Stephen Jones 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?
>
SJ> 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.
You may have misunderstood me. I was not arguing whether it is now
possible to test Jesus' wounds. This would, indeed, have been "shifting
ground. However, I was calling into question whether there actually was
an invitation to Thomas by Jesus to investigate his wounds "hands-on, so
to speak.
> 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.
>
SJ> 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 is a bit out-of-date!
Fine - if you have some evidence that Jesus' post-resurrection body was
made of neutrinos or other particles with the appropriate properties. To
say nothing of the fact that you are begging the question of whether
Jesus is God!
And what exactly does "physically real but no longer bound by the
contraints of three-dimensional space" *mean*?
> 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?
>
SJ> 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."
I see what you mean. The ability of a claim to stand up to critical
scrutiny is less of an issue when preaching to believers. This is not
intended as a specific slight to theists. It is no different in the
sales and marketing world.
> DM>Did all of the events described in all of the gospels
> >actually occur as described? How has their veracity been
> >validated?
>
SJ> 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.
So you believe that the authors of the gospels either were eyewitnesses,
or were first-hand reporters of eyewitnesses? The findings of Biblical
scholarship do not mostly agree with this belief.
> 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.
My confidence in historical accounts of any type rests firstly on the
quality and volume of consistent independent interpretation of physical
evidence, then on the quality and volume of consistent independent
eyewitness accounts.
> 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.
SJ> 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.
The contradictory claims of Judaism and Islam are naturalistic, not
supernatural, in the sense that they deny the occurence of supernatural
events such as the resurrection of Jesus.
SJ>As for Islam, I understand it accepts that
> Jesus was a prophet and even rose from the dead.
My understanding is that Islam claims that Jesus resurrection was faked,
i.e. he didn't really die. I think that one claim is that Simon of
Cyrene, the man conscripted to carry Jesus' cross (Matt 27:32), was
crucified in his place. Ihaven't been able to confirm this; maybe
someone else can assist.
SJ> 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.
No argument. *IF* "the core Christian claims are true, that Jesus rose
from the dead and appeared to many eye-witnesses".
> DM>I'm sure you've heard that extraordinary claims demand
> >extraordinary evidence. I await this extraordinary evidence.
>
SJ> 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?
On further reflection, I am prepared to moderate my requirement. My
requirement is now for one global core of religious understanding, at
least to the extent that there is one global core of scientific
understanding.
> >>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.
>
SJ> 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.
Then, perhaps you might like to explain the purpose of the Inquisition.
Was it to encourage or supress "intense scrutiny"? For the modern-day
Australian version, read "Heretic" by Peter Cameron.
SJ> Indeed, it has strengthened Christian apologetics immeasurably.
In terms of making it more believable, I agree. In terms of bringing it
closer to reality, I'm not convinced.
SJ> 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".
I am presuming that repeatable supernatural causes can produce
repeatable physical effects that are intrinsically impossible to produce
by natural causes. As an assessment of validity, that would do.
There is a Bible story claiming that Elijah produced such an effect for
Ahab and the priests of Baal (1 Kings 18:19-46).
Regards,
Derek
--------------AB19D5795C87A9454BB20F00
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Derek McLarnen
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Derek McLarnen
n: McLarnen;Derek
adr: ;;;Melba;ACT;2615;Australia
email;internet: dmclarne@pcug.org.au
title: Mr
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
end: vcard
--------------AB19D5795C87A9454BB20F00--