Yet, that is not necessarily a valid concusion, the mediating point is; if and only if the qualiteis of the description are mutually exclusive.
I'll take up more about this after lunch.
(1)Transendental Signifier (TS):
The signification mark (word) which refurs to the top of metphysical hieararchy; the organizing principle which makes sense of all sense data and groups it into a meaningful and coherent whole, through which meaning can be understood.The corrolary, the thing the Transcendental Signifier signifies, is the "Trnascendental Signified (designated as TSed)"
(2) Signifier:
The term used of writtern words in the linguistic theories know as "structurailsm" and in the theories of French Linguist Ferdenand Sassure. A signifer is a "marK," that is writting, which designates a concept forming a word, that which points to an object as the thing that it is and no other. ie, a phsyical tree is the signified, the object of the signifier "t-r-e-e."
_______________________
Preliminary Observations:
_____________________
(1) Any rational, coherent and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose an oranizing principle which makes sense of the universe and explains the hierarchy of conceptualization.
(2) Organizing principles are summed up in a single first principle which grounds any sort of metaphysical hierarchy, the Transcendental Signifier (TS)
(3) It is impossible to do without a Trancendental Signifyer, all attempts to do so have ended in the re-establishment of a new TS. This is because we caannot organize the universe without a princinple of organizing.
(4)TS functions Uniquely as Top of The Metaphysical Heirarchy.It's function is mutually exclusive.
__________________
Argument:
__________________
P1) TS's function is mutually exclusive, no other principle can superceed that of the TS since it alone grounds all principles and bestows meaning through orgnaization of concepts.
P2)We have no choice but to assume the relaity of some form of TSed since we cannot function coherently without a TSP
3) We have no choice but to assume the reality of some form of TSed since the universe does seem to fall into line with the meaning we bestow upon it.
P4) The logical conclusion would be that There must be a TSed which actually creates and organizes the Universe.
P5) The sifnifier "God" is one version of the TS, that is to say, God functions in the divine ecnomy exacly as the TS functions in a metaphysical hierarchy.
P6) Since "God" is a version of the TS, and since TS and God concept share a unique function which should be mutually exclusive, the logical conculusion is that: God and TS share identity.ie "God" concept is descrition of the Transcendental Signified.
P7)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Singified, and thus is an actual reality.rational warrent for belief in God's existence, QED.. ____________________
______________________________________
It was my hope that this argument would suffice as a Postmodern update of the Ontological argument. I wont go into all the reason why I consider it to be an ontological argument. My only concern here is, do I have a decent idea here, or has it been so long since I studied Derrida that I've forgotten everything?
Like most of my arguments in recent years it turns on the notion of identity, linking God to some aspect of reality that we know or must agree exists, and then demonstrating mutual identity in a manner that is mutually execlusive; such that to share quality x is to share identity. But since we don't have an already proven God to compare it to, I'm comparing a god concept to this quality. I feel like that will get me in trouble. It must be the violation of some formal fallacy or other, but it seems logical and I've thought about it from any stand points. In that sense it's like saying X fits the discrition of Y so X must be Y. Yet, that is not necessarily a valid concusion, the mediating point is; if and only if the qualiteis of the description are mutually exclusive.
I'll take up more about this after lunch.
Transendental Siginifer Argument
Definitions
(1)Transendental Signifier (TS):
The signification mark (word) which refurs to the top of metphysical hieararchy; the organizing principle which makes sense of all sense data and groups it into a meaningful and coherent whole, through which meaning can be understood.The corrolary, the thing the Transcendental Signifier signifies, is the "Trnascendental Signified (designated as TSed)"
(2) Signifier:
The term used of writtern words in the linguistic theories know as "structurailsm" and in the theories of French Linguist Ferdenand Sassure. A signifer is a "marK," that is writting, which designates a concept forming a word, that which points to an object as the thing that it is and no other. ie, a phsyical tree is the signified, the object of the signifier "t-r-e-e."
Preliminary Observations:
(1) Any rational, coherent and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose an oranizing principle which makes sense of the universe and explains the hierarchy of conceptualization.
(2) Organizing principles are summed up in a single first principle which grounds any sort of metaphysical hierarchy, the Transcendental Signifier (TS)
(3) It is impossible to do without a Trancendental Signifyer, all attempts to do so have ended in the re-establishment of a new TS. This is because we caannot organize the universe without a princinple of organizing.
