OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[buckeyegrad]

I thought I would post this editorial by Ken Connor as it brilliantly states the significance of the resurrection and why seeing Jesus as only a moral teacher does not work:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...ter_people_the_centrality_of_the_resurrection

There is a lot of good material in the piece, but this paragraph probably sums it up best:

In this age of relativism, tolerance, and inclusion, Christ's claims of absolutism and exclusivity make many uncomfortable. It is deemed to be in poor taste to assert that there is only one way to God. Therefore, acknowledging Jesus as a great moral teacher is a convenient way of partially embracing him, while at the same time keeping him at a distance. But Jesus doesn't allow us to have it both ways. Christ did not come to earth to merely usher in a new morality. C. S. Lewis explains, "...Christianity is not the promulgation of a moral discovery. It is addressed only to penitents, only to those who admit their disobedience to the known moral law." In other words, Christ did not come to teach morality to those who are ignorant of it. He did not come to offer a new moral law. He came to save those who had fallen short of the existing one. Ultimately, Christ came to save sinners. (1 Tim. 1:15)

 

[Buckeye Buh Nim]

Our pastor restated Paul's argument for the ressurection of Christ this weekend. Before that, he did make one very convincing argument.

In law today, Eye Witness testimony trumps almost all other evidence. Often the fate/life of the accused rests on the eye witness testimony of one person.

When Nixon was in office his inner circle of 12 men who believed in what he was doing for the country, fell apart quickly and easily in the face of scandal. 12 men could not keep the truth behind Watergate suppressed.

Yet we have hundreds who witnessed Christs ressurection without recanting, without falling apart as a conspiracy. This is not to be taken lightly.

Most of the apostles held to their account of the Ressurection even at their own deaths.

Sure today we have pagan symbols infused with Easter in the media. But I don't see this at my church or any other church I have attended.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The argument is flawed. Eye witness testimony does not trump all other evidence. It is equal with all other evidence. To be weighed as the jury (in the case of religion, us) sees fit based on credibility determinations made by the individual juror. What you describe may well be strong credible evidence... but it trumps nothing in and of itself.

Likewise, if I have evidence - say a video tape - showing the criminal defendant killing person X with a single shot from a .357 through his brain I am hard pressed to understand how an eyewitness to the shooting saying "No, I saw some other person shooting person X" would trump. I mention just to illustrate further that the argument is "flawed" in as much as it is based on any evidentiary "trumping" theory.

 

[buckeyegrad]

The argument is flawed. Eye witness testimony does not trump all other evidence. It is equal with all other evidence. To be weighed as the jury (in the case of religion, us) sees fit based on credibility determinations made by the individual juror. What you describe may well be strong credible evidence... but it trumps nothing in and of itself.

Likewise, if I have evidence - say a video tape - showing the criminal defendant killing person X with a single shot from a .357 through his brain I am hard pressed to understand how an eyewitness to the shooting saying "No, I saw some other person shooting person X" would trump. I mention just to illustrate further that the argument is "flawed" in as much as it is based on any evidentiary "trumping" theory.

I agree that that particular argument may not be sufficient in itself, but it does provide a useful analogy to use. Paul says there were over 500 witnesses to the resurrection who could testify to its validity.

If this is a court room and Paul as a lawyer presents this as evidence, what evidence would you as the opposing lawyer provide to raise a reasonable doubt to the testimonies of those witnesses or to Paul's establishment of the evidence? Granted, you can provide a conspiratorial argument in order to raise doubt, but if we rely only on evidence, what can be provided? In other words, what is your tape showing evidence to the contrary?

 

[Buckeye Buh Nim]

The argument is flawed. Eye witness testimony does not trump all other evidence. It is equal with all other evidence. To be weighed as the jury (in the case of religion, us) sees fit based on credibility determinations made by the individual juror. What you describe may well be strong credible evidence... but it trumps nothing in and of itself.

Likewise, if I have evidence - say a video tape - showing the criminal defendant killing person X with a single shot from a .357 through his brain I am hard pressed to understand how an eyewitness to the shooting saying "No, I saw some other person shooting person X" would trump. I mention just to illustrate further that the argument is "flawed" in as much as it is based on any evidentiary "trumping" theory.

