Dean Radin: Consciousness influence over matter and physical devices

 

A fictional dialogue about the Historical Jesus between a truth-seeker, a liberal scholar and a new ager (part 10). CONCLUSIONS.

 

 

TS: In our previous dialogues, we discussed the evidence for and against the empty tomb. I think it was proved the evidence was more convincing than the objections to it, although my liberal friend would disagree.

Liberal: Sure.

TS: Since everybody agrees that the disciples had the experience of the risen Jesus and that that gave origin to the Christian faith, I think it is a waste of time to discuss the evidence for it.

I let the hypothetical readers of these dialogues to figure out which is the best explanation for the empty tomb, the physicality of the resurrection appearences of Jesus, the origin of the belief of the disciples that Jesus was risen from the death (contrary to the Jewish expectation about the resurrection) and the transformation of Paul (from an enemy of Christians to become their foremost apologist) after seeing Jesus' appearence to him.

I'd like to suggest that in today's dialogue, we pose some closing remarks and conclusions of these discussions.

NA and liberal: Agreed.

TS:: My conclusion is this, and please read it carefully:

One of the most important things in the searching for the truth is consistency, that is, not using double standards to reach conclusions that we like.

In my investigation about the historical Jesus, I've discoveried massive inconsistencies which are unworthy of true, serious, honest researchers. I've already discussed the inconsistency of "liberals", who portrait themselves as independent, scientific investigators of the Historical Jesus.

In the case of New Agers, the most egregious inconsistencies are these:

1)People sympathetic to the Jesus Seminar (and other liberals) and, simultaneously, sympathetic to A Course in Miracles, Conversations with God, the Aquariam Gospel of Jesus, and other new age 20th sources about Jesus.

The lack of consistency can seen here: If you use the same hypercritical methodology that the Jesus Seminar and other liberals use with the 1st century Christian sources, to research the 20th century sources about Jesus, you would reach extremely skeptical conclusions about such 20th new age sources too.

For example:  as a rule, due to the influence of atheistic naturalism, liberals are skeptical of traditions about Jesus which present a post-mortem Jesus giving any information or teaching (they consider these traditions to be "fictional"). On parity of reasoning, the whole of ACIM and the other 20th centuries sources would have to be considered fictional, since they are sources which provide Jesus' information... 19 centuries after he died.

By this liberal methodological criterion alone, the whole of ACIM and other sources are non-starters.

Consider this: In Galatians 1:11-12, Paul's claim that Jesus passed his teachings to him directly, which is seen by liberals as "non-factual" (they don't deny necessarily Paul's experiences, what they deny is that actually Jesus appeared to Paul and taught him the Gospel). Liberals and New Agers laugh, dismiss, distrust and are very skeptical of Paul's claim that Jesus taught and tutored the Gospel to him, but simultaneously (in the case of some New Agers) they take seriously ACIM and other 20th century sources about Jesus. Why exactly do ACIM/other post-mortem sources are more reliable and veridical than Paul's, who also claimed to know and teach the Gospel that Jesus directly taught him? On what consistent methodological criterion can you justify such view?

It has nothing to do with science or scholarpship, it is pure WISHFUL THINKING.

  

Note: If the New Ager, in order to give credibility to ACIM and other sources about Jesus, skips this liberal methodological restriction and accepts as possible that a post-mortem Jesus provided his true teachings to some person, then Paul's claim cannot be distrusted on the liberal restriction anymore, since it is also possible that Jesus passed his true teachings directly to Paul exactly as Paul taught them! (In this case, the New Ager will be forced to used another double standard to favor ACIM/other sources over the techings of Paul, which again would expose the New Ager's inconsistency, prejudices and bias against the Christian view).

For example:  many liberals assume that the traditions which are singly attested in one Gospel alone are fictional (because they don't pass the criterion of multiple attestation). So, John's Gospel singly attested traditions are considered finctional and unreliable. But on parity of reasoning, all the original content and contributions (=content which is unique, and hence not multiply attested) of the ACIM and other sources, should be considered fictional too.

For example:  Many liberals assume that later, theologically evolved, properly Christian concepts and expressions about Jesus are fictional and not coming from Jesus at all (this is another reason why the 1st century John's Gospel is considered unreliable by such "liberals"). But on parity of reasoning, all the theologically evolved, high-Christological concepts and expressions (like references to the Son of God belonging to the Holy Trinity) that you find in 20th century ACIM and other sources, have to be considered fictional too and not coming from Jesus at all.

For example: Many liberals assume that traditions not found in "Q" are fictional or unreliable. On parity of reasoning, a very large portion of ACIM and other 20th century sources should be considered fictional or unreliable, since they present new information and details not found in Q (including spiritually and theologically charged interpretations about the atonement related to the resurrection and the crucifixion).

The so-called "facts" that some liberals pose about Jesus are consequence of a hypercritical methodology which exclude a lot of historically reliable information about Jesus in the Gospels, a methodology which, if applied consistently to the 20th century sources, would exclude such sources too for being fictional, extremely late and unreliable. This is where the egregious methodological double standard lies.

2)The above evidence suggests that New Agers sympathetic to the Jesus Seminar and other liberals don't agree with such liberals for methodological reasons, but exclusively for ideological ones: such New Agers like the conclusions of liberals about the historical Jesus and dislike the Christian, divine, exclusivistic high Christological view of Jesus. This psychological and ideological fact makes them prone and extremely biased to liberal scholarship (hence, the egregious double standards!).

This fact may be seen easily in this example:

-The evidence for  Jesus' exclusivistic self-perception, divine status and being the Son of God in a unique divine sense, passes several criteria of historical authenticity (including being in "Q"). However, absolutely not evidence exists in Q or any other 1st century historical sources, of Jesus being master of Yoga, Chi Kung, Tai Chi and so forth.

Shockingly, some New Agers are extremely skeptical of Jesus' claims of exclusivism, but at the same time they "suggest" that it is "plausible" that Jesus was a master of Yoga or Chi Kung... and even worst, that Jesus' mastering of these techniques produced the resurrection!

Again, wishful thinking overrides methodological consistency, objectivity and honest search for the truth.

This shows clearly that their notions of "plausibility" have nothing to do with historical evidence and methodological consistency, but with ideological prejudices about how Jesus should be (a prejudice which, essentially and a priori, precludes the possibility of Jesus being like the early Christians thought he was . (Obviously, this is an egregious bias against the Christian view of Jesus)

I find such inconsistency to be hypocrital, intellectually dishonest and unworthy of serious seekers after the truth.

The whole purpose of these people is trying to avoid the distinctive Christian view of Jesus for whatever means they can use, even if some of such distinctive aspects are supported by historical evidence which is better supported than the alternatives.

I'm extremely dissapointed of New Agers and other people like that.

They are not interested in the truth, but on reaching non-Christian conclusions which fit their emotional and ideological expectatives!. They're (anti-Christian) ideologues.

