What is Faith?

According to Hengel his name was attached immediately in the First century. So that is one piece of evidence.
If the conclusions of one scholar to that effect constitute evidence for that claim, then the contrary conclusions of other scholars constitute evidence against that claim.
Unless Hengels evidence is stronger than the evidence of the contrary scholars.
El Cid said:
And then the reports you mention...
The attribution seems to start with Papias, who lived roughly 60 A.D. to 130 A.D. according to Wikipedia. We have a citation of Papias, from much later, which has him simply saying that the disciple Matthew wrote a "logia" about Jesus. Scholars don't even agree about what this means, or whether it refers to the "Gospel of Matthew" as we have it.
Most scholars believe it probably is the gospel.
El Cid said:
combined with the unlikely attribution of such an obscure disciple to the book unless the evidence warranted it.
We don't know which disciples were "obscure" around 70 A.D. We don't know what was known, or assumed, or rumored about this particular disciple around that time, that might make his name attractive as the supposed author of this gospel. Maybe the fact that he was a tax collector implied that he was literate, unlike the typical fisherman, and so would make him a more plausible candidate.
No, we have the most important early Christian documents, almost all of which were written around 70 AD or earlier. Matthew was one of the more obscure disciples, not even as well known as Phillip or James. It is much more likely that if they were just making up an author they would have attached one of their names to it.
El Cid said:
No, he did not have a vision, he saw Christ in the flesh as shown by the men with him hearing Jesus' voice.
Hearing a voice is not the same as seeing somebody in the flesh. Acts 9 does not say anything explicitly (or implicitly, so far as I can see) about anybody -- either Saul or his companions -- seeing and recognizing Jesus. In any case, the reason for Paul's belief in the resurrected Jesus was apparently this experience, and not any consideration he'd given to reports from others.
No, Paul claims he saw Jesus in the flesh in I Corinthians 15 and he was referring to this incident. And since visions are subjective, the men with him would not have heard his voice, but they did, confirming this was not a vision but an actual bodily appearance.

El Cid said:
Yes, the other independent source reports He appeared to 500 others, including Jesus' skeptic brother, who was martyred for his belief.
That is, Paul says that somebody said that he appeared to those others. Calling this an "independent source" is just a way of trying to elevate the credibility of what is obviously hearsay.
No, scholars recognize that the language is very different from Pauls and uses older terms, thereby confirming that Paul didnt write it.
El Cid said:
No, if it is a different author from several years before Paul even became a believer that is an independent source. Yes it would be source independent of Plutarch. There is no other definition of independent.
You are simply wrong about there being "no other definition of independent," as I noted when quoting the Wikipedia article on "Multiple Independent Sources."
Actually I basically agree with your link, it says basically what I am saying. If scholars can plainly recognize that a text that is much older and written very differently from the writer who quoted it, then it plainly is an independent source.
El Cid said:
Actually many scholars date the creed to 36 AD. Yes, it does constitute strong historical evidence...
"Anonymous people are reported by a later source to have said something miraculous happened" is not "strong historical evidence" that the miraculous thing happened.
But it is an obvious earlier source even before Paul converted. And James is not anonymous and his existence and death for belief in the resurrection has been confirmed by extrabiblical sources.
El Cid said:
...combined with all the other evidence in the gospels.
Nor have you explained why the gospels constitute strong evidence.
Two were probably eyewitnesses and all four constitute independent sources written relatively near the events that occurred.
El Cid said:
Especially if some were sources that were independent...
Again,anonymous people who were reported by a later source as having said people saw the risen Christ are not "especially" powerful evidence for the resurrection.
There is evidence the gospels were not anonymous.
El Cid said:
...and some were formerly hostile like Paul and James.
Why are you counting James as "hostile" like Paul?
Not as hostile as Paul but he was a skeptic. If known skeptics become convinced of an event, that is strong evidence for that event.
El Cid said:
You have to be able to explain why these known skeptics would make a 180 degree change in such a short period. And in the case of James dying for that belief shortly afterwards.
According to Luke, Paul had an overwhelming experience on the road to Damascus. I'm not disputing that, or claiming he made it up. But such experiences are not something which others should be expected to trust.
Why not? It would take a great deal of evidence to convince a hostile and highly skeptical person like Paul. It would be similar to Richard Dawkins converting. And Historians have trusted events with much less evidence than there is for the resurrection.
As for the others, we have essentially no information about what made them continued followers of Christ, so their motivations -- what they believed, exactly, and why they believed it -- are pretty much entirely undiscoverable at this distance in time.
No, there is evidence that they did believe in the bodily resurrected Christ.
 
