Resurrection Refutations?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah I would love to see this evidence as well

Keeping in mind that I've already said I would not worship God even if he existed, if there is a lot of evidence he does exist I have no particular problem accepting that fact.

But as Dades asks, what evidence? What is the evidence that any of this is real?

A book written by religious followers is not evidence that the religion is true, only that it exists. If it was one would be forced to accept all religions that have books (which is most of them)

Argh. Do we have to have the "evidence versus proof" discussion again? The Bible is evidence, but it is not proof.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Curiously, those are the same reasons I would cite for many people being religious today.

Convenience: Answers all life's questions.
Respectability: Be part of your society's accepted faith.
Selfishness: Provides you with a belief that God will send you to heaven.
Irrespective of the evidence: Evidence?

And I agree totally. That perfectly sums up, in my opinion, why most people are religious.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Well I do know that wikipedia has been discredited on certain issues and I don't take it as Gospel (;)), but where are the more reliable statistics to show that there are 600 million people who claim to be Pentacostalists, which exceeds the total number of Protestants of all denominations that the admittedly unreliable wikipedia gives of 590 million?

You quote Wikipedia very selectively.

wikipedia wrote:

Estimated numbers of Pentecostals vary widely. Christianity Today reported in an article titled World Growth at 19 Million a Year that according to historian Vinson Synan, dean of the Regent University School of Divinity in Virginia Beach, about 25 percent of the world's Christians are Pentecostal or charismatic.

25% of 2.1 billion would work out as 525 million.

wikipedia wrote:

Pentecostalism was estimated to number around 115 million followers worldwide in 2000; lower estimates place the figure near to 22 million (eg. Cambridge Encyclopedia), while the highest estimates apparently place the figure between 400 and 600 million. The great majority of Pentecostals are to be found in Developing Countries (see the Statistics subsection below), although much of their international leadership is still North America. Pentecostalism is sometimes referred to as the "third force of Christianity."[citation needed] The largest Pentecostal Christian church in the world is the Yoido Full Gospel Church in South Korea. Founded and led by David Yonggi Cho since 1958, it had 780,000 members in 2003

David Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia reports the figure of 600 million Pentecostals.

Religious statistics are hard to count anyway, but there are good reasons why the numbers of Pentecostals vary so widely in different reports.

Some reports classify the major Pentecostal denominations as 'Pentecostal' and then lump non-denominational Pentecostals in under the heading of 'Independent Churches'. For example, over half the Pentecostal churches in Ireland are non-denominational, so in many surveys they are listed as neither Pentecostal nor Protestant. This trend is much more pronounced in Africa where up to 70% of all Pentecostal churches are Independent.

Different churches measure membership in different ways. For example, I know a Romanian Pentecostal Church that meets in Dublin every Sunday night. Romanian Pentecostals have very strict rules and requirements for membership, so their official membership, as reported to their denomination, is 300 adults. However, if you attend their services you will find 700 adults in attendance, all of who claim this as 'their' church. To further complicate matters, these 700 adults bring 800 children to church, but under 18s are not recorded on membership rolls. So, depending on how you count, this church is 300 (members) 700 (adult attenders) 1500 (total adherents including children).

The Church I pastor has an official membership of 900, but (despite my best efforts) not all those people come to church every single Sunday. Many of them work shifts or go visiting friends etc and only come to church once every 2 or 3 weeks. However we have at least 200 people who come to our services, call us 'their' church, but have never applied to be official members. Depending on what I count (members, adherents, or average Sunday attendance) our membership can range from 600 to 1100.

This pattern is repeated all over the world. In Indonesia my own denomination has 1.2 million official members - but that does not include children or adherents who are not members.

So, it is entirely possible wiki is correct that there are 200 million members of Pentecostal denominations, but add Pentecostal independents and children to the mix and you easily reach the 600 million figure.

Of course none of this is any guarantee of the truthfulness or otherwise of any faith. A religion could have 2 adherents and be true whereas another could have 2 billion and be a load of codswallop.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

Of course none of this is any guarantee of the truthfulness or otherwise of any faith. A religion could have 2 adherents and be true whereas another could have 2 billion and be a load of codswallop.

And, of course, vice-versa.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

You quote Wikipedia very selectively.

Of course if you refer back to my original point it was not intended to be specifically about how may Pentacostalists may or may not be around today, it doesn't bother me one way or the other. What I was saying was that in the 20th century with mass communication and relatively reliable census data one source claims 600 million followers and another shows 22 million, so how reliable can the claims in Acts be?

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Of course if you refer back to my original point it was not intended to be specifically about how may Pentacostalists may or may not be around today, it doesn't bother me one way or the other. What I was saying was that in the 20th century with mass communication and relatively reliable census data one source claims 600 million followers and another shows 22 million, so how reliable can the claims in Acts be?