You misquoted me. I said that it trumps most other evidence. Video evidence is also viewed with a skeptical eye mainly due to quality issues with said evidence. I am not saying there aren't flaws in eyewitness testimony, but I am saying that it is highly regarded.

Let us put it another way. Would you rather watch an OSU game on TV, or in person?

here is a pretty good Q&A on this topic...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/interviews/loftus2.html

 

[sandgk]

You misquoted me. I said that it trumps most other evidence. Video evidence is also viewed with a skeptical eye mainly due to quality issues with said evidence. I am not saying there aren't flaws in eyewitness testimony, but I am saying that it is highly regarded.

Well to paraphrase BKB what he is telling you is that it does not matter whether you claim partial trump or trumping all evidence - this isn't Euchre. All admitted evidence is treated equivalently.

Besides which you have the whole business of whether a report of an oral history belatedly set to parchment, with one or more translations, constitutes true eyewitness testimony. It sounds harsh, but is probably fair, to call such a record hearsay.

 

[Buckeye Buh Nim]

Well to paraphrase BKB what he is telling you is that it does not matter whether you claim partial trump or trumping all evidence - this isn't Euchre. All admitted evidence is treated equivalently.

Besides which you have the whole business of whether a report of an oral history belatedly set to parchment, with one or more translations, constitutes true eyewitness testimony. It sounds harsh, but is probably fair, to call such a record hearsay.

No, that is not the case. Not all evidence carries the same weight.
Let's take a murder trial where a man is shot.

You find the gun, you find the defendants prints on the gun, you find the bullet that killed the person came from the gun.

If that is all you have, any good defense attorney can get the guy off.

Now, lets say all you have is an eye witness saying that the defendant did the deed. It will be a much harder case for the defense.

Now, with that in mind, I do agree that relying on written evidence that descends from oral stories handed down over generations through different languages may be suspect. But considering the time difference, etc... there is not much else that you can bring in the case for the argument. You also have almost nothing in the case against, excpet for this absurd claim by Spielberg that he found the body.

But if you are so willing to discount the ressurection for these reasons, then you also need to be willing to discount the claims of almost every other ancient civilization, as well as a lot of written history. (i.e. the Battle of Thermopylae)

 

[Bleed S & G]

the Bible is pretty explicit in stating that the true church will NOT be mainstream.

LV, i find this interesting.. anyway you (or anyone else) can cite some passages that illustrate this?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I agree that that particular argument may not be sufficient in itself, but it does provide a useful analogy to use. Paul says there were over 500 witnesses to the resurrection who could testify to its validity.

If this is a court room and Paul as a lawyer presents this as evidence, what evidence would you as the opposing lawyer provide to raise a reasonable doubt to the testimonies of those witnesses or to Paul's establishment of the evidence? Granted, you can provide a conspiratorial argument in order to raise doubt, but if we rely only on evidence, what can be provided? In other words, what is your tape showing evidence to the contrary?

Unfortunately I do not have the time to provide such an analysis at the moment, but I intend to give this attention soon. I think it would be an interesting discussion.

"Granted, you can provide a conspiratorial argument in order to raise doubt, but if we rely only on evidence, what can be provided?"

So we're playing by the same rules here, who bares the burden of proof? My understanding of the way you phrased this exercise is that Paul bares the burden (although I think the use of the term "reasonable doubt" sets the bar far too high for Paul, this isn't a criminal matter and should probably be weighed in terms of the perponderance of the evidence, or a lesser standard, in fairness to Paul.) and that being the case, I don't need to establish evidence to the contrary (provide a tape). That is to say, briefly, to the extent that any conspiratorial argument I've made is "reasonable" I've already won. It may or may not be reasonable, but, that's for the individual jurors to decide, of course.

Anyway, I hope to be able to delve in to this further later, as I think it would be interesting to do.

You misquoted me. I said that it trumps most other evidence. Video evidence is also viewed with a skeptical eye mainly due to quality issues with said evidence. I am not saying there aren't flaws in eyewitness testimony, but I am saying that it is highly regarded.