Unless Hengels evidence is stronger than the evidence of the contrary scholars.
You aren't offering that evidence, though; you're only offering the name, "Hengel."

Most scholars believe it probably is the gospel.
IOW most scholars believe that the quotation from a 3rd century church father, in which Papias says a couple of sentences about Matthew, is probably an accurate account of what Papias probably wrote in the early 2nd century, and that Papias probably was expressing belief that the disciple Matthew wrote the gospel. On this rock you will build your church?

No, we have the most important early Christian documents, almost all of which were written around 70 AD or earlier.
No, we have the most important early Christian documents that have survived. (In fact we have all the early Christian documents that have survived, both the important ones and the unimportant ones.) But you don't know what documents have been lost, and neither does anybody else. Given that fact, you can't possibly know what was known, assumed or guessed at about the disciple Matthew.

Matthew was one of the more obscure disciples, not even as well known as Phillip or James. It is much more likely that if they were just making up an author they would have attached one of their names to it.
There is no historical law to the effect that people only attach celebrated names to pseudonymous texts. I offered you one possible reason why they might have used Matthew's name, which you don't address. And -- again -- we don't know what other possible reasons could have existed, because we know very little about who was saying what about which disciple in that time frame.

No, Paul claims he saw Jesus in the flesh in I Corinthians 15 and he was referring to this incident.
No he doesn't. He says Christ "appeared to me." He absolutely does not say "in the flesh." In the same chapter he goes on at length about how the resurrected body will not be "a natural body" but "a spiritual body." (1 Cor 15:44)

And since visions are subjective, the men with him would not have heard his voice, but they did, confirming this was not a vision but an actual bodily appearance.
Yes, if everything in the Bible is true, then everything in the Bible is true.

No, scholars recognize that the language is very different from Pauls and uses older terms, thereby confirming that Paul didn't write it.
ME: Paul says that somebody said that he appeared to those others.
YOU: No, in fact Paul gives a quote in which somebody said that he appeared to those others.

If Paul is accurately quoting an older creed, he's still quoting what somebody said. It's still correct to say that "Paul says that somebody said that Jesus appeared to those others." It's still hearsay. It's still not strong evidence.

Actually I basically agree with your link, it says basically what I am saying. If scholars can plainly recognize that a text that is much older and written very differently from the writer who quoted it, then it plainly is an independent source.
That link says, very explicitly, that if Person A is getting his account from Person B, then these are not two independent sources. You can call the anonymous author(s) of the older creed the source for the story of Christ's appearance to the 500, or you can call Paul the source. You simply cannot call them both "independent sources."

But it is an obvious earlier source even before Paul converted.
All you are doing is restating something I've already stipulated to: there were Christians, soon after the crucifixion, who believed Christ had appeared to his followers.

And James is not anonymous
"The Epistle of James has been traditionally attributed to James the Just since 253, but, according to Dan McCartney, it is now common for scholars to disagree on its authorship." (Wikipedia)

and his existence and death for belief in the resurrection has been confirmed by extrabiblical sources.
What are you referring to? Josephus doesn't say he was killed for belief in the resurrection, he only says James was accused (maliciously) of "breaking the law." But let's say it's true that James died because he was an unrepentant believer in the resurrection. Therefore...?

You keep claiming there's a powerful case for the resurrection, but so far, all it seems to consist of is "there were people who believed in the resurrection."

Two were probably eyewitnesses
This, of course, is vigorously disputed.

and all four constitute independent sources
Matthew and Luke are not independent of Mark.

written relatively near the events that occurred.
Within a human lifetime, OK. And there are many, many things that have been written within days of the events that occurred which are still full of gross and palpable lies. You see this particularly often in war, but really in any endeavor in which partisan passions run high. "Written relatively near the events" obviously does not imply "credible."