 3)In my opinion, being truthly "open-minded" means to following the evidence wherever it leads, including if it leads you to conclusions unpalatable to you or contrary to your worldview. If it leads you to atheistic materialism, then accept atheistic materialism. If it leads you to socialism, then accept socialism. It it leads you to the factuality of reincarnation, then accept reincarnation. If it leads you to the non-existence of Jesus, then accept the non-existence of Jesus, if it leads you the existence of paranormal phenomena, then accept them.

We're interested in the TRUTH, not on imposing our personal ideology.

But, on parity of reasoning,  if the historical evidence leads you to Jesus' exclusivistic claims (and claims implying divinity), then accept it. If the historical evidence leads you to Jesus' resurrection, then accept it.

Like it or not, you have to be sensible to the evidence, even to evidence contrary to your convictions.

I haven't seen this disposition to follow the evidence in New Age and paranormal circles. They're open-minded only regarding things to which they're initially sympathetic to. If you write about topics that they like (like afterlife research, debunking of pseudoskeptics, etc.) they will applaude you and you will be a kind of hero to some of them.

But regarding topics which they don't like or disagree with, they become angry pseudoskeptics themselves, arguing in uninformed form, providing arm-chair and ignorant criticisms which are not informed by standard methodological criteria and findings of scholarhip, making explicit (and sometimes being proud of) his own prejudices, being hostile, emotional, agressive, intolerant, insulting, intentionally misrepresenting what one is saying, uncharitably interpretating one's arguments, etc. (or using name calling or ad hominem labels or red herrings like "conservative", "fundamentalist", etc. as whether it were a rational objection or real argument which addresses the substantive points and is relevant for serious discussions about the historical Jesus).

Great example provided by people supposedly committed to a "spiritual" life and who constantly are talking of "love" as the universal principle of existence...

Someone said that "extreme tends to touch each other", and the pseudoskepticism that I've seen in some New Age and paranormal circles regarding the Christian view of Jesus is very similar to the pseudoskepticism of atheistic materialists about parapsychology. 

They use exactly the same methods, only varies the content of their ideas or beliefs.

Shame of them.

Summarizing: My current conclusion is that the consistent application of the historical method used by professional historians and the criteria of authenticity supports several of the distinctive Christological aspects of the life of the historical Jesus. This is a historical conclusion.

If one likes or dislikes that, is another problem which perhaps should be discussed in another forum... (of psychology, perhaps).

NA: My conclusions about these discussions are these:

-I agree with TS that the methodology used by the Jesus Seminar and other liberals is too restrictive and biased. 

I didn't see such problem before, because the liberal conclusions tended to cohere well with the teachings of a A Course in Miracles (ACIM), so this coherence with a material which I regard as true (namely, the ACIM) suggested to me that the liberal conclusions were plausible.

However, in these discussions, TS proved that the conclusions of liberals are mainly based on a inconsistent application of the criteria of authenticity and on atheistic assumptions which are gratuitous, in order to undermine or cast doubts on the credibility of the high-Christological traditions found in the Gospels. 

Even worst, I have to concede TS' point that if such liberal methodology is applied to ACIM (in the same way in which it is applied to the Gospels), then such liberal methodology would produce extremely skeptical conclusions about ACIM. Now, I can see this problem clearly.

This puts me in a dilemma: On one side I have ACIM, and on the other side I have the liberal methodology. Since the latter would see ACIM as unreliable,  and I think that ACIM is true, I'm forced to doubt and be more critical of the the liberal methodology. But if I do that, then I cannot dismiss anymore some of the traditions supporting the Christian view of Jesus (traditions which were dismissed by liberals precisely using the methodology which would destroy the ACIM too).

TS also mentioned other 20th century sources like ACIM which provide information about Jesus (put in Jesus' lips) which is contrary to ACIM.

Again, this puts me in a trouble: I haven't non-question begging reasons to distrust these sources on behalf of ACIM, and I openly concede this point.

However, ACIM has reached my heart, it has had a profound effect in me, has caused a whole change in my spiritual life and I still consider it to be true. If you want, you can think that my commitment to ACIM is based "on faith" (and as I'm consistent, I cannot attack anybody, including some Christians or Muslims, who disagree with me and hold their views "on faith" too).

I have to live with that subjectivism.

Liberal: I've already heard all the arguments of TS and NA, and I'm still unpersuaded by them. My conclusions, widely shared by contemporary scientific scholarpship, are:

-Jesus was basically a 1st century teller of stories and parables, and his purpose was basically changing people's minds. That's all, basically. In this regards, there is nothing special about him. A lot of people, before and after Jesus, have provided the same teachings about loving others, etc.

He was another "spiritual" teacher, like many others. There is nothing exclusive about him, he is one among a spectrum of spiritual teachers (all of who teach basically the same and not one is seen as superior than the others in a divine sense), whom my collegue Marcus Borg likes to call "Spirit-Persons".

-The extremely exalted, divine view of Jesus has nothing to do with the historical Jesus. It was a later view developed by his followers and put back into Jesus' lips. Jesus NEVER uttered such things.

-Hence, all the Christological traditions in the Gospels are all fictional and didn't come from Jesus's lips.

-Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God in any special sense.  By the way, phrase "Son of God" was used also of prophets, kings, etc. without implying nothing special.

-Jesus was a miracle-worker in the sense that people around him perceived him as someone who performed many miracles. But actually and literally, miracles don't exist and in this sense Jesus didn't produce them. Such miracles are fictions. In Jesus' time, a lot of other "miracle-workers" existed too, so Jesus is nothing special in this regards either.

-The stories about the empty tomb are likely to be fictional, since they're full of hopeless contradictions. The same applies to the resurrection narratives. All of these were invented for apologetical purposes of trying to convince others that Jesus was risen from the death. They're pure legends.

-The story of the resurrection were caused by hallucinations of the disciples. This hallucinations caused in them the impression that Jesus was somehow divine, and hence (with time passed) Jesus' human figure was exalted into God himself. Hence, when the Gospels were written decades after Jesus' death, this highly distorted, unhistorical divine view of Jesus was already in place and the Gospels were written from that biased, historically corrupted, theologically distorted perspective.

This is the origin of the "Christological" traditions in the Gospels.

In summary: Jesus was a mere man like you or me. Period. He simply stressed spiritual, psychological and moral teachings like all the other "spirit-persons". He didn't see himself as "divine" in any special sense.

All the "divene powers" added to him don't belong to him at all, and are the product of the religious enthusiasm of his followers, who exalted him into a divinity, systematically misunderstood his teachings, centring them around a person and largely falsified the historical facts on behalf of a religious agenda and propaganda.

These are some of the conclusions of modern, scientific scholarship about the historical Jesus.

Regarding ACIM and other 20th century sources, it is easier to think that Helen Schucman and the other authors invented all of that and then put it in Jesus' lips. If such new age teachings "cohere" or not with the scientific conclusions of scholarship don't make such sources reliable, since they are extremely late sources (incredibly later than John's Gospel) and above all it  hasn't been proved that such new age documents come from independent, reliable sources about Jesus, let alone from Jesus himself.

