Why Not Engage the Evidence for Historicity?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, cacheman said:

I agree. I joined in this discussion simply to point out that your statement; "atheists are very close-minded" is not supported with any certainty by the research you said your statement was based on. I think we need to be careful making negative declarative statements about broad categories of people grouped solely by their religious views. 

I don't think that your conclusions on the matter are any more "certain," but look forward to additional research.

[cacheman]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't think that your conclusions on the matter are any more "certain," but look forward to additional research.

I'm fine with uncertainty.  But then, I'm not making a generalized negative characterization of groups based on this research. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, cacheman said:

I'm fine with uncertainty.  But then, I'm not making a generalized negative characterization of groups based on this research. 

It's called agreeing to disagree.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, cacheman said:

You said "And the point was that what DEFINES an atheist is that it is a certainty that God does NOT exist".   If that's what defines an athiest,  then even Richard Dawkins wouldn't be one.

Then you mentioned that "absolute belief" was dogmatic.  I'm not exactly sure how you define 'absolute belief '.... But if you mean believing that the non-existence (or existence) of God is an incontrovertible or indisputable fact,  then I agree that would be dogmatic.  

 

 

Good.

And why should I care if Dawkins is an atheist? We are talking about the meaning of a word not about individuals beliefs.

Is your point then that atheists only kind of believe that there is no God?  What then is an agnostic?

I fail  to understand your point.

Edited July 8, 2018 by mfbukowski

[cacheman]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And why should I care if Dawkins is an atheist? We are talking about the meaning of a word not about individuals beliefs.

I mentioned Dawkins  as an example since he is one of the more well known militant athiests. If he doesn't fit your definition of an athiest,  then it demonstrates just how narrow your definition is. 

 

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Is your point then that atheists only kind of believe that there is no God?  What then is an agnostic?

No.  I've said my point.  From what I've seen,  athiesm is a lack of belief in God or a belief that there is no God. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is unknowable.

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I fail  to understand your point.

I simply questioned your definition of the belief system you were disparaging. 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, cacheman said:

I mentioned Dawkins  as an example since he is one of the more well known militant athiests. If he doesn't fit your definition of an athiest,  then it demonstrates just how narrow your definition is. 

 

No.  I've said my point.  From what I've seen,  athiesm is a lack of belief in God or a belief that there is no God. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is unknowable.

I simply questioned your definition of the belief system you were disparaging. 

So a lack of belief is a" belief system"?

Whatever, we are obviously not getting anywhere.

Edited July 9, 2018 by mfbukowski

[cacheman]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So a lack of belief is a" belief system"?

Whatever, we are obviously not getting anywhere.

LOL. By your definition, it is.  In other words..... you believed that you were disparaging a belief system.  But, I disagreed with your definition.  From my reading, athiesm is described as a lack of belief in God or a belief that there is no God.  Those definitions are also found in the wikipedia link that you provided. 

[clarkgoble]

On 7/7/2018 at 10:22 PM, Nevo said:

When 1 Samuel 2:6 is read alongside other poetic passages such as Psalm 30:3–4 ("O LORD, you brought up my soul from Sheol, restored me to life from among those gone down to the Pit") and Psalm 86:13 ("You have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol"), it is clear that descriptions of being "raised up" or "delivered" from "Sheol" can also refer to deliverance from near death or other serious adversity. It is not an unambiguous reference to resurrection.

If we're just prooftexting of course you're correct. Further clearly there was even in the first century segments of Judaism that formally rejected the idea of the resurrection. However if we're reading more broadly, given the views of their surrounding neighbors it's dubious that resurrection wasn't a part of Judaism. As I mentioned this was a common theme in Canaanite texts - not quite the same as Christians would come to treat it but enough that I think rejecting reading Ps 30 or 86 in terms of resurrection is problematic. 

With regards to Job 19 or Ezek 37 I tend to agree. Those already prone to believe in resurrection may well have read them in terms of that. However it's pretty doubtful they are about resurrection despite their popularity for such in prooftexts. Both texts are also obviously post-exilic and so don't tell us much of what was going on before either. (It's worth noting that at Qumran Ezek 37 was also read as implying the resurrection -- see 4Q385 although 1 Enoch was significant for them and likely led to this reading)

On 7/7/2018 at 11:19 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

While it is true that most scholars explain away those texts, they don't adequately explain the translation-ascension of Enoch (Gen 5:24), and Elijah (2 kings 2:1-15).  Cf. Isa 53:8, Pss 49:16, 73:24, Wisdom 2:22-24, 3:1-9, 4:7-11.