(4)TS functions Uniquely as Top of The Metaphysical Heirarchy.It's function is mutually exclusive.
Argument:
P1) TS's function is mutually exclusive, no other principle can superceed that of the TS since it alone grounds all principles and bestows meaning through orgnaization of concepts.
P2)We have no choice but to assume the relaity of some form of TSed since we cannot function coherently without a TSP
3) We have no choice but to assume the reality of some form of TSed since the universe does seem to fall into line with the meaning we bestow upon it.
P4) The logical conclusion would be that There must be a TSed which actually creates and organizes the Universe.
P5) The sifnifier "God" is one version of the TS, that is to say, God functions in the divine ecnomy exacly as the TS functions in a metaphysical hierarchy.
P6) Since "God" is a version of the TS, and since TS and God concept share a unique function which should be mutually exclusive, the logical conculusion is that: God and TS share identity.ie "God" concept is descrition of the Transcendental Signified.
P7)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Singified, and thus is an actual reality.rational warrent for belief in God's existence, QED..
It was my hope that this argument would suffice as a Postmodern update of the Ontological argument. I wont go into all the reason why I consider it to be an ontological argument. My only concern here is, do I have a decent idea here, or has it been so long since I studied Derrida that I've forgotten everything?
Like most of my arguments in recent years it turns on the notion of identity, linking God to some aspect of reality that we know or must agree exists, and then demonstrating mutual identity in a manner that is mutually execlusive; such that to share quality x is to share identity. But since we don't have an already proven God to compare it to, I'm comparing a god concept to this quality. I feel like that will get me in trouble. It must be the violation of some formal fallacy or other, but it seems logical and I've thought about it from any stand points. In that sense it's like saying X fits the discrition of Y so X must be Y. Yet, that is not necessarily a valid concusion, the mediating point is; if and only if the qualiteis of the description are mutually exclusive.
I'll take up more about this after lunch.
(1)Transendental Signifier (TS):
The signification mark (word) which refurs to the top of metphysical hieararchy; the organizing principle which makes sense of all sense data and groups it into a meaningful and coherent whole, through which meaning can be understood.The corrolary, the thing the Transcendental Signifier signifies, is the "Trnascendental Signified (designated as TSed)"
(2) Signifier:
The term used of writtern words in the linguistic theories know as "structurailsm" and in the theories of French Linguist Ferdenand Sassure. A signifer is a "marK," that is writting, which designates a concept forming a word, that which points to an object as the thing that it is and no other. ie, a phsyical tree is the signified, the object of the signifier "t-r-e-e."
Preliminary Observations:
(1) Any rational, coherent and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose an oranizing principle which makes sense of the universe and explains the hierarchy of conceptualization.
(2) Organizing principles are summed up in a single first principle which grounds any sort of metaphysical hierarchy, the Transcendental Signifier (TS)
(3) It is impossible to do without a Trancendental Signifyer, all attempts to do so have ended in the re-establishment of a new TS. This is because we caannot organize the universe without a princinple of organizing.
(4)TS functions Uniquely as Top of The Metaphysical Heirarchy.It's function is mutually exclusive.
Argument:
P1) TS's function is mutually exclusive, no other principle can superceed that of the TS since it alone grounds all principles and bestows meaning through orgnaization of concepts.
P2)We have no choice but to assume the relaity of some form of TSed since we cannot function coherently without a TSP
3) We have no choice but to assume the reality of some form of TSed since the universe does seem to fall into line with the meaning we bestow upon it.
P4) The logical conclusion would be that There must be a TSed which actually creates and organizes the Universe.
P5) The sifnifier "God" is one version of the TS, that is to say, God functions in the divine ecnomy exacly as the TS functions in a metaphysical hierarchy.
P6) Since "God" is a version of the TS, and since TS and God concept share a unique function which should be mutually exclusive, the logical conculusion is that: God and TS share identity.ie "God" concept is descrition of the Transcendental Signified.
P7)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Singified, and thus is an actual reality.rational warrent for belief in God's existence, QED..
It was my hope that this argument would suffice as a Postmodern update of the Ontological argument. I wont go into all the reason why I consider it to be an ontological argument. My only concern here is, do I have a decent idea here, or has it been so long since I studied Derrida that I've forgotten everything?