Let us put it another way. Would you rather watch an OSU game on TV, or in person?

here is a pretty good Q&A on this topic...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/interviews/loftus2.html

Sandgk summarized what I mean pretty well. My point is, witness testimony does not "trump" other evidence. You give examples of weight of evidence, which is fair - since I'm doing the same thing, afterall. But, weight of evidence is in the eye of the beholder (that is, the jury) and it is not the state of law that providing evidence of type A shall be considered more impressive than evidence of type B.

Witness testimony may or may not be the determinative factor in a trial, but it holds no particular favor owing to it's very nature as "witness testimony." Thus, your (or I should say whoever presented this argument in your church) reliance on the word "trumps" is incorrect. It does not trump.

Incidentally, I'd prefer watching the game on TV. But, that's a personal preference and has a lot to do with the availability of beer.

 

[sandgk]

No, that is not the case. Not all evidence carries the same weight.
Let's take a murder trial where a man is shot.

You find the gun, you find the defendants prints on the gun, you find the bullet that killed the person came from the gun.

If that is all you have, any good defense attorney can get the guy off.

BBH - first, the whole evidence being equally treated discussion was to give my clear understanding of what BKB wrote. As in, this is the way it is treated in law. I give his word on that appropriate weight as an educated and professional opinion.
Now, interestingly enough, what you describe is the other side of the coin, which types of evidence might a layperson (your juror if you will) place heavier emphasis upon. Clearly you place less emphasis on physical evidence than on those eyewitness reports. For my part though, if I see physical evidence of the type you describe I would give it strong weight - probably because I have a methodoligical or scientific bent. Also, the contention that any good defense attorney would be able to get such a suspect of is open to an entirely different debate - not truly germane to this thread. For now it is important to use your example to compare and contrast what is, what is measured, what is heard or seen, and what is reportedly heard or seen.

Now, lets say all you have is an eye witness saying that the defendant did the deed. It will be a much harder case for the defense.

Maybe so, maybe not. Is the eyewitness reliable? Easily confused as to appearance? Or on cross examination allows that is looks like him, then somewhat like him -- and so on down that slippery slope toward nullification of the eyewitness account.
Perhaps it is once again my scientifc disposition in this, but observer bias is one thing that can plague any experiment. Asking an untrained observer to assert the identity of a cuplrit by eye would, in my estimation, (and that of others) be risky. Conversely, the type of circumstantial evidence to which you say less weight is given -- by jurors -- is in fact generally reliable.
So, I would agree with you that jurors tend to give less weight than they should to physical and circumstantial evidence. That however does not mean they are of lesser weight in law, merely (and sadly) given less than their full weight by the general public.

Now, with that in mind, I do agree that relying on written evidence that descends from oral stories handed down over generations through different languages may be suspect. But considering the time difference, etc... there is not much else that you can bring in the case for the argument. You also have almost nothing in the case against, excpet for this absurd claim by Spielberg that he found the body.

But if you are so willing to discount the ressurection for these reasons, then you also need to be willing to discount the claims of almost every other ancient civilization, as well as a lot of written history. (i.e. the Battle of Thermopylae)

You are assuming that I am discounting one part or other of the Biblical text. No assumption is needed in that regard. My "harsh but fair" example on how later reports could be characterized is really intended to show that, if you want to start applying rules of evidence to your primary sources, they may not even make it by the jurors eyes or ears.
Not one word passed from finger through keyboard to your eyes concerning my religious beliefs.

 

[buckeyegrad]

So we're playing by the same rules here, who bares the burden of proof? My understanding of the way you phrased this exercise is that Paul bares the burden (although I think the use of the term "reasonable doubt" sets the bar far too high for Paul, this isn't a criminal matter and should probably be weighed in terms of the perponderance of the evidence, or a lesser standard, in fairness to Paul.) and that being the case, I don't need to establish evidence to the contrary (provide a tape). That is to say, briefly, to the extent that any conspiratorial argument I've made is "reasonable" I've already won. It may or may not be reasonable, but, that's for the individual jurors to decide, of course.

In the case as I understand it (specifically, Paul's use of eye witnesses), I agree that the burden of proof is on Paul. As part (and only one part, not the entire argument) of his case to prove the resurrection he brings forth the account that there were 500 witnesses to the event. How would you go about discounting this evidence? How would you prove that this testimony is not valid?

Since there is no direct evidence we know of to the contrary of the resurrection (i.e. we don't have any physical evidence of a resurrection hoax or witnesses testifying to such an event occurring) the only thing you have left as the lawyer arguing against Paul is to raise doubt about his intentions or to raise doubt about the intentions of the 500 witnesses. As a jury member, this gets me no where since it comes down to who do I trust more....in other words, faith!

 

[buckeyegrad]

Perhaps it is once again my scientifc disposition in this, but observer bias is one thing that can plague any experiment.

This is an unrelated quibble, but I couldn't let it go.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a "scientific disposition", but a "positivistic" or "empiricistic" one. As a qualitative researcher, which is a different scientific approach than that defined by empiricism, I fully acknowledge the existence of observer bias. However, rather than trying to eliminate it in order to ensure the validity of the observations, I embrace the bias and try to establish the trustworthiness of observations in light of it.

 

[lvbuckeye]

LV, i find this interesting.. anyway you (or anyone else) can cite some passages that illustrate this?

Matthew 7:21-23, for one. the Revelation for another. if you take time to actually study it, it is plainly evident that the Bride of Christ was destined to be hounded and killed for over a thousand years by the universal false beast church of this earth. study Revelation from a historicist view. these two sites are good:

http://www.historicist.com/
http://1335.com/

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

In the case as I understand it (specifically, Paul's use of eye witnesses), I agree that the burden of proof is on Paul. As part (and only one part, not the entire argument) of his case to prove the resurrection he brings forth the account that there were 500 witnesses to the event. How would you go about discounting this evidence? How would you prove that this testimony is not valid?

Since there is no direct evidence we know of to the contrary of the resurrection (i.e. we don't have any physical evidence of a resurrection hoax or witnesses testifying to such an event occurring) the only thing you have left as the lawyer arguing against Paul is to raise doubt about his intentions or to raise doubt about the intentions of the 500 witnesses. As a jury member, this gets me no where since it comes down to who do I trust more....in other words, faith!

Again, I'll get more in to it later, I hope. But, I'd also point out.... a jury is not obligated to believe one thing simply because their is testimonial evidence of it, and even where there is no attack on the witnesses testimony. That is, if witness X testifies that she saw a man shove a fully grown elephant up his nose, a witness is not required to so believe simply because there is an absense of evidence to the contrary. I bring this up because you seem to indicate "We have testimony that the resurrection happened, so therefore it did unless it can be shown otherwise" which isn't true. All we have is testimony to be or not to be believed.

Likewise, appeals to some number of witnesses is meaningless without a testimonial from any of them.

So I'm clear, is Paul also a witness in this excersie? What I mean is, can I cross examine Paul? If I could, I'd point out that he didn't see anything with his own eyes, relying instead on Peter's accounting(s) (for example) (hearsay). I'd inquire in to the nature of his relationship with Peter, and I'd try to elicit that Peter is not to be believed wholesale (a theory I'd futher advance when I put my case in chief on by the inclusion of testimony from other "expets" (say, the Gnostic authors). And then I'd get him to admit he believes he is being compelled to write things by some invisible force that he "hears in his head..." a hallucination... etc... (ie the Holy Spirit) etc..

I'll get in to more later....

 

[Bleed S & G]

Matthew 7:21-23, for one. the Revelation for another. if you take time to actually study it, it is plainly evident that the Bride of Christ was destined to be hounded and killed for over a thousand years by the universal false beast church of this earth. study Revelation from a historicist view. these two sites are good:

http://www.historicist.com/
http://1335.com/

Thanks, and was reading today how the bible was composed and combined with Roman pagan belifs, thanks to Constantine. They pretty much made up every tradition & ritual Cathliocs celebrate in present day mass.. nuts.

This is off topic, but found these sites about the flood:
http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/Flood.htm
^Theory that pre-flood civiliaztions were in the ice-age, comet hit glacier ice sheet and began the flood. Uses the bibles account and Plato's with other support for the theory.

http://www.s8int.com/index.html
^This one goes into how the pre-flood cultures had computers, nukes, etc. and how archelogical discoveries are supporting an advanced culture pre-flood more and more