They also ignore Isaiah 26:19 “Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.”  Cf. Isa 53, Wisdom 2:12-20

Based on what we know of ancient Near Eastern lore, there are clearly several traditions at odds here.  This is particularly true of ancient Egyptian tradition on the afterlife, which is found in the BofM.

Yes and this does highlight a difference among scholars. Some see Dan 12:2 as the first unambiguous evidence for belief in the resurrection whereas others say Is 26:19 advocates individual resurrection. The question ends up being whether to read Isaiah 26's resurrection as just the community return from the brink of absolute destruction or not. i.e. those arguing for this compare it with the later Ezek 37. Some also see the verse as a later redaction. While far from unanimous, the resurrection view of Is 26:19 tends to get mentioned in most commentaries with Birkeland's "The Belief in the Resurrection of the Dead in the Old Testament" usually footnoted.

As you suggest, it seems dubious to assume only a single tradition at work in what became the Old Testament. Again throw in the Canaanite neighbors out of which most scholars think Judaism evolved and things get more complex. We know for instance there were necromancy beliefs among both groups suggesting a far more robust ontology of the dead than Nevo suggests. There's also the mysterious rephaim (giant, warriors or ghosts of great warriors) in both Jewish and Canaanite traditions. Sometimes these are giants, in later texts sometimes associated with the offspring of the Watchers of 1 Enoch. Often they're dead kings or famous warriors who are summoned to coronation rites. These often get caught up in deification rites tied to coronation ceremonies. (Of course interesting to Mormons due to typological similarities with our own rites) Of course the Deuteronomist tradition attempts to expunge these beliefs from Judaism. (See Dt 18.11 for example)

Getting back to Psalms many scholars tie Ps 49:15 to Gen 5:24 and Enoch. Typically this is seen as seeking an exception (especially given verses 12 & 20) rather than general immortality. Likewise there's not much evidence for immortality and deification of the King within Israel beyond Ps 21:4 - although again this may simply reflect the success of D & P elements in removing such elements by the end of the exile.  

Really what's being argued though is less whether there's an immortality in pre-exilic eras. It seems undeniable there is with few seeing Enoch's ascension as post-exilic. The question is whether this is for the general righteous (or even everyone) or just very exceptional people who are made gods/angels. Further the question is the nature of this immortality which doesn't necessarily have the character of say Alma 11 where the exact body is restored.

I know most scholars don't tend to emphasize an Egyptian influence on Israel theologically - although I'm not sure that's relevant for Nephi who appears to have more explicit connections. That said, Jan Assmann's "Resurrection in Ancient Egypt" appears to get footnoted a lot. I'm relatively ignorant on Egyptian stuff but that paper seems relevant for this discussion. The main proponent for some of the optimistic views of death & resurrection in early Judaism is Christopher Hays although that doesn't mean the more pessimistic view of Canaan wasn't also a strong element. See for instance his "An Egyptian Loanword in the Book of Isaiah." His views aren't that popular from what I can see though.

It's also worth noting that Mut, the Isis like mother figure in Egypt was also well attested in Palestine including Jerusalem. With the so called "democratization of death" within Egyptian religion anyone who could afford the proper burial could be resurrected and divinized. As such the various Egyptian deity archaeological finds in Israel do seem relevant. Some (like Hays) see many references to the Canaanite Mot as death actually references to Mut.

Edited July 9, 2018 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, cacheman said:

or a belief that there is no God. 

OH GOSH

Nevermind. 

[Nevo]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

If we're just prooftexting of course you're correct. Further clearly there was even in the first century segments of Judaism that formally rejected the idea of the resurrection. However if we're reading more broadly, given the views of their surrounding neighbors it's dubious that resurrection wasn't a part of Judaism. As I mentioned this was a common theme in Canaanite texts - not quite the same as Christians would come to treat it but enough that I think rejecting reading Ps 30 or 86 in terms of resurrection is problematic.

I'm not aware of the resurrection of the dead being a "common theme in Canaanite texts" (surely Baal being declared alive after being slain by Mot doesn't suggest a conviction that everyone would be raised from the dead), nor do I think that Psalm 30 or 86 are texts about resurrection, but that doesn't mean that I "assume only a single tradition at work in what became the Old Testament."

Susan Niditch puts it well, I think: "The Hebrew Bible is not completely uniform in what it suggests concerning beliefs about death,  the dead and the underworld, but there are some shared contours: there is an underworld; the dead have some sort of sentience; there exists the possibility of dead people's continued engagement in the world of the living; for most of the biblical period the state of death is permanent. Late in the biblical period, however, there is also hope that life can be eternal or that those who have died may return to the status of living beings" (Susan Niditch, "Experiencing the Divine: Heavenly Visits, Earthly Encounters and the Land of the Dead," in Religious Diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah, ed. Franceska Stavrakopoulou and John Barton [London: T&T Clark, 2010], 20).

Joseph Blenkinsopp may not be wrong either:

Quote

That Israelite religion is characterized by the absence of belief in a meaningful postmortem existence, in keeping with Mesopotamian ideas and in contrast to ancient Egyptian religion, is part of the conventional wisdom that hardly needs documenting. This opinio communis calls for qualification, however. It is arguable, in the first place, that the frequent denial of a meaningful afterlife, especially in Psalms (e.g. Pss 49:10-20; 88:5, 10-12; 115:17), reflects a polemic against ancestor cults and necromantic practices rejected by Deuteronomic and Priestly orthodoxy but practiced at all times during the biblical period. It is also arguable that, while the idea of individual resurrection is not clearly attested before the persecution launched by Antiochus IV, a less clearly delineated conviction of survival after death was emerging long before that time.

-- Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 371.

 

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Really what's being argued though is less whether there's an immortality in pre-exilic eras. It seems undeniable there is with few seeing Enoch's ascension as post-exilic. . . .

Sorry to nitpick, but I think most scholars would say Genesis 5 (typically assigned to P) is post-exilic. Konrad Schmid actually dates that particular chapter to the Maccabbean period (see his The Old Testament: A Literary History, trans. Linda M. Maloney [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012], 178).

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding beliefs of life after death, at the SLC IANDS conference, one of the discussions I attended had the speaker ask the a question to an audience of hospice nurses whether they had had experiences with the dying that persuaded them of life after death.  Every hand went up in the affirmative.  It's not all about scholars and texts.  There is an experimental dimension and the kinds of experiences people have are not restricted to trendy moderns.   Sometimes theologians or skeptics create an environment that is not particularly friendly to the stories and experiences (Harvard's Carol Zaleski uses a sine wave metaphor for alternating periods of acceptance and suppression), but that does not mean that no one has them.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[CA Steve]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding beliefs of life after death, at the SLC IANDS conference, one of the discussions I attended had the speaker ask the a question to an audience of hospice nurses whether they had had experiences with the dying that persuaded them of life after death.  Every hand went up in the affirmative.  It's not all about scholars and texts.  There is an experimental dimension and the kinds of experiences people have are not restricted to trendy moderns.   Sometimes theologians or skeptics create an environment that is not particularly friendly to the stories and experiences (Harvard's Carol Zaleski uses a sine wave metaphor for alternating periods of acceptance and suppression), but that does not mean that no one has them.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Kevin, what are the chances at an IANDS conference (or the "International Association of Near Death Studies) that a group of hospice nurses attending that conference might claim some experience with NDE? 

One of the more interesting studies I saw regarding NDE's, was a study  that examined the out of body experience many people have had in operating rooms. A common experience where the patient feels like they are floating above their own body on the operating table. These patients were very good at describing all that was going on in the operating room from that high vantage point at a specific time. So the people conducting the study placed a series of unusual objects on high shelves around the perimeter of the operating room that could not be seen from normal eye level and when they interviewed the patients who experienced the NDE in the operating rooms they set up, they would ask them to describe any of those objects. Oddly enough none of them could.

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by CA Steve

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, Nevo said:

I'm not aware of the resurrection of the dead being a "common theme in Canaanite texts" (surely Baal being declared alive after being slain by Mot doesn't suggest a conviction that everyone would be raised from the dead), nor do I think that Psalm 30 or 86 are texts about resurrection, but that doesn't mean that I "assume only a single tradition at work in what became the Old Testament."

The resurrection of the masses is but the notion of resurrection, as the example you give notes, is. I thought I'd discussed that in my comment but apparently I didn't. The issue in Canaanite religion is resurrection of gods and possibly deified kings. (The later is more controversial)

11 hours ago, Nevo said:

Susan Niditch puts it well, I think: "The Hebrew Bible is not completely uniform in what it suggests concerning beliefs about death,  the dead and the underworld, but there are some shared contours: there is an underworld; the dead have some sort of sentience; there exists the possibility of dead people's continued engagement in the world of the living; for most of the biblical period the state of death is permanent. Late in the biblical period, however, there is also hope that life can be eternal or that those who have died may return to the status of living beings" (Susan Niditch, "Experiencing the Divine: Heavenly Visits, Earthly Encounters and the Land of the Dead," in Religious Diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah, ed. Franceska Stavrakopoulou and John Barton [London: T&T Clark, 2010], 20).

The debate ends up being the two poles - Canaanite, Babylonian and Persian influences in one direction and Egyptian in the other. (Rather significant given the number of Egyptian figurines and other items found in the area -- thus Hays arguments) For the Egyptian the idea that the masses could be resurrected was mainstream in the Iron Age. Typically Egyptian influences aren't focused on as much beyond some literary borrowing. However as I mentioned for Nephi it's different given how explicit his connection to Egypt is. Again to be forthright, the Egyptian context has just been gaining traction of late and is hardly a majority view. But also again, we know of syncretic Jewish/Egyptian traditions at Elephanti. That's later in the 5th century of course but I think ought make us cautious in neglecting Egyptian influence.

I should also note a small but important distinction. Within Egyptian resurrection one doesn't return to life in a normal way but goes to Elysium. That is resurrection and deification of a sort are inseparable. It's a different realm from the land of the dead. So you have this life, the underworld, and then the heavenly world with resurrection leading to the latter. Within Egyptian religion the focus on getting the same elements of body back are emphasized as well - perhaps paralleling the concern in Alma 11. 

11 hours ago, Nevo said:

Sorry to nitpick, but I think most scholars would say Genesis 5 (typically assigned to P) is post-exilic. Konrad Schmid actually dates that particular chapter to the Maccabbean period (see his The Old Testament: A Literary History, trans. Linda M. Maloney [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012], 178).

I believe the consensus is that the final redaction is post-exilic usually dated to 300 - 200 BC but that the Priestly editor is making use of a much older text that's usually dated pre-exilic in the texts I've read. (Also Schmid just says the chronological notes in Genesis 5 dates to that period - it's typical to date 5:1-2 for instance late and attributed to P on the basis of the similarity to Gen 1:26-27) So Genesis 5 is considered authored by P in its final post-exilic form but from the "Epic" author in the pre-exilic form. P reworks the Epic tradition in many places such as Number 20:1-13. Most texts I've read typically footnote Frank Cross' Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic for the details of these authorship issues. He ties JE (the Epic source - the result of the last redacting of J & E to make a text in the pre-exilic period) to the Monarchal period.

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by clarkgoble

[SteveO]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I believe the consensus is that the final redaction is post-exilic usually dated to 300 - 200 BC but that the Priestly editor is making use of a much older text that's usually dated pre-exilic in the texts I've read. (Also Schmid just says the chronological notes in Genesis 5 dates to that period - it's typical to date 5:1-2 for instance late and attributed to P on the basis of the similarity to Gen 1:26-27) So Genesis 5 is considered authored by P in its final post-exilic form but from the "Epic" author in the pre-exilic form. P reworks the Epic tradition in many places such as Number 20:1-13. Most texts I've read typically footnote Frank Cross' Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic for the details of these authorship issues. He ties JE (the Epic source) to the Monarchal period.

 

Side question.  When you say the “priestly editors”, under whose direction were they supposed to be making the changes?  Making changes to a pre-exilic text I assume would be a big deal, especially after Judaism having had a well established consensus by that time.

[clarkgoble]

36 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Side question.  When you say the “priestly editors”, under whose direction were they supposed to be making the changes?  Making changes to a pre-exilic text I assume would be a big deal, especially after Judaism having had a well established consensus by that time.

It's a broad tradition. So you're talking of a group from pre-exilic times up through around 200 BC. There's thus no "direction" per se in the sense you mean but presumably various High Priests and people sympathetic to them were having an outsized influence. I'd also disagree that there was a well established consensus. The Elephanti community was accepted by Priests in Palestine and presumably Babylon (not to mention left unscathed by the Persians) yet was a more syncretic form of Judaism despite doing animal offerings in their temple. That strongly suggests a fair bit of diversity even in the post-exilic period even if the Deuteronomists and Priestly traditions were trying to solidify things along their theology.

There's analogies for this in our own history. Consider the Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie tradition versus say the more Roberts, Talmage, Widstoe tradition followed later by the FARMS tradition. Each has a fairly unique theology yet all three are very mainstream and typically represented among leadership. Simultaneously each tradition tends to disparage the others. There's no rewriting of texts due to having an established canon - so the analogy does break down.

It's also worth noting that there are various interpretive traditions in determining authorship. I've been critical of a lot of them in that far too many extract way too much information from too little evidence. However broadly speaking I think the neo-documentary hypothesis is pretty compelling. A good overview of the history of these authorship questions is Jen Lous Ska's "Questions of the ‘History of Israel’ in Recent Research" There's a lot more diversity of thought than many people realize when they hear about the documentary hypothesis.

Edited July 10, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Kevin Christensen]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Kevin, what are the chances at an IANDS conference (or the "International Association of Near Death Studies) that a group of hospice nurses attending that conference might claim some experience with NDE? 