Like most of my arguments in recent years it turns on the notion of identity, linking God to some aspect of reality that we know or must agree exists, and then demonstrating mutual identity in a manner that is mutually execlusive; such that to share quality x is to share identity. But since we don't have an already proven God to compare it to, I'm comparing a god concept to this quality. I feel like that will get me in trouble. It must be the violation of some formal fallacy or other, but it seems logical and I've thought about it from any stand points. In that sense it's like saying X fits the discrition of Y so X must be Y. Yet, that is not necessarily a valid concusion, the mediating point is; if and only if the qualiteis of the description are mutually exclusive.
I'll take up more about this after lunch.
Introduction to God Arguments
The taditional arguments for the existence of God, having supposedly been dashed by Kant and Hume, were ignored for almost two centuries. Since the 1960s, however, a whole new breed of intrepid philosophers (the "back to God movement") has been working steadily to revive the arguments. This revitalization of God talk presents a whole new dynamic with which the atheist must deal. Some of these arguments, and more besides, are presented in the following pages. Below I present my own view of God, which is greatly influenced by the work of Theologian Paul Tillich.It was theologian Karl Barth, who kicked off the back to God movment when realized that Anselm actually had several more versions of his famous argument, whith which Hume, Kant, and Russell never dealt.
It Norman Malcom who first realized that Barth's work could revive the arguments, and he soon shocked the philosophical world in the 1960s.He took up Barth's observatoins on Anslem and presented them as serious philosphical arguments.That a philosopher of Malchom's status would revive the ontolgoical argument, lent prestige to the cause, and he was soon joined by the late Charles Hartshorne..They argue for a rational warrant for belief in a creator who is necessary to the existence of the universe and all that is. But to demonstrate which particular religious tradition we should follow is another argument (see page on Gospel). Nor do they offer absolute proof of a creator, but they do offer rational warrant for belief which is strong enough to offer a prmia facie Justification.
Moreover, one concept in particular is important to understand in order to understand these arguments. That is the idea that God is not just a big man on a throne. The great theologians of Christian faith, the Orthodox Church, and theologians such as Paul Tillich, John Mcquarry, believe, as Timothy Ware (The Orthodox Church , New York: Pelican, 1963) quoting St. John of Damascus says, "God does not belong to the class of 'existing' things; not that he has no existence but that he is above existing things, even abvoe existence itself..." McQuarry says that God is Being itself, while Tillich says God is "The ground of being." These are actually the same concepts. The important thing to remember is that God is not along side other beings in creation, is not a being at all, but is on the order of being itself.
God is the overarching principle that defines and predicates the universe and in fact of being as a whole. If you consider what it was like before God created anything. There would be nothing else but God. God, therefore, would be the same as being because all being would be defined as God. The only being that ever came to be flowed out of the will and the energies of God, therefore, God is beyond the chain of cause and effect, God is on a par with being itself.Foolish demandsMany skeptics, including Christian Sketpics, are skeptical about the very possibility of proving the existence of God. In fact, Paul Tillich thought that it was degrading to the notion of God to try and prove his existence at all.
Others think that only empirical knolwedge can be trusted. While I always ask them, can even empirical knowledge be trusted? I also feel that the real crux of the issue is not "absolute proof," but the nature of the assumptions that should bemade. If these arguments do not offer the sort of proof to which any rational thinking person must give asscent, they at least offer a rational warrant for belief, and they indicate that the assumptions we should be making are those that we can make in the most logical fashion. Belief meets the prima facie burden when it offers a rational warrant, it than becomes the skeptic's job to show that the burden has not been met. It is hoped that these arguments will provide the reader with information that will provoke thought about God, if not actual belief.
Foolish Demands
It is foolish of atheists to make the demand that we "prove the existence of God." First, because the idea of God existing is a philosophical violation of what the Christian faith actually affirms about God, at least what major theologians such as Tillich affirmed, and about the nature of reality itself.
Secondly, God transcends the contignet level, we should not expect to be able to prove God as though God is some sort of 'thing' along side other things in creation.My View of God What is my view of God? I beleive that God is ultimate reality, and the ultiamte mystery. I agree with the Greek Orthodox theologians who said that God cannot be described directly, but must be spoken apophatically (we can't say what God is, we can only say what God is not). We can have direct experience of God, but this must come through mystical experince and cannot be put into words (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Chruch. To speak of these expeirnces one must speak through analogy, which contians both a like and not-like dimesion. God is like a father, but in some ways not like a father. God is like a king, but in some ways not like a King. On the other hand, logical argument is made possible by a direct understanding of the affects of God upon the world, which come to us through the energies of God, which are working in the world. The energies of God are God, they are emmenations, or extentions of God's power, God's thoughts so to speak.So for me God is a mystery which transcends the threashold of human understanding.