How reliable can the claims in Acts be? Not precise enough for us to know the exact amount of Christians, but reliable enough to know that they constituted a large number, thereby exposing the fallacious objection of saying, "If the Resurrection was real then how come so few Jews in Jerusalem endorsed it?".

robindch

PDN wrote:

A religion could have 2 adherents and be true whereas another could have 2 billion and be a load of codswallop.

And the fact of there being so many religions, but only one truth, would suggest that by chance alone, a believer is almost certainly believing a false religion.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

And the fact of there being so many religions, but only one truth, would suggest that by chance alone, a believer is almost certainly believing a false religion.

By chance alone? Absolutely. That is why I tend to respect those more who have chosen to follow a particular religious path rather than just believing something because they happened to be born into it. Cultural Christianity (or indeed any other religion) is like patriotism in my book - mindless and passive acceptance of any old junk.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

How reliable can the claims in Acts be? Not precise enough for us to know the exact amount of Christians, but reliable enough to know that they constituted a large number, thereby exposing the fallacious objection of saying, "If the Resurrection was real then how come so few Jews in Jerusalem endorsed it?".

Does it? Perhaps you could humour me, and join the dots between "there were certainly a fairly decent number of Christians around the Empire within a couple of decades of the resurrection" and "if the Resurrection was real then how come so few Jews in Jerusalem endorsed it?".

I appreciate they sound like they're related, but could you make it explicit for me how one refutes the other?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote: »

Argh. Do we have to have the "evidence versus proof" discussion again? The Bible is evidence, but it is not proof.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't think the Bible counts as "evidence" for what is described in the Bible.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think the Bible counts as "evidence" for what is described in the Bible.

What? Of course it does, just as the Iliad is evidence for the Trojan War. A written or oral account of an event is evidence for that event. It may not be conclusive, and it isn't scientific, but it's certainly evidence. The Bible is evidence for the events recounted in it - the problem is that it's the only evidence, and its quality is uncertain. Where we would expect to find corroboration, there is none. Even so, you cannot simply dismiss it out of hand.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote: »

What? Of course it does, just as the Iliad is evidence for the Trojan War. A written or oral account of an event is evidence for that event. It may not be conclusive, and it isn't scientific, but it's certainly evidence. The Bible is evidence for the events recounted in it - the problem is that it's the only evidence, and its quality is uncertain. Where we would expect to find corroboration, there is none. Even so, you cannot simply dismiss it out of hand.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well perhaps your definition of evidence is a little looser than mine.

"The Lion the witch and the Wardrobe" isn't evidence that Narnia exists.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote: »

Well perhaps your definition of evidence is a little looser than mine.

"The Lion the witch and the Wardrobe" isn't evidence that Narnia exists.

The comparison doesn't stand, because we know that CS Lewis wrote and published the Narnia series as children's fiction.

Are you saying that witness statements, depositions, and testimonies are not evidence?

cordially,
Scofflaw

JC 2K3

^It is evidence that suggests Narnia might exist, but not proof that it actually does, and when you put all the evidence together, it's clear that is does not. It's the same kind of thing with the Bible.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote: »

Are you saying that witness statements, depositions, and testimonies are not evidence?

They certain are evidence, but the question is evidence of what exactly.

For example if a woman says she sees a man entering a building at 2 pm before someone gets shot, that is evidence.

But as it stands it is undetermined what it is evidence for. It cannot be assume that it is actually evidence that a man entered a building at 2pm. It is only evidence for that if she is actually telling the truth. You need to confirm that she is likely telling the truth before it can be considered evidence for that.

If in fact she isn't telling the truth then the statement is actually evidence that she is lying, and is in no way evidence that someone entered the building at 2pm.

The Bible is certainly evidence. The question is evidence of what?

It is evidence that Christians existed. It is evidence that they wrote down their religious stories.

But as it stands it is not evidence that the events happened because it has not been established like that it is an accurate record of said events.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote: »

Argh. Do we have to have the "evidence versus proof" discussion again?

Looks like it.

barfizz

Scofflaw wrote: »

The comparison doesn't stand, because we know that CS Lewis wrote and published the Narnia series as children's fiction.

Maybe the bible was originally a collection of short stories with a moral theme just like many collected children’s books today, however over the annals of time people forgot that and started to take them as fact.

A good analogy is the john Boorman / Sean Connery film ZARDOZ, (rubbish film) but you get the point.

Just in case you don’t know the book he worshiped was the wiZARD of OZ (ZARDOZ)

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote: »

They certain are evidence, but the question is evidence of what exactly.

