Greg Boyd on the Resurrection
- Thread starter The Pixie
- Start date
So please explain what religious supernatural claims stem from these narratives that survive as fact in a natural world.
But you don’t have any eye witnesses. You have assertions of eye witnesses by later authors that don’t claim to have ever met one.
Nope. Just one.
You still fail to understand the difference between history and religious narrative, even though you deny the same type of narrative for other religious material. Did Muhammad fly on the back of a winged horse? Is that history to you.
My side is your biblical narratives dubious supernatural claims like all other religions. That’s my side.
But I can meet a lottery winner.
There are no eyewitnesses. The authors of the accounts interviewed none.
We would be skeptical if they resurrected, or they flew on winged horses... sure... Is that their historic claim?
Literature meant to inspire spiritual faith and elicit emotional connections over reporting rote facts.
Religion can be placed in a historical context. Just be sure when you study its constituent parts you know the difference.
See above.They use it as history and many used it in archeology. They did not get your memo.
Harry Leggs
Super Member
John considered the last yet contains evidence of an early date in 5:2
Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool called Bethesda in Aramaic, which has five covered walkways. (John 5:2 NET)
Present tense which means existed at the time of the writings. This was all flattened and buried at the fall of Jerusalem in 70.
Last edited:
Don’t change the point. The point is you think an absence of some mention in Acts dictates something as follows,
"If Mark is 70 then Acts is later than 70 so why is the fall of Jerusalem not in Acts as history? Jesus predicted and here it is fulfilled. Why is it not there?"
So if your *historical* methodology of analyzing what is absent holds any meaning at all.... what does an absence of a report of a great visitation of the Magi in the court of Herod, the announcement of the long awaited Messiah in that same court, and a vast mass order of the killing of the children of age mean if it’s not found in the Antiquities - something with a purpose of recording actual historical events just like that? How do you square any of that if we are so stressed to sort out why the Fall of Jerusalem isn’t found in religious material after some date?
Again, I can meet the Powerball winner. He didn’t ascend to sit on the right hand side of the State Lottery commissioner. He’s available.
Last edited:
Dang.. And I thought the WWII News Reels before movies and the moon shot were actual events.
Did you watch the moon shot? Apollo 11?
this is a good video
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
Good for you, because they were. But before the advent of film, you accept nothing as history other than present tense reporting, right? How about that fraud Edward Gibbon? He wrote in past tense. And how can we really know, for example, what happened during the Civil War? We'll need to find some nineteenth century Geraldo Rivera, embedded in the Union or Confederate Army and read his reports, I guess.
Harry Leggs
Super Member
Where is you probability standard since you claim it is applied everywhere?
Read Acts two. 1 John 1. What we have seen what we have heard. Go ahead and falsify since it is your burden.
Up to you to falsify with evidence from that time period.
That is something you made up. It is obvious from the writings they are history writings. Prove otherwise if you believe they are fiction. I am not here to jump thru you subjective hoops you pulled from the nether regions and have no basis in historical investigation protocol.
I don't know. What secular historians do is usually glean them out and look for historicity. What is the compiled evidence for the event in question and does it match the Gospel evidence? I do not have an anti supernatural bias like you do. Never did, even as an unbeliever. Always thought witches had power of some sort because i knew them and seen some results. Knew one that put a spell on a guy and the guy could not leave her alone. Never knew why since the lady was plain and the guy was good looking and had a lot going for him. As is, she ruined him and left him in the slam. She could not get rid of him.
That is called bias since you do not know everything. And your bias is only selectively applied or you have no counter models on the table. None. It is like you want to play poker with no chips. That is not how it is done. You don't get to make up your own rules and expect others to comply.
It still invalidates your subjective probability standard and your claim it is applied everywhere.
Luke say otherwise. You do not falsify via ignorance and opinion. It is first century standards. Not ours or yours applied backwards in time. Which is anachronistic.
Don't know, is it? There is historical claims nonhuman angels mated with human females and produced giant offspring that survived thru the flood via one of the eight survivors of the flood. That tells us angels can mate with human females and can produce offspring. You do know all that is assumed in the New?
A woman should have a cover on her head because of the angles. 1 Cor. 11:10. First century Christians and 2nd temple Jews interpreted that verse as protection against angels who looked down on human females with possible desire. It was later reinterpreted as symbol of submission.