All we can have is a hint, but through experience and logic we can have some pretty good hints. Yet, God himself blows away all our pre-concieved notions and our nice little formulas about what can be and what is. To that extent then, God is above and beyond any sort of empirical proof and this is why we can't expect some sort of incontrovertable proof. The best we do is to offer rational reasons to beleive, but we cannot expect these to do that much. Basically all they can do is to open the skeptic to the possibilities, that is all we can ask. They might also bolster the faith of the beleiver, but both things are wastes of time if they are not followed up with prayer and contempalation and seeking through the heart for the trace of God in the universe.
The Prima Facie Standard
Mattey (Thomas Reid Project):
Why not argue for the Christian God?
Certainly I believe in the God of the Christian tradition. But I also believe that God is an a priori concept. In other words, God is ultimate reality, known treuly though mystical concsciousness. Religion is a cultural construct created by the necessity of filtering mystical experinces though shared symbols that we understand. This is the only way to speak of a reality that is beyond words. Thus, it is the same "ultiate relaity" that inspired all religions. The only difference is, that one tradition is an outgrowth of the teachings of Jesus Christ, who was this ultiamte reality come in the flesh to communicate directly about his nature. But to prove that, or to argue for that tradition one must assume the existence of God. Thus I first prove God, than I show which tradition best mediates the ultimate transformative expreince. That is what the rest of the Website is for.Two more crucial concepts must be discussed before the arguments can be understood correctly. Note: If you do not read these next ttwo pages you will miss crucial concepts which will enable you to understand the arguments, and you will not understand the assumptions they make.:
Meta
It Norman Malcom who first realized that Barth's work could revive the arguments, and he soon shocked the philosophical world in the 1960s.He took up Barth's observatoins on Anslem and presented them as serious philosphical arguments.That a philosopher of Malchom's status would revive the ontolgoical argument, lent prestige to the cause, and he was soon joined by the late Charles Hartshorne..They argue for a rational warrant for belief in a creator who is necessary to the existence of the universe and all that is. But to demonstrate which particular religious tradition we should follow is another argument (see page on Gospel). Nor do they offer absolute proof of a creator, but they do offer rational warrant for belief which is strong enough to offer a prmia facie Justification.
Moreover, one concept in particular is important to understand in order to understand these arguments. That is the idea that God is not just a big man on a throne. The great theologians of Christian faith, the Orthodox Church, and theologians such as Paul Tillich, John Mcquarry, believe, as Timothy Ware (The Orthodox Church , New York: Pelican, 1963) quoting St. John of Damascus says, "God does not belong to the class of 'existing' things; not that he has no existence but that he is above existing things, even abvoe existence itself..." McQuarry says that God is Being itself, while Tillich says God is "The ground of being." These are actually the same concepts. The important thing to remember is that God is not along side other beings in creation, is not a being at all, but is on the order of being itself.
God is the overarching principle that defines and predicates the universe and in fact of being as a whole. If you consider what it was like before God created anything. There would be nothing else but God. God, therefore, would be the same as being because all being would be defined as God. The only being that ever came to be flowed out of the will and the energies of God, therefore, God is beyond the chain of cause and effect, God is on a par with being itself.Foolish demandsMany skeptics, including Christian Sketpics, are skeptical about the very possibility of proving the existence of God. In fact, Paul Tillich thought that it was degrading to the notion of God to try and prove his existence at all.
Others think that only empirical knolwedge can be trusted. While I always ask them, can even empirical knowledge be trusted? I also feel that the real crux of the issue is not "absolute proof," but the nature of the assumptions that should bemade. If these arguments do not offer the sort of proof to which any rational thinking person must give asscent, they at least offer a rational warrant for belief, and they indicate that the assumptions we should be making are those that we can make in the most logical fashion. Belief meets the prima facie burden when it offers a rational warrant, it than becomes the skeptic's job to show that the burden has not been met. It is hoped that these arguments will provide the reader with information that will provoke thought about God, if not actual belief.
Foolish Demands
It is foolish of atheists to make the demand that we "prove the existence of God." First, because the idea of God existing is a philosophical violation of what the Christian faith actually affirms about God, at least what major theologians such as Tillich affirmed, and about the nature of reality itself.
Secondly, God transcends the contignet level, we should not expect to be able to prove God as though God is some sort of 'thing' along side other things in creation.My View of God What is my view of God? I beleive that God is ultimate reality, and the ultiamte mystery. I agree with the Greek Orthodox theologians who said that God cannot be described directly, but must be spoken apophatically (we can't say what God is, we can only say what God is not). We can have direct experience of God, but this must come through mystical experince and cannot be put into words (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Chruch. To speak of these expeirnces one must speak through analogy, which contians both a like and not-like dimesion. God is like a father, but in some ways not like a father. God is like a king, but in some ways not like a King. On the other hand, logical argument is made possible by a direct understanding of the affects of God upon the world, which come to us through the energies of God, which are working in the world. The energies of God are God, they are emmenations, or extentions of God's power, God's thoughts so to speak.So for me God is a mystery which transcends the threashold of human understanding.
All we can have is a hint, but through experience and logic we can have some pretty good hints. Yet, God himself blows away all our pre-concieved notions and our nice little formulas about what can be and what is. To that extent then, God is above and beyond any sort of empirical proof and this is why we can't expect some sort of incontrovertable proof. The best we do is to offer rational reasons to beleive, but we cannot expect these to do that much. Basically all they can do is to open the skeptic to the possibilities, that is all we can ask. They might also bolster the faith of the beleiver, but both things are wastes of time if they are not followed up with prayer and contempalation and seeking through the heart for the trace of God in the universe.
The Prima Facie Standard
Mattey (Thomas Reid Project):
"Far from concluding that our senses are "fallacious," Reid placed them on the
same footing as memory and reason, though they are "undervalued" by philosophers
because "the informations of sense are common to the philosopher and to the most
illiterate. . . . Nature likewise forces our belief in those informations, and
all the attempts of philosophy to weaken it are fruitless and in vain.""Reid
pointed out that when we fall into error regarding the objects of sense, we
correct our errors "by more accurate attention to the informations we may
receive by our senses themselves." So the "original and natural judgments" that
are made on the basis of our constitution lose their original justification in
the presence of additional information. Contemporary philosophers call this kind
of justification "prima facie," a term from law which describes an initially
plausible case that could prove to be entirely implausible given further
evidence. A belief of common sense, then, is justified "on the face of
it.""According to the doctrine of prima facie justification, one is justified in
accepting that things are the way they appear, when* it does appear to one that
they are that way, and* there is no reason to think that something has gone
wrong.[Ibid]"But if there is such a reason, one's justification is "defeated."
Thus prima facie justification is "defeasible.""For Reid, our beliefs about
physical objects are justified by sense-experience, which he took to be a
product of the interaction between the senses and physical objects.
Twentieth-century philosophers have been somewhat more cautious, however, and
have followed more closely the account of perceptual knowledge given by Reid's
predecessors such as Descartes, Locke and Hume: that what justifies our beliefs
about physical objects is a mental state such as:* looking like something is
red* a sensation of red
* seeing red-ly"
"For example, what justifies a person in
believing that he sees something red is that it looks to him as though there is
something red. The mental state of that person is one in which there is an
appearance of red, and just being in this mental state is enough to give prima
facie justification to the belief that he really sees something red. On the
other hand, what confers justification might be a belief about how things
appear."
Why not argue for the Christian God?
Certainly I believe in the God of the Christian tradition. But I also believe that God is an a priori concept. In other words, God is ultimate reality, known treuly though mystical concsciousness. Religion is a cultural construct created by the necessity of filtering mystical experinces though shared symbols that we understand. This is the only way to speak of a reality that is beyond words. Thus, it is the same "ultiate relaity" that inspired all religions. The only difference is, that one tradition is an outgrowth of the teachings of Jesus Christ, who was this ultiamte reality come in the flesh to communicate directly about his nature. But to prove that, or to argue for that tradition one must assume the existence of God. Thus I first prove God, than I show which tradition best mediates the ultimate transformative expreince. That is what the rest of the Website is for.Two more crucial concepts must be discussed before the arguments can be understood correctly. Note: If you do not read these next ttwo pages you will miss crucial concepts which will enable you to understand the arguments, and you will not understand the assumptions they make.:
Meta