For example if a woman says she sees a man entering a building at 2 pm before someone gets shot, that is evidence.

But as it stands it is undetermined what it is evidence for. It cannot be assume that it is actually evidence that a man entered a building at 2pm. It is only evidence for that if she is actually telling the truth. You need to confirm that she is likely telling the truth before it can be considered evidence for that.

If in fact she isn't telling the truth then the statement is actually evidence that she is lying, and is in no way evidence that someone entered the building at 2pm.

The Bible is certainly evidence. The question is evidence of what?

It is evidence that Christians existed. It is evidence that they wrote down their religious stories.

But as it stands it is not evidence that the events happened because it has not been established like that it is an accurate record of said events.

What you're talking about there is an interpretation of the evidence. What we have is a testimony, and a testimony is evidence. We can look at the testimony and say "well, you can interpret this like this, or you can interpret it like that", but that is not the same as saying the testimony is not evidence.

Testimony can be discounted as evidence if it can be shown to be false, or mendacious. If you can show that in respect of the Bible, then you can discount it as evidence. Otherwise, it remains a piece of evidence, and open to interpretation as all evidence is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pompey Magnus

Scofflaw wrote: »

The comparison doesn't stand, because we know that CS Lewis wrote and published the Narnia series as children's fiction.

That is assuming we have prior knowledge of CS Lewis and what he intended his writings to be. I think a better comparison would be giving "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" to a person in 1,000 years time when Lewis will be completely forgotten and then asking them if this is evidence for the actual existence of Narnia.

Scofflaw

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

That is assuming we have prior knowledge of CS Lewis and what he intended his writings to be. I think a better comparison would be giving "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" to a person in 1,000 years time when Lewis will be completely forgotten and then asking them if this is evidence for the actual existence of Narnia.

Which, indeed, it could reasonably be thought to be. We, of course, would know better, but we might not have thought to write down that the Narnia series was fiction, and we wouldn't be around to be interviewed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

That is assuming we have prior knowledge of CS Lewis and what he intended his writings to be. I think a better comparison would be giving "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" to a person in 1,000 years time when Lewis will be completely forgotten and then asking them if this is evidence for the actual existence of Narnia.

That would certainly be a valid comparison if, by the late 1950s, hundreds of people, many of whom claimed to be eye-witnesses, had been willing to be executed rather than deny the historical accuracy of Narnia and the events in the book.

BTW, unless some horrible catastrophe destroys most of humankind, I think there will be plenty of biographies and data about CS Lewis still extant in 3007.

Also, most copies of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe include the copyright pages with ISBN number etc that clearly state it is a work of fiction. Certain parts of the Bible that attest to the resurrection (eg John's Gospel, Luke's Gospel, Acts) clearly claim to be factual.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote: »

What we have is a testimony, and a testimony is evidence.

I am not saying it isn't evidence.

I'm saying that it isn't evidence for a specific proposal

The Bible is certain evidence. Is it evidence for the proposal that what is being described in the Bible actually happened. I think that is unsupported.

Scofflaw wrote: »

We can look at the testimony and say "well, you can interpret this like this, or you can interpret it like that", but that is not the same as saying the testimony is not evidence.

I didn't say it wasn't evidence

I said it wasn't evidence for what is described in the Bible as being historical

That may just seem like semantics, but it is actually key. The Bible itself is not, in my view, evidence for a particular historical interpretation that the events in the Bible are real.

Perhaps it would be clearer if I said "The evidence of the Bible does not support the conclusion that the Bible describes historical events"

Everything is evidence for something. The "something" is the key.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote: »

I am not saying it isn't evidence.

I'm saying that it isn't evidence for a specific proposal

The Bible is certain evidence. Is it evidence for the proposal that what is being described in the Bible actually happened. I think that is unsupported.

Aren't you contradicting yourself there?

Wicknight wrote: »

I didn't say it wasn't evidence

I said it wasn't evidence for what is described in the Bible as being historical

That may just seem like semantics, but it is actually key. The Bible itself is not, in my view, evidence for a particular historical interpretation that the events in the Bible are real.

Er, that's exactly what it can be used as evidence for.

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps it would be clearer if I said "The evidence of the Bible does not support the conclusion that the Bible describes historical events"

Yes, that would be the conclusion that the Bible is insufficient evidence to assign much probability to the events it purports to describe.

Wicknight wrote: »

Everything is evidence for something. The "something" is the key.

Hmm, no. Evidence is evidence of something. The Bible is evidence of something, and the question is what it is evidence of. I'd be quite happy that the Bible is evidence of early Christianity, once we've established that we have early copies of the various bits of it - I think it's good evidence of that.