6 And angels who did not keep their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling place, these He has kept in eternal restraints under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
Angels did not keep because they mated with human females and produced hybrid offspring prior to the flood when humans lived for hundreds of years. Keep in mind Jesus had a nonhuman Father as did the offspring of angels and humans.
Then falsify the facts. If you can't then it has standing. You are not required to believe anything. You can live in your box as long as you know you don't know everything and could be wrong about a lot of things. And as long as you know your errors come with consequences. You reject, not because of evidence, but because of bias which is totally different. Bias is poo. That is a thing you simply fail to comprehend.
Like blind to sight transformations naturally no plan, no goal at all?
Last edited:
Compared to other posts on CARM, it was way up there in clarity and creativity.
Uh... there were imbedded civil war correspondents.
Where is the low probability supernatural claim?
Why would I read that nonsense? there were no eye witnesses in those.
It’s biblical... All references only reported assertions of witneses
I made up the term “Religious Narrative”? That’s pretty Daft.
Historical investigation starts with probabilities of events, like a Caesar conquering Gaul vs. a Ceasar walking on water. You figure out how historians treat those 2 events from the same Caesar.
And then they don’t glean them back in however.
Why would that matter?
Too bad. Makes you believe strange things that more than likely not real.
Odd. My Mom was a spiritualist. Saw a lot of nonsense myself. Smart enough to know better.
You just wanted me to pick a side. There it is... stack of chips I’ll bet against your beliefs.
No it doesn’t.
The author of Luke couldn’t know that.
I just got tired with the rest... just kinda silly.
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
Who wrote history in the present tense, "as it happened?" Show me some. Are letters written back home the only historians to you?
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
Is "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" nonsense to you, since Gibbon was not an eyewitness?
Witnesses don't assert. They observe.
No historian claimed Caesar walked on water. Matthew and John witnessed Jesus doing so.
So the only true historians are contemporaries of those they write about?
In other words, you're no match for Harry.
No, that was made up later.
The body was taken down, as per Jewish law, and throw in a common grave.
Later, after AD 50 as Paul does not mention is in 1 Cor 15, the empty tomb was made up. No one could produce a body thirty years later because the bones would have been mixed with all the other victims of crucifixion.
Paul says they will be replaced. And according to Josephus that was the Pharisee belief - that the righteous would go into new bodies.
Lucian
Well-known member
Alright: in that case, the mistake is yours, rather than his.
Sure, but that does little to make that claim more plausible, unless we should be surprised by the lack of that additional attestation.
Has he? Please provide a reference.
Even if so, I'm not sure I've much faith in the robustness of the peer review process of such a minor publisher, especially if a claim like this got through.
But the checking of the box is here immaterial, or all but immaterial.
I see.
Lucian
Well-known member
The trouble is that you offer this opinion, and assess it as being reasonable, without the relevant competence to make this determination. Thus, it doesn't strike you that the Greek Mark knows, and the Greek Homer is written in, are very different indeed, and so competence in the former (which, in Mark's case, is relatively basic) is no guarantee of competence (to the extent one is able and willing to use Homer as an intertext) in the latter.
That’s cool.. . I didn’t know that. Do you know if someone learning contemporary Greek in the day would still read the classic Illiad, such as English majors today would be introduced to and utilize ideas and narrative methods of classic Shakespeare or Beowulf despite the language evolution?
Last edited:
No. Normative history can be reassembled from basic human sociological and anthropological realities, possibilities, and patterns and reports that adhere to them. Anomalies to normative events are acceptable if they are not claiming one-shot miracles, but events that can be shown to be possible without some declaration of unprovable supernatural intervention even if rare.... like a dormant volcano had erupted as opposed to God spit fire on the town.
The assertion was the author’s concerning rumors of eyewitnesses handed down in an oral tradition.
Vespasian had contemporary historians record his miracles, miracles that were performed in front of large crowds of witnesses. Matthew and John are only *reported* to be eyewitnesses by an oral tradition far removed from the events.
No. As stated above normative history can be reassembled from basic human sociological and anthropological realities and patterns.
Only in the same sense I’m no match for tolerating what Son of Sam heard from his neighbor's dog.
Last edited:
I hope you will forgive a punt to wikipedia.... It’s just easier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:War_correspondents_of_the_American_Civil_War
And if you can get over the hump of online references I found this search for Ancient Embedded Biographers going all the way back to Augustine pretty relevant: https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/spec...ourcebook/back-matter/aii-author-biographies/
Last edited: