Lewis's Trilemma - split from Matthew topic

[Dicky Underpants]

Hang on, Gordon. A claim is not a question.
The question "Was there a resurrection?" is not invalid as far as I can see and indeed it has been the bread and butter of atheist historians like Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier for years.

You had me going for a bit but of course, your comment didn't stand up to closer inspection.

Bart D. Ehrman concurs, highlighting the insurmountable challenge in demonstrating miracles historically: "Even if miracles are possible, there is no way for the historian who sticks strictly to the canons of historical evidence to show that they have ever happened."

(from Ehrman's website https://www.bartehrman.com/jesus-resurrection/  )

Not quite sure how you'd support your comment that the question "Was there a resurrection?" has been Ehrman's bread and butter. As far as I can see, his thought has developed fairly logically from his follow-up on Schweitzer's thesis "Jesus - apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium" (Jesus as a mistaken prophet), through sifting out the possibilities of textual corruption in "Misquoting Jesus" and on to "How Jesus became God" - in other words, how people interpreted what they thought about the figure of Jesus and magnified this image into an ever more grandiose Christology.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

(from Ehrman's website https://www.bartehrman.com/jesus-resurrection/  )

Not quite sure how you'd support your comment that the question "Was there a resurrection?" has been Ehrman's bread and butter. As far as I can see, his thought has developed fairly logically from his follow-up on Schweitzer's thesis "Jesus - apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium" (Jesus as a mistaken prophet), through sifting out the possibilities of textual corruption in "Misquoting Jesus" and on to "How Jesus became God" - in other words, how people interpreted what they thought about the figure of Jesus and magnified this image into an ever more grandiose Christology.

While it may be correct that History (The study of) doesn't do God and miracles are acts of God, there is the problem raised by the claim that these constitute physical changes and events also a category considered to be the province of History.

I think Bart tends toward the resurrection not happening and this and the fact he is an historian in this field constitute his "bread and butter".

[Gordon]

While it may be correct that History (The study of) doesn't do God and miracles are acts of God, there is the problem raised by the claim that these constitute physical changes and events also a category considered to be the province of History.

Not really: you can say that there are historical records of people believing that Jesus was resurrected, but your notion that any 'physical changes' that are claimed (and are presumed to be due to supernatural actions) are also within the province of academic historians doesn't work because, and you know this already, there is the problem of what methods can be used to specifically identify 'physical changes' that arose from supernatural intervention. 

When you say "miracles are acts of God" you are begging the question. If I were you I'd just stick to 'faith', since your attempts to portray faith beliefs as historical facts just doesn't fly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really: you can say that there are historical records of people believing that Jesus was resurrected, but your notion that any 'physical changes' that are claimed (and are presumed to be due to supernatural actions) are also within the province of academic historians doesn't work because, and you know this already, there is the problem of what methods can be used to specifically identify 'physical changes' that arose from supernatural intervention. 

] I'm not saying that. Indeed presuming that these physical changes are due to supernatural intervention would be begging the question. Physical change is though the pervue of methodological naturalism.

In the dribs and drabs that are coming to me I have been informed that even if a resurrection were to have been videoed a historian could still not accept a supernatural explanation given the study of history's prior commitment to methodological naturalism and I accept that as the current predicament of academic history

When you say "miracles are acts of God" you are begging the question. If I were you I'd just stick to 'faith', since your attempts to portray faith beliefs as historical facts just doesn't fly.

I say that because it's a dictionary and common definition of a miracle. If it's begging the question then so is your presumption that resurrection must be supernatural.
It's funny because I am accusing YOU of passing YOUR faith beliefs off as fact.

[Gordon]

Your silliness continues: is it the case that Christians believe that the claimed resurrection of Jesus was a divine act, showing that Jesus was not just a mere mortal, or not?

I don't have 'faith beliefs': I'm just pointing out that having 'faith' in fantastical religious superstitions is not something that is justifiable. All I see is a descent into fallacious and wishful thinking, as you continue to demonstrate. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your silliness continues: is it the case that Christians believe that the claimed resurrection of Jesus was a divine act, showing that Jesus was not just a mere mortal, or not?

I don't have 'faith beliefs': I'm just pointing out that having 'faith' in fantastical religious superstitions is not something that is justifiable. All I see is a descent into fallacious and wishful thinking, as you continue to demonstrate.

Ah, You're just getting personal now.
I think we've established what Christians believed and that they've believed it since the early part of the century.

Your claim that you don't have faith beliefs is cobblers. Resurrection are "impossible " was one of yours I recall as were your references to credible (believable) evidence.

Other than that as I also recall you have committed the fallacy of modernity  in your attitude to ancient literature and your impression of a first century more gullible than was the case.

[Gordon]

Ah, You're just getting personal now.
I think we've established what Christians believed and that they've believed it since the early part of the century.

So what - it's the grounds for their beliefs that are the issue.

Your claim that you don't have faith beliefs is cobblers. Resurrection are "impossible " was one of yours I recall as were your references to credible (believable) evidence.

It's more the case that there are no good grounds to think it is possible or credible in the absence of methods to quantify the supernatural.

Other than that as I also recall you have committed the fallacy of modernity  in your attitude to ancient literature and your impression of a first century more gullible than was the case.

More credulous, understandably perhaps, given the times they lived in. Even so, the risks of human artifice still applied in antiquity.

Your grasp of fallacies remains tenuous.