It is up to the readers to reach their own conclusions.

END OF THESE DIALOGUES

A fictional dialogue about the Historical Jesus between a truth-seeker, a liberal scholar and a new ager (part 9)

TS: We began to discuss the evidence for and against the empty tomb. In one of our previous dialogues, our liberal friend argued that he was skeptical of the empty tomb, suggesting that:

The stories of the empty tomb in the Gospels are full of holes and hopeless contradictions.

Right?

Liberal: Right.

TS: Can you expand this objection?

Liberal: Well, when you look upon the Gospels, the narratives regarding the empty tomb are full of contradictions, and therefore it implies that they're are false.

For example, how many women were present in the tomb? According to Mark, 3 women visited the tomb (Mark 16: 1-2), but according to John,  Mary Magdalene was the only woman to visit the tomb (John 20: 1).

There is an obvious contradiction there, and therefore it is false.

TS: Before answering your objection, I'd like to discuss what is exactly a contradiction, because a lot of claims by liberal scholars about "contradictions" are not contradictions at all in a technical sense.

A contradiction occurs when one proposition is the exact denial of another one. Technically, when a proposition claims A, and another proposition claims Non-A, in the same respect,  we have a contradiction between such two propositions.

So, atheism and theism are contradictory, since the former claims God's non-existence and the latter asserts God's existence.

Note that if a proposition claims A, and another proposition claims B, it is not necessarily a contradiction, since A and B could be logically compatible (only when A and B implies some contradiction, in the above sense, we can be sure they're logically incompatible and contradictory).

So, claiming that a man is Colombian (proposition A) and Venezuelan (proposition B) are two different descriptions of the same man, but both propositions could be true because both countries allow having multiple nationalities. They're not contradictory.

Liberal: And what the hell has that to do with the Gospels' narratives about the empty tomb?

TS: It has too much to do with them, because in the specific examples mentioned by you above, if we read them literally, there is not contradiction at all.

Let's compare them. In Mark 16: 1-2 we read: 

When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. ² And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 

In John 20:1 we read:

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb

Mark mentions 3 women, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Salome, and John mentions only Mary Magdalene.

Liberal: And there is the contradiction! You cannot have 3 women and simultaneously having just one. It is one case or the other.

TS: There is a contradiction only if you assume that John is claiming that ONLY Mary Magdalene visited the tomb, but he's not claiming that. He's just saying that Mary Magdalene visited the tomb, a fact multiply attested by (and in full agreement with) Mark.

Liberal: But John is giving the impression that just Mary Magdalene visited the tomb, not the other women. The other women are not mentioned.

TS: Perhaps. But my point is that, in a accurate reading of the reports, there is not a straightforward technical contradiction between Mark and John´s accounts regarding the number of women that visited the tomb. The contradiction only appears if we ADD the word "only" to John's narrative, which is not part of it.

More specifically, the contradiction only exists if you assume that both accounts were meant to be EXHAUSTIVE accounts of the all the same facts. But as professional historians know, historical sources are selective regarding the facts (and the emphasis on the facts) that they choose to tell. (This selectivity is factually unavoidable, since you cannot recordn and tell absolutely all the facts of the physical universe in a given time. You have to select the facts that are relevant to the event you're narrating).

Suppose that I write: "I visited Michael Prescott's blog the day X, and there was commenting Zerdini, Vitor Moura and Keith Augustine".

And another person writes: "I also visited Prescott's blog the day X, and there was Augustine writing".

Is there a contradiction between the accounts of both persons? Clearly, no proper contradiction exists in such examples. The contradiction only appears if you assume that both accounts are meant to be exhaustive accounts of the same facts, in this case, of the people writing in Prescott's blog on day X.

The above two statements chose to report the facts in a different way, depending on what the author wanted to stress (perhaps, the first statement wanted to stress the ideological diversity of the people commenting on Prescott's blog, and the other statement to stress just the fact that a skeptic wrote there).

Both statements are incomplete and selective in their reporting, but they're both TRUE (and therefore, not contradictory).

Only an extremely prejudiced, biased and uncharitable reader would read the above two statements and conclude "What an amazing contradiction, both testimonies are hopeless contradictories, and therefore we can't believe them. Hence, it is fictional that Augustine (or Zerdini, or Vitor Moura) wrote that day".

This is what liberals do when reading the New Testament, specially the evidence for the resurrection. 

The slightest difference on reporting is magnified and exaggerated into hopeless contradictions and inconsistencies, and not attempt to figuring out plausible harmonizations is made. Such liberals want and are desperate to find inconsistencies in order to disbelieve the information (specially the Christological information) found in the Gospels.

Liberal: I disagree. For me, John is implying that only a women visited the tomb. Period.

TS: Fine, but it is clear that John never says it. Mentioning one person doesn't mean discarding others, even if your emphasis is just in one person.

Liberal: But he's implying it. It is telling that you are free to speculate about tacit "implications" of the empty tomb when Paul didn't mention it, but are skeptical of the "implications" of John regarding the number of women who visited the tomb.

You're using a double standard to favor only the "implications" supporting the Christian view.

TS: I'm not using a double standard. In Paul's case, the "implication" comes from known historical facts (not assumptions) namely:

-Pharisees were believers in physical resurrections.

-Paul was a phrarisee (therefore, he believed in a physical resurrection).

-Paul used the language of the resurrection.

-Paul's contrast is between a natural body and a spiritual body, not between a physical body and a non-physical body.

This supports the conclusion that Paul, when saying that Jesus was "raised on the third day", is implying am empty tomb, since he's referring to the resurrection of the physical BODY.

This is why most scholars expert in Paul agree with this interpretation.

In the case of John, your "implication" is based on mere assumptions about what John meant, namely the assumption that John meant to exclude any other person except Mary Magdalene.  And even though it is certainly a possibility, it is not "implied" by the language mentioned by John in the same way that Paul implies the empty tomb.

But let that pass. 

Let's assume for the argument's sake that an actual, explicit, straightforward contradiction exists in Mark and John's reports on the number of women visiting the empty tomb.

Liberal: Right.

TS: In such case, both Mark and John AGREE that Mary Magdalene visited the tomb. No contradiction affects this core agreement.

If such traditions are independent, then one could argue that it is multiply attested by Mark and John that Mary Magdalene visited the tomb, and hence this fact is likely to be historical.

Liberal: But if the sources are contradictories, we cannot trust them.

TS: But note that the (putative) contradiction doesn't affect the mention of Mary Magdalene as a witness of the empty tomb, it just affects the existence or identity of the other women.

The contradiction regarding the existence or presence of the other women don't refute that Mary Magdalene was a key figure in the discovering of the empty tomb.

Liberal: Perhaps John is dependent on Mark for the story of Mary Magdalene.

TS: But then you're conceding that regarding such fact, they're not contradictory, which is precisely my point! (At most, John dependence on Mark would refute the claim that such tradition is multiply attested, but in turn it would support my other contention that they're not contradictory, which destroys you claim of "hopeless" contradiction!). 

You cannot have it both ways.

Liberal: I disagree. I said "perhaps", but my actual persuasion is that being both accounts contradictory, they're not reliable.

TS: You're misusing the sources, since you're assuming the contradiction affects the whole of the sources, not just parts of them. I'm astonished by such misuse of historical sources by so many liberal scholars.

Liberal: This is why you're credulous and extremely sympathetic to the Christian sources. Skeptical people like me will disagree.

TS: False. I'm arguing my acceptation of Mary Magdalene's visiting the tomb is agreed both by Mark and John, and hence not contradictory.

This suffices to refute your claim that they're "hopeless contradictory".

Moreover, if they're independent, it would provide an example of multiple attestation (and I haven't mentioned the criterion of embarassment, which independently also supports it).

Also, it is false that only people "sympathetic" to Christianity accepts the evidence for the empty tomb.

For example, a world-renown critic of Christianity (who clearly has an axe to grind against the Christian sources) like Bart Ehrman, concedes:

"the earliest accounts we have are unanimous in saying that Jesus was in fact buried by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, so it's relatively reliable that that's what happened. We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later" (From Jesus to Constantine: Lecture 4, the teaching company, 2003).

Liberal: I disagree with Ehrman about it.

TS: Fine, but it is clear that your opinions about based on assumptions, not on facts.  (Assumptions which are hostile to the Christian sources).

The evidence for the empty tomb is well-supported historically and the supposed "hopeless contradictions" (even if they were actual contradictions, which is not the case) don't affect the historical core of the tradition.

This is why atheist historian Michael Grant also concedes:

True, the discovery of the empty tomb is differently described by the various Gospels. But if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty (Jesus, An Historian’s Review of the Gospels, p. 176).

The reason why many "liberals" disagree with such conclusion is precisely because they are not consistent in the application of the historical criteria.

Liberals tend to use the criteria inconsistently in order to reach anti-Christian conclusions about the historical Jesus.

In future dialogues we'll continue to discuss these matters.

Further reflections on Rupert Sheldrake, Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia and the passivity of anti-skeptics

In a previous comment about the recent controvery around Rupert Sheldrake's wikipedia entry, I suggested that one of the problems that "paranormalists" (=people in the paranormal community, including researchers, fans, believers in the paranormal, etc.) have is their passivity in dealing with "skeptics". (The term "paranormalist", as used in this post, is not pejorative: I use it only for referring to people sympathetic to the paranormal in contrast with "skeptics").

My contention that "paranormalists" are, as a rule (and with some exceptions), very passive could be misunderstood. In this post, I want to clarify what I mean and provide some evidence for my contentions.

 

This is not meant to be disrespecful or critical, but to be an accurate description: by "passivity", I mean that they tend to dismiss the importance or impact of the skeptical, debunking strategies (specially on the internet) and hence they tend to bypass any proper strategy against it. As consequence, they dedicate almost no efforts (at least in comparison with skeptics) to specifically address and refute the skeptics.

They're very passive in their handling of the online skeptical propaganda.

Let's see some evidence:

1-Consider naturalist Keith Augustine's already famous (or infamous), long and detailed online essay debunking near-death experiences. 

Although I disagree with most of Keith's arguments and conclusions, his essay is well-written, meticulously referenced and very detailed. This is the standard skeptical reference for a naturalistic understanding of NDEs and against the survivalist interpretation of them. From a skeptical point of view, Keith's article is a "good job" (and "jab" against survivalists).

Uninformed people, neurologists, psychologists, neuroscientists and other scientists will tend to be sympathetic to Augustine's hallucinatory hypothesis in that essay as a plausible explanation of NDEs. This tendency could be counter-balanced if, in addition to Augustine's essay, a full, serious and scholarly reply of it were easily accessible online too, so both sides were represented fairly. Sadly, not such counter-balance exists.

Augustine's essay (which has been translated to a number of languages) was published a number of years ago, and (as far I know) there is not specific, point-by-point full reply or scholarly critique to that essay which is available online by defenders of the survival hypothesis.(At most, you get partial responses to some points raised by Augustine, in a bunch of different paranormal blogs, entries and comments in such blogs).

I've lost the count of how many people have written to me over the years saying that Augustine's article deserves a response and complaining that no adequate or complete reply to it is available online. I share with them such frustration.

If you want to get a response to Augustine's arguments, you'll have to buy Chris Carter's books, or to read a lot of the NDEs technical literature in order to reach the conclusion that Augustine is largely wrong about NDEs.

But not online essay, specifically and exhaustively replying to Augustine's, is available on the internet. 

Note carefully that in this aspect "skeptics" have a key advantage: They publish a lot of their best material online, so making it available to everybody and causing a lasting and progressive impact in several generations of internet users. 

Contrasting with this, the best material of the paranormalists is available in books and journal articles, not online. Therefore, they're less accesible.

In terms of informative wars and astute use of the internet, the skeptics have WON.

If it is not "passivity" by the defenders of NDE's, then I don't understand what "passivity" means.

2-Consider this recent commentary by a reader of Dean Radin's blog and Radin's response:

Do you have a refutation of Robert Todd Carrol's criticism of Ganzfeld studies? The problem of sensory leakage is addressed, but other problems are as well. I may have already seen such refutation, but if you can point me in the right direction in light of this article, it would be appreciated

The reader seems be incomfortable with Carroll's online criticism and is asking for a refutation of it.

Obviously, the reader's discomfort confirms the "passivity" that I'm discussing here, because it shows that a proper refutation of Carroll's criticisms is not available online (or at least, not very well known or accessible as Carroll's article). So, the reader's discomfort seems to be largely justified.

Dean Radin's reply to the reader is telling and tends to confirm my point:

I've addressed criticisms of the ganzfeld and other meta-analyses in great detail in my books, and you can read some of the original journal articles on the "evidence page" I mentioned at the top of this thread. I've also stated my opinion about Wikipedia in this blog.

When working at the edge of the known there is plenty of room for a wide range of opinions, some of which are worth more than others. I've learned to pay close attention to constructive comments offered by scientists who have expertise in actually conducting and analyzing experiments. I pay far less attention to armchair critics. 

Radin refers mainly to his books (which are not available online and therefore are less accessible than Carroll's skeptic dictionary) and to the recently created "evidence page" (which is online). (Note that while the "evidence page" is a recent creation, Carroll's debunking articles have been online for years and their impact has already been established in the mind of many people, scholars included, as a standard and accessible skeptical reference).

Finally, Radin explicitly says that he "pay far less attention to armchair critics", which is precisely the point that I'm discussing here: The armchair critics are extremely active on the internet and they reach a large bunch of people because they use wikipedia, technically well-created debunking websites, manipulate Google search machines, and use other easily accessible online resources.

Most people won't have the time or resources to searching the highly technical parapsychological literature, and will tend to arrive to their conclusions based on cursory readings on the internet.

I'm not suggesting nor recommending that Radin, who is a professional scientist, should dedicate his time and efforts to refute "skeptics" online. He's busy with his professional investigations, like most scientists and scholars are. (I guess that the creation of the "evidence page" is Radin's modest contribution to put the skeptics in their place).

I'm simply describing a fact which supports my main contention: "skeptics" have a better use of the online resources in order to defend their positions and debunk parapsychology. Parapsychologists and other "paranormalists" have been  (for whatever reason, justified or not) passive in handling such online skeptical attacks.

There is a new generation of people (specially young people) whom we can call "internet researchers", who don't like to read books or scholarly articles, but simply to read everything online. 

This people are a perfect target for the skeptical online strategies. And again, in terms of online information, the skeptics seem to have the upper hand here.

  

3-Compare Carroll's skepdic dictionary with Sheldrake's "Skepticalinvestigations.org" (an excellent website, by the way).

Technically speaking, in terms of content, variety of topics, number of entries, online impact, number of updates, Google positions, etc. clearly Carroll's website has the upper hand. In this technical sense, Carroll's webiste is sa far better than Sheldrake's.

Carroll, who is a professional atheist philosopher, has dedicated a large amount of time, resources and titanic efforts developing a whole online skeptical encyclopedia to refute parapsychology, afterlife research, alternative medicine, ufology and so forth.

Only an extremely motivated and persistent person would do something like that.

Not comparable anti-skeptical online resources exists in English. And probably, it never will exist, since the level of motivation and active efforts of skeptics is overwhelmingly superior than "paranormalists", who are extremely passive.

 4-A final example is in order: Compare the literature of skeptics with the literature of paranormalists.

The literature of skeptics is dedicated specifically to REFUTE parapsychology and other fringe topics. (Think about Martin Gardner's books, James Randi's books, etc.). They have decades in this project.

On the contrary, with some recent exceptions (like Chris Carter's books and others in recent years), the overwhelming majority of the literature written by paranormalists is not intented to refute the skeptics. With some exceptions, you never find a book specifically addressing and refuting all and each of the skeptical objections about a specific topic.

In other words, in terms of controversies published in books, skeptics have not debating partners. Their case is almost never refuted in explicit debates.

All of this is what I mean by "passivity", and I'm sad to have to admit that skeptics, so far, have won the informative war regarding the use of internet and other resources.

A fictional dialogue about the Historical Jesus between a truth-seeker, a liberal scholar and a new ager (part 8).

NA: I'd like to say that I've always believed in Jesus' resurrection. In part, this is the reason why I think the A Course in Miracles (ACIM) is true, because this material was trasmitted by the risen Jesus himself.

TS: But that doesn't make ACIM to be true. Other 20th century sources about Jesus also claim to come from him, and provide information which contradicts ACIM, as discussed in previous dialogues.

NA: What I mean is that if Jesus' resurrection happened, the possibility of ACIM being true is better grounded, since Jesus is alive!.

TS: I see. But I want to clarify that in our previous conversation, my liberal friend and I weren't debating about the resurrection, but only about the empty tomb. This fact, itself, is not miraculous and its only connection with the resurrection is that it is part of the evidence for the resurrection (that is, if the resurrection happened, then an empty tomb had to be left).

NA: I understand. I only want to express my opinion that I'm sympathetic to the historicity of the resurrection, although I'm not a Christian.  

Before these helpful dialogues, I tended to agree with liberals about their conclusions regarding Jesus' teachings, but disagreed with them regarding their views on the resurrection. I assumed that they were very objective regarding Jesus' teachings, but were less objective regarding the resurrection...

TS: I see. And you're now in position to see that such assumption is very superficial and it is based on a deeper misunderstanding of liberal scholarpship and its obvious anti-Christian hostility and  philosophical presuppositions against theism.

It is simply false that liberals are "objective" regarding Jesus' teachings, but suddenly the become "subjective" when it comes to the resurrection. This is a simplistic and false understanding of the problem. This becomes evident when you realize that they use almost exactly the same methodology to "investigate" both the Jesus' teachings and the resurrection, namely, the "presumption of invention by the early Christians" regarding Christological traditions and misuse of the criteria of authenticity.

The only difference with the resurrection is that, since it is a miracle, in this case the liberal metaphysics (= naturalism, atheism) becomes dramatically evident and sometimes explicit. But this naturalistic metaphysics can be seen in the liberal approach to all the aspects of the study of the Historical Jesus, including the dating of the Gospels! (as shown in dialogue 1).

So, it is simply false that liberals are objective regarding Jesus' teachings, but subjective regarding the resurrection.

NA: Perhaps. In any case, I thought it was the case.

TS: If you allow me a psychological explanation of why you thought it was the case...

NA: Go ahead.

TS: You thought liberals were "objective" regarding Jesus' teachings because you already agreed in advance with a large portion of their anti-Christian approach and conclusions!

You wanted to hear that the Christian view of Jesus is false and this makes you prone and sympathetic to the liberal scholars who hold exactly such position and tells you what is palatable for you. 

You wanted to hear that the early Church consciously or unconsciously seriously corrupted Jesus' teachings, so you could believe that Jesus was not like the one portrayed in the Gospels.

You don't like a Christian view of God, you don't like Jesus' exclusivistic self-perception, you don't like Jesus' references to hell, you prefer a God which is pure love but not a God who applies spiritual justice, etc.

You strongly dislike such Christian theology, and are desperately (perhaps unconsciously) seeking alternative interpretations which make you to feel "good" and "happy"!

What motivates you is not the evidence per se, but a certain sort of Jesus view which fits better with your ideological sensibilities and emotinal framework... and if such view comes from some scholars, you can "rationalize" your position into an supposedly objective, academically serious one and to claim that "your" preferred view is supported by "scholarship".

NA: Uhmmm I'm not sure you're right.

TS: Don't try to reply to me in this moment (because perhaps your pride interferes with a proper assesment of what I'm saying), just think about it carefully and honestly...

NA: Ok.

TA:  I've shown to you in these dialogues that your assumption of "liberal objectivity" is not the case. Many of the liberal "conclusions" and "historical facts" are actually assumptions, to which there is absolutely no evidence at all (and in fact, they are question-begging assumptions against the Christian view). 

For example, the post 70 AD dating of the Gospels is largely based on the materialistic assumption that Jesus didn't predict the future. Reject this question-begging assumption, and their main argument for the post 70 AD Gospels dating falls as ripe fruit. (By the way, most liberals try to push the dating of the Gospels as much as they can from Jesus' life, in order to cast doubts on the historical reliability of the documents, suggest legendary developments and therefore undermine the Christological traditions contained there).

No positive evidence has ever been presented by any liberal scholar supporting the claim that Jesus didn't have predictive powers.

The denial that Jesus was born in Bethelhem is largely based on the assumption that the Church created such tradition to make it fit the Old Testament prediction about the Messiah, despite of contrary evidence based on the criterion of mutiple attestation of the only two available birth narratives in the Gospels which supports Jesus' birth in Bethelhem.

The liberal claim that the early Christians thought of Jesus' resurrected body in terms of an "immaterial body" is contrary to the first century Jewish conception of the resurrection, to all the evidence of the Gospels and to the most plausible interpretation (defended by most Pauline scholars) of Paul's teaching about the nature of the resurrection body.

So, when a liberal scholar like Marcus Borg says "He [Paul] explicitly denies that it is a physical body; instead, it is a spiritual body" (Will the real Jesus please stand up? p. 123), Borg is simply telling to his readers a studied falsehood (based on an implausible interpretation) and preaching to the liberal chorus, an interpretation which is rejected by the overwhelming majority of Pauline commentators and which he cannot support with any sound evidence, which in passing testifies to Borg's prejudices and lack of insights. (By the way, Paul's explicit contrast is not at all between a "physical" body and a "spiritual" one, but between a "natural" body and a "spiritual" one, but Borg astutely misrepresents this).

As a rule, liberals try to capitalize on the smallest room or interpretative hole in order to reach anti-Christian conclusions which are palatable to them (it reminds me of James Randi trying to capitalize on the smallest hole of a parapsychological experiment in order to conclude that the whole experiment is worthless).

Hardly, you can call this an exercise in "scholarly objectivity".

NA: But one could say the same regarding conservatives in favour of the Christian view.

TS: So what? The prejudices of conservatives don't justify the prejudices of the liberals.

Liberals are responsible of their own prejudices and assumptions and how they affect their scholarly work, and we cannot justify this with the childish red herring and tu quoque fallacy of "but you conservatives also do it"!

Let's be serious, adult and mature. Don't justify your mistakes and flaws appealing to other people's flaws. Otherwise, you will always be a mediocre person who never learn from your mistakes nor evolve.

In any case, no one is defending "conservatives" in these dialogues. I'm speaking exclusively by MYSELF. 

All of my arguments here are based on historical evidence and reasoning which even an agnostic could understand and follow.

 

NA: I understand.

TS: I'd like to know the opinion of our liberal friend.

Liberal:  Well, I disagree with almost everything you have said.

I think the approach of both of you is too unscientific, leaving room for supernatural or paranormal fantasies (like Jesus' fantastic "predictive" powers) or for Jesus' communication of his "true teachings" to a 20th century psychologist like Helen Schucman.

It easier to think that Jesus was a mere man like you and me, and hence the claims of predictions were inventions of the Chruch after Jesus' figure was exalted.

And regarding Schucman, it is easier to think that she invented entirely the ACIM.

TS: It could be a surprise to you to discover that I AGREE with part of your argument.

One of main claims that I've made in these dialogues is that if we use the same liberal methodology to study the ACIM, then a large portion of it would have to be considered false and fictional.

For example, liberals tend to think that Jesus' postmortem (=after the resurrection) communications in the Gospels are all fictional, because a dead man cannot communicate anything. For liberals, these traditions are actually legends.

But then, by parity of reasoning, using the same criterion, we would have to conclude that the TOTALITY of ACIM is false, since it was given entirely 19th centuries after Jesus' death!

Likewise, if you apply the criterion of multiple attestation to ACIM like liberals do to the Christian sources, then all the original material contained in ACIM have to be considered an invention of Helen Schucman.

Moreover, if you apply the same liberal criterion of "later theological evolution" to distrust John's Gospel to ACIM, then all the ACIM's explicit references and theologically evolved concepts like the Son of God, the Holy Trinity, and the Resurrection, written in the 20th century, would have to be considered fictional.

Liberal: I agree.

NA: I agree 

TS: I think, for once, we have reached an agreement and hence some advance in the discussion!

Our disagreement is about the conclusions. Liberal will tend (if consistent with his own methodology) to deny the authenticity of ACIM. NA will tend (if consistent) to distrust the liberal methodology, since NA thinks ACIM is true.

And myself will distrust BOTH the liberal methodology and ACIM, the former because it is extremely restrictive and biased, and the latter because it is extremely, incredibly late, and there is absolutely no evidence supporting his authenticity and putative Jesus' authorship.

My original purpose today was to discuss the other objections of my liberal friend to the empty tomb, but NA deflected the discussion about other interesting matters which I was tempted to address... I promise in the next dialogue we'll come back to the discussion of the empty tomb.

Wikipedia, Rupert Sheldrake, Susan Gerbic and Guerrilla Skepticism: The online methods for Wikipedia control of pseudoskeptics and atheist ideologues. The need for guerrilla anti-pseudoskepticism

 Susan Blackmore with Susan Gerbic in a "guerrilla skepticism" combat posture... do you dare to fight them? Intimidating, isn't it?

Rupert Sheldrake has recently complained about the manipulation and biased information posed about him in Wikipedia by trained atheists and "skeptics":

This summer, soon after the TED controversy, a commando squad of skeptics captured the Wikipedia page about me. They have occupied and controlled it ever since, rewriting my biography with as much negative bias as possible, to the point of defamation. At the beginning of the “Talk” page, on which editorial changes are discussed, they have posted a warning to editors who do not share their biases: “A common objection made by new arrivals is that the article presents Sheldrake’s work in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of it is too extensive or violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy.” Several new arrivals have indeed attempted to restore a more balanced picture, but have had a bewildering variety of rules thrown at them, and warned that they will be banned if they persist in opposing the skeptics.

...The Guerrilla Skeptics are well trained, highly motivated, have an ideological agenda, and operate in teams, contrary to Wikipedia rules... They have already seized control of many Wikipedia pages, deleted entries on subjects they disapprove of, and boosted the biographies of atheists. 

As the Guerrilla Skeptics have demonstrated, Wikipedia can easily be subverted by determined groups of activists, despite its well-intentioned policies and mediation procedures. Perhaps one solution would be for experienced editors to visit the talk pages of sites where editing wars are taking place, rather like UN Peacekeeping Forces, and try to re-establish a neutral point of view. But this would not help in cases where there are no editors to oppose the Guerrilla Skeptics, or where they have been silenced.

If nothing is done, Wikipedia will lose its credibility, and its financial backers will withdraw their support. I hope the noble aims of Wikipedia will prevail.

 

Instrumental in this "guerrilla skepticism" approach is "skeptic" Susan Gerbic (who's the co-founder of Monterey County Skeptics). In this talk, you can wacth Gerbic explaining the methods of this approach.

As a rule, "skeptics" and atheists are highly motivated.  They create a lot of websites, manipulate the google search machine in order to get the better positions about paranormal or fringe topics or alternative medicine and other unorthodox proposals (just write, for example, "applied kinesiology" and you will get the "quackwatch" entry about it in good positions; or write "Dean Radin" and you'll find some skeptical websites in good positions too).

 

Greg Taylor, of the Daily Grail, complains: "Personally I'm not sure what the solution is..." and me either, but here some possible suggestions for blocking such atheistic pseudoskeptical strategy.

Guerrilla anti-pseudoskepticism

Suggestions:

1-Understand Jime's Iron Law

I'm sorry to suggest such self-centred advice, but I'm sure that we cannot handle atheists and skeptics if we ignore their mindset. It is key to understand their worldview and how it affects their  psychology and moral integrity.

 

We are not dealing with the "normal", next-door guy sort of people, but with people with their cognitive faculties severely affected and strongly biased in the direction of strong hostility towards God as the ultimate spiritual reality and (as consequence) towards any topic which are suggestive of such trascendent spiritual reality (spirits, "energies", aftelife, souls, spiritual laws, intelligent design in the universe, etc.).

Emotionally, we're dealing (in many cases) with extremely hostile and angry people, since they (tipically) come from some religious background in their early years (mainly Christianity), and left it with strong resentment and negative feelings of vengance. They have an axe to grind against anything connected with religion.

When they direct such negative feelings against you, you get the harsh "treatment" that Sheldrake has received. They will try to destroy you.

Their ultimate project is destroying belief in God and religion (their attack of the paranormal is a secondary byproduct of it, because parapsychology studies things which have tipically been connected with religion, like the existence of an afterlife, souls, etc.). They're obsessively fixed on this.

If you want to test this claim, just attack the Darwinian theory of evolution, and you'll get the accusation of being a "creationist" (even if you are an atheist!).

2-Understand the true nature of the problem

The problem with "organized skepticism" has to do with a struggle for cultural dominance of competing metaphysical worldviews (basically, atheistic materialism/naturalism vs theism).

Not realizing that the "war" is posed in such terms is to miss the actual nature of the problem.

Atheistic naturalism is comfortably dominant in academic circles, but the overwhelming majority of people on Earth have been and are theists. This is a dilemma unacceptable for atheists.

This is uncomfortable for atheists, since society regards very negatively atheism and atheists. They want to make atheism acceptable in society, and the way to get this (in their minds) is to transfer the atheism of academy to society in general, convincing people that popular beliefs about God, spirits, alternative medicine, morphic fields, ghosts, etc. (all of which are rejected or seen with suspicion by academic atheism) are false.

3-Learn and use the same "guerrilla" methods, against them!

In a war, you cannot be passive. And "guerrilla skepticism" is a kind of informative war whose purpose is to make people, progressively, sympathetic to atheism and naturalism. 

As consequence, the way to block this is to use the same methods against them, specially against atheism and naturalism.

4-Public debates with professional skeptics

Debates are useful because people can hear the best arguments of each side. Moreover, it is easy to expose the skeptic's dishonesty in these exchanges.

Interestingly, parapsychologists have been largely "passive" in this regard. They tend to be largely "defensive", replying to "skeptics" only when the skeptic attacks parapsychology or the character of the researcher (like Sheldrake is doing above). They debate "skeptics" only in academic journals, but in the public's eye the "skeptics" tend to appear as getting the upper hand and talking in the name of science.

Contrast this with Christian/Muslim debaters who rutinarely kick the butts of skeptics and atheists in public debates. With some rare exceptions, it is sure to say that almost no atheist has ever won these debates (as proved by the post-debate cards). The theistic debaters tend to win even in places culturally dominated by or sympathetic to atheism.

Moreover, a lot of "damaging concessions" by professional and leading atheists/skeptics (which expose their irrationality, absurd beliefs, dishonesty and actual views on morality) have been produced in these debates, for example:

If it were not by these dialogues/debates with theists, we didn't know that such atheists believed and have claimed such ridiculous things.

Public debates in universities (posted online: youtube, etc.) are a good oportunity to expose pseudoskeptics.

Sadly, parapsychologists and other "paranormalists" have missed such useful opportunity.

Of all these suggestions, I think the last one (public debates) is the most effective in undermining the credibility of atheists/skeptics in the eyes of the public in general, and blocking/destroying their agenda of preaching atheistic naturalism to society.

Skeptics are a very tiny minority. It would be very stupid to us to allow these individuals to control society.

Perhaps we have to reflect a little more and think hard about the insights of modern empiricist philosopher Francis Bacon (who alse realized the strong atheistic need for getting recognition, what explains their strong motivation and unstopabble debuking efforts):

For none deny, there is a God, but those, for whom it maketh that there were no God. It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip, than in the heart of man, than by this; that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted in it, within themselves, and would be glad to be strengthened, by the consent of others. Nay more, you shall have atheists strive to get disciples, as it fareth with other sects. And, which is most of all, you shall have of them, that will suffer for atheism, and not recant; whereas if they did truly think, that there were no such thing as God, why should they trouble themselves?... 

A fictional dialogue about the Historical Jesus between a truth-seeker, a liberal scholar and a new ager (part 7)

TS: In today's dialogue, I'd like to discuss the evidence for the empty tomb.

NA: Interesting.

Liberal: I'm skeptical of the historicity of the empty tomb. I think it was an invention of the early Church.

TS: What evidence can you offer in favour of such claim?

Liberal: Basically, 3 lines of evidence support my skepticism:

1-In Paul's earliest tradition, there is no mention of the empty tomb.

2-The stories of the empty tomb in the Gospels are full of holes and hopeless contradictions.

3-(Suppoting point 2): There is an alternative burial story in Acts which contradicts the burial stories in the Gospels.

TS: Let's discuss each of these objections to the empty tomb story and let's begin with your first one:

It is true that in the very early material handed down by Paul, not explicit mention of the empty tomb is done. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-9, Paul writes:

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, ⁴ and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, ⁵ and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. ⁶ Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters^[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.^{[d] 7} Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. ⁸ Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. ⁹

Now, how exactly the above text refutes or undermines the historicity of the empty tomb?

Liberal: Because the empty tomb is not mentioned there.

TS: Jesus' death specifically by crucifixion is not mentioned there either. Does it make the crucifixion non-historical and an invention of the Church?

Liberal: Surely not, but in the case of the empty tomb it is improbable that Paul would have omitted it.

TS: Why?

Liberal: Because he's trying to defend the historicity of the resurrection and the empty tomb is key in such defense if it were a defense of the physicality of the resurrection.

It suggests that Paul's view of the resurrection was not physical, but purely spiritual, that is, non-physical.

TS:  But Paul mentions that Jesus was "raised".

Liberal: So what?

TS: That for Jews, specially for pharisees like Paul, the resurrection is a resurrection of the body. This is what resurrection means in a literal sense. And if Jesus was "raised", Paul is implying that an empty tomb was left, because you cannot have a resurrection with the dead body still in the tomb (it would be a contradiction in terms).

Liberal: But Paul doesn't mention it.

TS: But he's implying it. How could Jesus be raised from the death "on the third day" if his body was still in the tomb?

Liberal: Perhaps because Paul doesn't have in mind a physical resurrection, just a spiritual (non-material) resurrection.

TS: Your "perhaps" attributes to Paul an unJewish view about the resurrection. Claiming that a resurrection was purely spiritual (=inmaterial) but not physical is like arguing that, for political libertarians, capitalism is "perhaps" a system based on the destruction of the private property and personal freedom.

By resurrection, Jews meant physical or bodily resurrection, not simply the inmortality of the soul.

According to liberal scholar Dale Allison:

there is no good evidence for belief in a non-physical resurrection in Paul, much less within the primitive Jerusalem community....(Resurrecting Jesus, p. 317)

Liberal: But in 1 Cor 15, Paul defends that the risen body is a "spiritual body", when he writes:

So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. ⁴³ It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. ⁴⁴ It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body.

TS: Right, but you're assuming that by "spiritual" Paul means "immaterial". This is not Paul's point.

He's teaching that the purely natural body which is buried is raised trasnformed into a supernatural, powerfully spiritual body like Jesus'.

This is why Paul says "it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body" (note that what is sown is the physical body, not the soul).

Such physical body is, after the resurrection by God, transformed into a new, spiritual, supernatural body which is adequate for immortality and entering God's kingdom.

As Dale Allison comments:

Even Paul, in 1 Cor 15, when defending the notion of a "spiritual body", teaches -like Bar 51:10- the transformation of corpses, not their abandonment" (ibid)

If Paul were teaching simply the soul's immortality in a inmaterial sense, then his expression "it is sown" make no sense since the soul is never "sown". What is "sown" is the DEAD BODY. How do you "sown" an inmaterial soul (specially in the moment of death, in which the soul becomes "free" of the body)?

When Paul says that it is "sown perishable", clearly he's referring to the DEAD BODY which biologically is decaying, not to the soul which is immortal. How could an immortal soul to be perishable before the resurrection? What is perishable is the body when the soul separates from it in the moment of death.

Liberal: It is a matter of interpretation.

TS: Right, but your interpretation is an implausible one.

In order to make plausible your interpretation, we have to assume:

1-That a Pharisee like Paul conflated, contrary to everyone else (including the rest of Pharisees), the resurrection of the body with the Greek notion of the immortality of the soul. We have not evidence for such un-Jewish confusion in a Jew like Paul.

2-That by "spiritual body", Paul is referring to the immaterial soul (which is a contradition in terms, since the soul is not a body in the Jewish thinking).

3-That an immaterial soul can be "sown", which makes less sense (in the context of a resurrection) when compared with "sowing" a dead body.

4-That Jesus died, but his soul only left the body 3 days after his death (which is a contradiction in terms, since the death is precisely the soul leaving the body). Otherwise, if Paul had in mind purely the immortality of the soul, how could you explain his claim that Jesus was "raised on the third day" (after his death and burial)?

5-That Paul egregiously misunderstood Jesus' disicples claim that Jesus was risen in a bodily resurrection, and that the post-Pauline disciples of the Church, were stupid and morons who misunderstood Paul's own teaching about the immortality of the soul and then thought of the physical resurrection (as seen in the Gospels). This assumes that both Paul and the  post-Pauline disciples were stupid who misuderstood and conflated the experiences of the risen Jesus in a physical body with a ghost-like apparitions and viceversa).

When you see a ghost, you conclude that you're seeing the spirit of a dead person, not that such person came to life again in his own body. Nobody seeing a "ghost" of his mother would tell "Wow, my mom was risen from the dead. I guess her tomb is empty too, like Jesus'!".  Most likely, you would conclude that you saw the spirit of your dead mother (which confirms the fact that she's dead, in a physical-biological sense).

And this is not just the conclusion of "modern men" like us, but of first century Jews too.

Like any other culture, Jews were familiar with afterlife phenomena and stories, and they knew what "ghosts" were.

We find evidence in the Gospels of this distinction. For example in Luke 24:36-46:

While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”^{[a] 37} They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost. ³⁸ He said to them, “Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? ³⁹ Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” ⁴⁰ And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.^{[b] 41} While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” ⁴² They gave him a piece of broiled fish, ⁴³ and he took it and ate in their presence.

The disciples were familiar with "ghosts" (i.e. afterlife apparitions of the spirits of dead people) and, like it is common in many cultures, they were terrified with such experiences (i.e. they feared ghosts). Jesus had to make an explicit his effort to clarify to the disciples that they weren't seeing a ghost, but himself in his own physical body.

The disciples' disbelief was so strong, that Jesus even was forced to EAT in order to provide irrefutable evidence of the physicality of his apparition and refute their misguided skepticism about the nature of it.

More evidence that the first century Jews, like any other culture, were aware of "ghosts", is found in Mark 6: 45-56:

When evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land. ⁴⁸ When he saw that they were straining at the oars against an adverse wind, he came towards them early in the morning, walking on the sea. He intended to pass them by. ⁴⁹ But when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost and cried out; ⁵⁰ for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.” ⁵¹ Then he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, ⁵² for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.

Here, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on the sea, they misidentified him and thought they were seeing a ghost. Jesus had to clarify that it was himself ("It is I"), not a ghost of a dead person.

Liberal: Now you're a believer in ghosts! What an amazing scientific truth-seeker are you!.

TS (used to the liberal's sophistry, simplistic rejoinders and tendency to misrepresentation, TS clarifies): I'm showing evidence that the first century Jews KNEW what ghosts were. This evidence is crucial, because what the early disciples claimed was that Jesus was RISEN from the death in his earthly physical body, not that Jesus appeared to them in ghostly form.

Liberal: This is not evidence at all, all of such miracle stories are fictional and mythological, created after Jesus was exalted and seen as divine by his disciples.

TS (realizing that it is a waste of time to challenge him AGAIN to provide evidence for his claims, TS presses another point): This is irrelevant. Even if such stories were false, it is clear that the first century Judaism's conceptual framework discerned between "ghosts" and resurrections. 

This is the point that I'm making right now.

In conclusion, ALL the above 5 unlikely and ad hoc assumptions are necessary to provide plausibility to the liberal position that Paul was teaching the immortality of the soul alone.

But all the 5 assumptions become unnecesary if, like everyone else, we think that Paul referred to the physical body when talking about the resurrection of the dead, which fit better the evidence.

Liberal: I'm unpersuaded by your argumentation.

TS: Fine, but it is clear that your view rests on assumptions which are arbitrary, contrived, ad hoc and in tension with the evidence.

At most, your interpretation is possible, but it is unlikely given the overall available evidence.

This is typical in liberal scholarship: Its prejudice against the Christian view of Jesus is so intense, so powerful, that such liberals try to arrive to anti-Christian conclusions whenever they see a little room for it (even if such room is in tension with the overall evidence and make no sense in the light of it).

We'll see another dramatic example of such liberal prejudice when addresing my liberal friend's objection 3 regarding a supposed "alternative burial story" in Acts.

Liberal: I disagree.

TS: Hypothetical readers of these dialogues will have to draw their own conclusions.

I've addressed your first objection to the historicity of the empty tomb. In future dialogues, I'll address your other 2 objections and provide independent, positive evidence for the empty tomb traditions.