Like you, I don't think the Bible is sufficient evidence that the events described in it are real, or to establish beyond doubt the existence of all the people described in it. That is because, without corroboration, the evidence of a single work of uncertain and multiple authorship proves very little.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

That would certainly be a valid comparison if, by the late 1950s, hundreds of people, many of whom claimed to be eye-witnesses, had been willing to be executed rather than deny the historical accuracy of Narnia and the events in the book.

I conceed that you won't find too many people willing to die (or kill) because they believe a piece of modern fiction. However, can the Gospel be considered testimony if none of the writers of the Gospel actually witnessed the event. Correct me if I'm wrong (which I very well may well be) but these guys were writing down stories which they heard from another source. As Wicknight said earlier on:

"For example if a woman says she sees a man entering a building at 2 pm before someone gets shot, that is evidence"

but in this case it should be: "A woman says her neighbour saw a man entering a building at 2 pm before someone gets shot." Is that evidence? I doubt that would stand up in a court of law.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote: »

Aren't you contradicting yourself there?

No

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, that's exactly what it can be used as evidence for.

Well i'm not sure what you mean by "can be" .. it could be if there was more support as to its authenticity as a historical document. There isn't, so it can't be.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, that would be the conclusion that the Bible is insufficient evidence to assign much probability to the events it purports to describe.

And therefore it isn't evidence for (in support of) that proposal.

Everything is evidence for some proposal. The book on my desk is evidence in support of the proposal that light reflects off books. It is evidence in support of the proposal that a Mr. Peter Lavin wrote a book about PHP. etc etc

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm, no. Evidence is evidence of something.

That is not quite what I mean.

Evidence is evidence of something unknown. People make proposals as to what this unknown is, and the evidence can be evidence for the truth of this proposal or not.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Bible is evidence of something, and the question is what it is evidence of. I'd be quite happy that the Bible is evidence of early Christianity, once we've established that we have early copies of the various bits of it - I think it's good evidence of that.

Like you, I don't think the Bible is sufficient evidence that the events described in it are real, or to establish beyond doubt the existence of all the people described in it. That is because, without corroboration, the evidence of a single work of uncertain and multiple authorship proves very little.

I would agree with all that.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I conceed that you won't find too many people willing to die (or kill) because they believe a piece of modern fiction. However, can the Gospel be considered testimony if none of the writers of the Gospel actually witnessed the event. Correct me if I'm wrong (which I very well may well be) but these guys were writing down stories which they heard from another source. As Wicknight said earlier on:

"For example if a woman says she sees a man entering a building at 2 pm before someone gets shot, that is evidence"

but in this case it should be: "A woman says her neighbour saw a man entering a building at 2 pm before someone gets shot." Is that evidence? I doubt that would stand up in a court of law.

John and Matthew were eye-witnesses of the events they describe, particularly of the Resurrection.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

John and Matthew were eye-witnesses of the events they describe, particularly of the Resurrection.

Is it not the case that neither the Gospel of John or Matthew are believed to have been written by the Apostles of the same names and that Matthew's writings were based extensively on those of Mark and other no longer existing early writings while John was an uneducated commoner, also John's gospel was written in Greek, not Aramaic which would have been the language of the apostles.

Edit: Also in the case of Mathhew's writing with regard to the resurrection he claims: "When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." What this is saying that some of the people who actually saw the person claiming to be Jesus were not convinced (and to be honest neither would I be if Mark and John are correct in stating that this person claiming to be Jesus did not actually look like Jesus).

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

John and Matthew were eye-witnesses of the events they describe, particularly of the Resurrection.

Says who?

lostexpectation

PDN wrote: »

John and Matthew were eye-witnesses of the events they describe, particularly of the Resurrection.

so what did they say they saw, how do you describe a resurrection?

stereoroid

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

That is assuming we have prior knowledge of CS Lewis and what he intended his writings to be. I think a better comparison would be giving "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" to a person in 1,000 years time when Lewis will be completely forgotten and then asking them if this is evidence for the actual existence of Narnia.

We do have knowledge of Lewis' intentions, and there are some details in an excerpt from a biography, here.

It is possible to extract from the Narnia stories a system of theology very like the Christian. Thus the theological content of The Magician’s Nephew is the story of the creation. Aslan sings it into being. The temptation in the Garden of Eden and the Fall are there. In the story he wrote next we have death, judgment, Hell, and Heaven. But the author almost certainly did not want his readers to notice the resemblance of the Narnian theology to the Christian story. His idea, as he once explained to me, was to make it easier for children to accept Christianity when they met it later in life. He hoped that they would be vaguely reminded of the somewhat similar stories that they had read and enjoyed years before. “I am aiming at a sort of pre-baptism of the child’s imagination.”

:mad: