On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 23:36:41 +1100, Derek McLarnen wrote:
>EM>"Thomas, here are my hands, put your hand inside my chest
>>wound, do you now believe?"
>>
>>I say that's a call for "scientific" validation!!!
DM>Yes it is - if it is a true account of an actual event! Is
>it? How can you be sure? How have you tested the veracity of
>this story?
This is shifting ground. The original question was whether
Christian claims were in principle testable and hence scientific
The fact that Jesus offered *evidence* to Thomas and the rest of
the disciples, and didn't just say "believe" argues that it is.
That it is impossible after 2000 years to empirically test Jesus
wounds, does not rule out that it was empirically testable when it
occurred. If present-day empirically testing was a scientfic
criteria, then all historical science, including macroevolution,
would be ruled out.
DM>The same author claimed (John 20:19 & 26) that Jesus
>appeared in a closed room - a very clear indication of
>either "ghostliness" or a shared vision rather than a real
>experience. How can this claim be reconciled with the
>physical presence required for the offer of "scientific
>validation" described in John 20:27.
The text makes it plain that Jesus was physically real but
no longer bound by the contraints of three-dimensional space.
In this day of subatomic particles like neutrinos that can pass
through miles of matter undetected, I would have thought this
argument that God couldn't pass through a 6-inch wall
is a bit out-of-date!
DM>This is a story that is only told in John and not referred
>to in any of the synoptics. How might that affect the
>story's credibility?
Not at all. The gospel writers all have their own unique passages.
The synoptic gospels each had their own emphasis of an aspect of
Jesus' ministry, aimed primarily at unbelievers. John's purpose is
more reflective and aimed primarily at believers:
Jn 20:31 "But these are written that you may [Gk. continue to]
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by
believing you may have life in his name."
DM>Did all of the events described in all of the gospels
>actually occur as described? How has their veracity been
>validated?
Yes "all of the events described in all of the gospels" (apart from
parables) did "actually occur as described". Their veracity has been
validated in the same way that all past history is validated, by the
testimony of reliable witnesses, and by their after-effects. In this
case the eye-witnesses who were prepared to suffer and die for what
they really believed to be true.
DM>You may be willing to believe the Thomas story, based on
>what appears to me to be no more than the fact of its
>inclusion in the Bible, but I am not willing to accept the
>truth of such a claim solely on this basis.
OK. But you seem to disbelieve it just because it is included in
the Bible! You appear to have a double-standard of historical truth.
Any historical source that would cast doubt on the Bible is
held by you to be automatically true while the historical sources
that are in the Bible or support the Bible are automatically false.
DM>Proponents of Judaism and Islam would almost certainly deny
>any reality to the Thomas story, since it is somewhat
>dependant on the resurrection of Jesus, which they also
>deny. I have yet to have someone explain to me why Christian
>claims about supernatural phenomena are intrinsically more
>believable than the contradictory claims of Judaism or
>Islam.
I am not aware that there *are* supernatural claims of Judaism or
Islam that contradict those of Christianity. Christians accept the
supernatural claims of Judaism in the Old Testament and I am not
aware of any afterwards. As for Islam, I understand it accepts that
Jesus was a prophet and even rose from the dead.
But in any event, it is not necessary for Christians to claim that
all supernatural claims in other religions are false. The point is
that if the core Christian claims are true, that Jesus rose from the
dead and appeared to many eye-witnesses, then the supernatural
claims of other religions are largely irrelevant.
DM>I'm sure you've heard that extraordinary claims demand
>extraordinary evidence. I await this extraordinary evidence.
Derek, when I have previously asked you for what evidence you
would accept for God's existence, you said words to the effect that
you would only accept God revealing Himself to you personally and
speaking to you! I presume that the "extraordinary evidence" you
demand for "the resurrection of Jesus" is in the same category? IOW,
*no* amount of evidence that I or any Christian apologist could give
you would make any difference?
But in case I am being unfair, I will give you the opportunity
to say in advance what "extraordinary evidence" you would
accept that would convince you that Jesus rose from the dead?
>>DM> Many people would claim that science doesn't cover claims of
>>past, present or future specific actions by a deity. However, I
>>see no reason why claims that a deity may have acted in a
>>specific manner should be exempt from the processes of
>>scientific methodology in assessing their validity.
No Christian apologist to my knowledge says that "past, present or
future specific actions by a deity" are "exempt from the processes of
scientific methodology in assessing their validity". Christianity
has been the subject of two millennia of intense scrutinty by its
critics, and Christians have never objected in principle to this.
Indeed, it has strengthened Christian apologetics immeasurably.
But if the "scientific methodology" you have in mind is based on the
philosophies of materialism (matter is all, therefore there is no God)
and naturalism (even if there was a God, He could not intervene in
the natural chain of cause-and-effect), then by definition under this
philosophy there can be no "assessing their validity".
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------