Not as hostile as Paul but he was a skeptic. If known skeptics become convinced of an event, that is strong evidence for that event. . . . It would take a great deal of evidence to convince a hostile and highly skeptical person like Paul. It would be similar to Richard Dawkins converting.
There have been people who were at first hostile to and highly skeptical of QAnon who became convinced that Hillary Clinton eats babies. People change and convert for many, many reasons besides the existence of strong evidence.

And Historians have trusted events with much less evidence than there is for the resurrection.
Then perhaps historians were being too trusting about accounts of those events. Seriously, if you say "Player A got into the Hall of Fame with a poorer record than Player B," the conclusion might be "Player B should be in the HOF," or it could be "Player A never should have gotten in." This is indisputable, isn't it?

No, there is evidence that they did believe in the bodily resurrected Christ.
There are accounts saying that they believed that. We know essentially nothing about most of them as individuals; they survive as mere names. We can't hope to know the process by which they came to their faith, so you simply can't conclude "the only reason they would have died for their faith is if they saw the bodily resurrected Christ."
 
Last edited:
@El Cid
Just to note, this entire conversation about evidence of the resurrection started with you statement in post #254 that:

The gospels were not anonymous when they were originally circulating, they just didnt have a written name on them, but everyone knew who wrote them because they were still alive. They only added a name because the authors and their fellow disciples had died so they wrote their name on them to keep record as they passed away. But we also have sources for the resurrection that were never without a name on them. And we have sources for the resurrection written by skeptics and independent of the NT.

Then when I asked which were those sources "that were never without a name on them," you said it was "the ancient creed recorded by Paul (who was a skeptic) written within five years of the resurrection and recording that 500 people saw the resurrected Christ all at one time." But that creed was entirely anonymous; neither Paul nor any other early Christian tells us who composed it. How can you possibly say that this is a source which was "never without a name"?
 
My definition of faith:

Faith is accepting as truth that for which there is no sufficiently compelling evidence
Faith is accepting as fact that for which there is no ultimate proof
Faith is believing without seeing
Faith is trusting without good reason

That's not "faith".

Faith is the believing that the truth and reality originated in and with God.

Whenever I share my definition of faith with a Christian it is automatically, and with a high haughtiness, dismissed
And in it's place, the Christian asserts that faith is:

"confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see"

Can somebody please explain to me how my definition of faith differs from the biblical definition?

The truth and reality are not known or experienced by what we "see", but the truth and reality are known and experienced by what we believe.

How does having 'confidence in what one hopes for'
differ from
'accepting as truth that for which there is no sufficient evidence'?

Because all evidence is based on what we believe.

How does an 'assurance about what we do not see'
differ from
an 'acceptance as fact minus ultimate proof'?

All the truth and reality we know is only experienced by us because of belief.
 
The universe has a definite beginning in finite time (Gen. 1:1). The universe was not made with anything detectable by humans (Hebrews 11:3). The universe is expanding (Job 9:8). The universe operates according to fixed physical laws (Jeremiah 33:25). And many more.
These are too vague and not surprisingly arrived at.
Hardly. No other religious book teaches these things. If they are not surprisingly arrived at, then there would be other religions that would teach these things.
Now, if the Bible had something in it like, protons and neutrons are made of quarks of various flavours which is detail that couldn't be guessed, then you would have something.
Those things are not relevant to the message of the Bible so it is unlikely He would have revealed those things. God only revealed things that reveal who the creator of the universe is.
Btw, Muslims claim the same as you but for the Quran, that it talks of scientific revelation.
Evidence? And if they actually do, they probably plagiarized it from the Bible, remember the Koran was written long after the Bible.
El Cid said:
First let me say that hebrew slavery was voluntary except for POWs and criminals, see Exodus 21:16.
Non Hebrew slavery wasn't. Leviticus 25:44 -“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves".
No, foreigners and strangers were to be treated just like hebrews, read Exodus 22:21-24 and Leviticus 19:33-34. So that verse above refers to them selling themselves to hebrews as in Leviticus 25:47.
El Cid said:
Second if the slave survives a day or two and then dies, that means that the slave most likely had a pre-existing condition unrelated to the beating.
Remember they didnt have doctors, MRIs and X rays back then. The slave may have had some internal damage or sickness that could not be identified by outward inspection. That would be the only way that the master couldnt be charged directly for his death. He could not even break the skin because that would probably result in a scar and that would be considered permanent damage and the master would be held accountable for that.
Forget the pre existing conditions, we're talking about beating slaves to within an inch of their lives. So it's ok to beat your slaves? Really? That is what you are saying here, you're excusing the Bible saying it's OK for masters to beat their slaves.
No, not being able to even break the skin, hardly is beating them within an inch of their lives. If their masters beat them too much or for trivial matters, they could flee to a sanctuary city and the master could not retrieve them.
El Cid said:
That can also mean servant. But it is plain from the context that this was a trial marriage without sex, because she is released if she fails to please her master. And she must be sent back to her family not foreigners.
It can also mean slave, and slave was the word used, not trial marriage.
From the description, it plainly fits a trial marriage or a wife apprenticeship.
El Cid said:
See above. Most other societies at the time. could kill their slaves with impunity. In Israel, the murderer of a slave is treated just like the murderer of free person, ie they were executed.
Unless the slave got up after a day or two. Is that morally acceptable to you, that a master can beat a slave so?
No, they could not even break the skin of the slave. See above.
 
Evidence? And if they actually do, they probably plagiarized it from the Bible, remember the Koran was written long after the Bible.
You really should look into how Jesus came about... that is one of the most egregious examples of plagiarism in literary history.
 
Hardly. No other religious book teaches these things. If they are not surprisingly arrived at, then there would be other religions that would teach these things.
Yes, Muslims claim similar things for the Quran.
Those things are not relevant to the message of the Bible so it is unlikely He would have revealed those things. God only revealed things that reveal who the creator of the universe is.
That the universe had a beginning only shows, in your view, that the universe had a creator. It doesn't show that creator is Yahweh.
Evidence? And if they actually do, they probably plagiarized it from the Bible, remember the Koran was written long after the Bible.
Big Bang .. The Qur'an says that "the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit, before We clove them asunder"

Expansion of Universe .. "The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are expanding it"
No, foreigners and strangers were to be treated just like hebrews, read Exodus 22:21-24 and Leviticus 19:33-34. So that verse above refers to them selling themselves to hebrews as in Leviticus 25:47.
Nowhere in that verse does it indicate they sell themselves. They are referred to as slaves, not free people selling themselves as slaves.
No, not being able to even break the skin, hardly is beating them within an inch of their lives. If their masters beat them too much or for trivial matters, they could flee to a sanctuary city and the master could not retrieve them.
Beating so that it takes a couple days before you can recover is beating to within an inch of their lives. Even so, do you think it's a moral edict from a God of love to permit such a beating?
From the description, it plainly fits a trial marriage or a wife apprenticeship.
Exodus 21:7 .. “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do". The word used is slave, not wife nor apprentice, so it plainly isn't.
 
Last edited:
"If naturalism is true, we have no choice whether or not we accept that naturalism is true."

Yes?
Yes, but there is strong evidence that naturalism is not true.
If so, telling people that naturalism should be rejected, is pointless.
Since there is evidence that naturalism is not true, then it should be rejected.
Do you think that the laws of logic may not be accepted by a naturalist?
If so, call me a "naturalist+logic".
No, if naturalism is true, then there is no such thing as logic. The laws of logic are not physical entities. Naturalism doesnt allow for the existence of nonphysical entities. But since we can think logically, that means naturalism is false.
 
No, if naturalism is true, then there is no such thing as logic. The laws of logic are not physical entities. Naturalism doesnt allow for the existence of nonphysical entities. But since we can think logically, that means naturalism is false.
If I accept that the laws of logic are the only thing that are not naturalistic, why is this not reasonable?
 
A relatively simple summary of my argument against naturalism can be explained in this way:
1. If naturalism is true, then all thoughts, including the thought naturalism is true, can be fully explained as the result of irrational causes.
2. If all thoughts are the result of irrational causes, then all thoughts are invalid, and science is impossible.
3. If all thoughts are invalid, and science is impossible, then no one is justified in believing that naturalism is true.
4. Therefore, naturalism should be rejected.
Thanks for putting your argument into formal terms; it makes responses and counter-responses easier. Here, I challenge premise 2. Basically, it seems to rest on the claim that "irrational causes cannot produce rational thoughts," which in turn seems to rest on the claim that "a cause cannot produce an effect which possesses properties the cause itself does not possess," a claim which seems positively false, for reasons I've already offered. To put it another way, the naturalist will claim:

1. Chemical actions (which are in themselves non-rational) cause mental states in people such as considering, judging and concluding.

2. A person who is in the mental state of considering, judging and concluding is capable of doing those things well: that is, rationally.
3. Therefore, non-rational chemical actions are capable of producing rational thoughts.

You can of course say "Premise 1 is false, and thus the naturalistic account of human thought is false." But you are not saying anything which implies that the naturalist's conclusion is inconsistent with the premise he believes true, and therefore that applying naturalism consistently would be destructive of all confidence in reason and science.
The problem is if naturalism is true then he cannot even come to a conclusion. To be consistent, he should just say nothing since even words are meaningless if naturalism is true.
El Cid said:
A non-physical mind not bound and limited by the laws of physics can operate according to the laws of logic.
Again, what does it mean exactly to say that a mind "operates according to the laws of logic"? That it is programmed not to violate those laws? That is just naturally, inherently jumps to logical conclusions without any cause for that jump? Some third thing? In any case, how do you account for the fact that our minds sometimes do not operate according to those laws, as when we commit fallacies?
That is how we think and talk to ourselves, ie the law of non-contradiction. But no in our present state, our logical reasoning is inconsistent and damaged. Sometimes we think that logical reasoning is the only source of knowledge and that is mistake and then sometimes we go too far the other way. And look only to feelings for knowledge. Ideally there should be a balance.
 
The problem is if naturalism is true then he cannot even come to a conclusion.
I offered an argument to show that even if naturalism was true, we could indeed still think rationally and come to rational conclusions. You didn't challenge the premises. You didn't challenge the logic. You just flatly restated the very assertion I was challenging. If that's how you're going to "answer" questions and challenges, then what's the point in continuing this exchange?

That is how we think and talk to ourselves, ie the law of non-contradiction.
All you are saying is "we (generally) try to catch ourselves when we are reasoning, in order to avoid logical fallacies." But this doesn't at all answer the question of what it means to say "the non-physical mind operates according to the laws of logic." What happens in the mental process? What's the beginning? What's the middle? What's the end? Where do "laws of logic" fit in?
 
Of course it can, given computers doing math, and given that math is part of rationality. But see below, in which you narrow the field of rationality down to reasoning from abstract premises and find an area that computers currently can not do.


1. Math is truly and actually logical.

2. AFAIK, it is true that, up to now, computers can not reason from abstract premises. So what? That doesn't mean that they never will. Nor does sit mean that when brains reason, they are necessarily using something other than the mere physical substrate of the brain to do the reasoning.
Computers origin is rational, ie computer scientist. So actually it confirms my point.
 
No, they still have the properties it just depends on the level of observation. At the microscopic level, the molecules are moving faster which is just what heat is at the macroscopic level.
But individual atoms or molecules do not possess the properties of solidity or liquidity.
But those are still physical properties.
El Cid said:
I would say the line between the physical and non-physical is pretty obvious and self evident. One can be empirically observed or measured the other cannot.
Sorry, I expressed myself badly there. I didn't mean to say "the line between physical and non-physical is not obvious," or "the line between solid and non-solid is not obvious," I meant to say "the line between a possible case of emergent properties and an impossible case of emergent properties is not obvious." That is, if there are such things as emergent properties (and I think the case of solidity or liquidity qualifies), there is no obvious or self evident reason why mental states could not be examples of emergent properties. In other words, it is not self-evident that a physical property can emerge from a physical state, but a mental property cannot.
Again those are physical properties. Mental properties are not physical.
El Cid said:
No, they are also inconsistent with all empirical observations throughout all of human history.
First, this is another way of saying "I think it is impossible for reasoning to emerge from chemistry" and even if that is the case, it does not follow that "if it is not impossible, if reasoning actually does emerge from chemistry, then all reasoning is unreliable." It is the latter claim that I was responding to. Do you dispute that these are in fact two different claims?
Reasoning would not just be unreliable, it would be impossible.
Second, "thoughts are caused by the brain, and the brain is obviously a physical object" is the very opposite of something "inconsistent with all empirical observations"; it's as well supported by empirical observations as any account of anything that happens in human biology. For example, it's undisputed empirical fact that damage to certain areas of the brain causes certain very specific departures from normal thinking, such as memory loss.
It could very well be that the mind uses the brain to interact with the outside physical world. It may be similar to half my keyboard not working and you would think that I was brain damaged.
El Cid said:
They are initiated by the will of the mind, deciding to reason and analyze something.
Then the will of the mind is itself uncaused?
The will is part of the mind.
 
But those are still physical properties.

Again those are physical properties. Mental properties are not physical.
I said "it is not self-evident that a physical property can emerge from a physical state, but a mental property cannot," and your reply is "mental properties are not physical." This is not even close to being a responsive answer. It's as if I said "it is not self-evident that a shield can be made of bronze, but spear cannot," and you replied "spears are not shields." Yes, they are different things (mental/physical, shield/spear). What isn't clear is why these particular differences create a "possible/impossible" dichotomy.

Reasoning would not just be unreliable, it would be impossible.
This is also entirely non-responsive.

First, you're flatly refusing to answer my question, which was: do you, or do you not agree that 1) "it is impossible for reasoning to emerge from chemistry" and 2) "if it is not impossible, if reasoning actually does emerge from chemistry, then all reasoning is unreliable" are two different claims? I have no idea whether or not you recognize that they are in fact different claims.

Second, even if you were just answering 2), that answer makes no sense at all. Statement 2) starts "if reasoning actually does emerge from chemistry..." and your answer is "then reasoning would be impossible." But obviously, if reasoning actually does emerge from chemistry, then reasoning exists. If reasoning is impossible, on the other hand, then reasoning doesn't exist. You're effectively saying that "if reasoning exists for this cause, then reasoning doesn't exist," which is of course absurd.

Third, you're completely changing your claim. You started by saying it was possible that naturalism was true, but that if it was, then we would have no reason to trust our judgments and conclusions. But if it is possible that naturalism is true -- that is, that everything is caused by physical events -- then it is possible that everything, including reasoning, is caused by physical events. You can't then say "if naturalism is true, reasoning is impossible." We know that reasoning is possible.

It could very well be that the mind uses the brain to interact with the outside physical world. It may be similar to half my keyboard not working and you would think that I was brain damaged.
No I wouldn't; I would think that half your keyboard wasn't working. Damage to your keyboard causing your typed messages to be distorted is straightforward empirical evidence that it is your keyboard which is responsible for your typed messages. Similarly, damage to the brain causing your thinking to be distorted is straightforward empirical evidence that it is your brain which is responsible for your thinking. You can't reasonably say "all empirical evidence goes against" the proposition that physical things can cause mental things, when there is straightforward empirical evidence that physical things can cause mental things.

The will is part of the mind.
Again, I would like some sort of sequence of how this works. From the naturalistic perspective,
Certain neurons fire in certain patterns --> I experience the mental state, "wanting to know whether it will rain" --> I experience the mental state, "weighing evidence" (shape and color of clouds, etc.) --> I experience the mental state "reaching a conclusion" (the rain will probably hold off for a while).
What's the spiritual version of this, with mind and will and the laws of logic? What goes where?
 
Computers origin is rational, ie computer scientist. So actually it confirms my point.
Here's the point we were discussing:
If brain states are purely physical then the brain only operates according to the laws of physics, reasoning requires the laws of logic, something very different.
But computers can operate according to the laws of mathematics, which are part of logic. It doesn't matter where the programming for the computer came from. Your point was about the substrate: either the purely physical, or something else. The substrate of a computer is purely physical, there is no spirit in a computer, yet the purely physical substrate can do math.
 
Back
Top