One of the more interesting studies I saw regarding NDE's, was a study  that examined the out of body experience many people have had in operating rooms. A common experience where the patient feels like they are floating above their own body on the operating table. These patients were very good at describing all that was going on in the operating room from that high vantage point at a specific time. So the people conducting the study placed a series of unusual objects on high shelves around the perimeter of the operating room that could not be seen from normal eye level and when they interviewed the patients who experienced the NDE in the operating rooms they set up, they would ask them to describe any of those objects. Oddly enough none of them could.

 

Fair point on self selection as a factor for that collection of people but beside the point on the implications for my raising the point in the first place.  Many people come to belief in life after death because of what they have experienced or by experiences that they have heard about, and not just because the Priestly/Ruling/Academic elites have directed their uniform conclusions. 

Regarding the study involving placement of unusual objects, rather than, say Michael Sabom's book on how NDErs could accurately describe their resuscitation procedure whereas a control group could not do so without major errors (Recollections of Death), consider this:

Quote

So if the gorilla experiment doesn’t illustrate that humans are blind to the obvious, then what exactly does it illustrate? What’s an alternative interpretation, and what does it tell us about perception, cognition and the human mind?

The alternative interpretation says that what people are looking for – rather than what people are merely looking at – determines what is obvious. Obviousness is not self-evident. Or as Sherlock Holmes said: ‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.’ This isn’t an argument against facts or for ‘alternative facts’, or anything of the sort. It’s an argument about what qualifies as obvious, why and how. See, obviousness depends on what is deemed to be relevant for a particular question or task at hand. Rather than passively accounting for or recording everything directly in front of us, humans – and other organisms for that matter – instead actively look for things. The implication (contrary to psychophysics) is that mind-to-world processes drive perception rather than world-to-mind processes. The gorilla experiment itself can be reinterpreted to support this view of perception, showing that what we see depends on our expectations and questions – what we are looking for, what question we are trying to answer.

At first glance that might seem like a rather mundane interpretation, particularly when compared with the startling claim that humans are ‘blind to the obvious’. But it’s more radical than it might seem. This interpretation of the gorilla experiment puts humans centre-stage in perception, rather than relegating them to passively recording their surroundings and environments. It says that what we see is not so much a function of what is directly in front of us (Kahneman’s natural assessments), or what one is in camera-like fashion recording or passively looking at, but rather determined by what we have in our minds, for example, by the questions we have in mind. People miss the gorilla not because they are blind, but because they were prompted – in this case, by the scientists themselves – to pay attention to something else. The question – ‘How many basketball passes’ (just like any question: ‘Where are my keys?’) – primes us to see certain aspects of a visual scene, at the expense of any number of other things.

https://aeon.co/essays/are-humans-really-blind-to-the-gorilla-on-the-basketball-court

Consider what would interest you most during an out of the body experience?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[SteveO]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's a broad tradition. So you're talking of a group from pre-exilic times up through around 200 BC. There's thus no "direction" per se in the sense you mean but presumably various High Priests and people sympathetic to them were having an outsized influence. I'd also disagree that there was a well established consensus. The Elephanti community was accepted by Priests in Palestine and presumably Babylon (not to mention left unscathed by the Persians) yet was a more syncretic form of Judaism despite doing animal offerings in their temple. That strongly suggests a fair bit of diversity even in the post-exilic period even if the Deuteronomists and Priestly traditions were trying to solidify things along their theology.

There's analogies for this in our own history. Consider the Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie tradition versus say the more Roberts, Talmage, Widstoe tradition followed later by the FARMS tradition. Each has a fairly unique theology yet all three are very mainstream and typically represented among leadership. Simultaneously each tradition tends to disparage the others. There's no rewriting of texts due to having an established canon - so the analogy does break down.

It's also worth noting that there are various interpretive traditions in determining authorship. I've been critical of a lot of them in that far too many extract way too much information from too little evidence. However broadly speaking I think the neo-documentary hypothesis is pretty compelling. A good overview of the history of these authorship questions is Jen Lous Ska's "Questions of the ‘History of Israel’ in Recent Research" There's a lot more diversity of thought than many people realize when they hear about the documentary hypothesis.

Thank you for your answers.  Always enjoy your posts.

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, CA Steve said:

One of the more interesting studies I saw regarding NDE's, was a study  that examined the out of body experience many people have had in operating rooms. A common experience where the patient feels like they are floating above their own body on the operating table. These patients were very good at describing all that was going on in the operating room from that high vantage point at a specific time. So the people conducting the study placed a series of unusual objects on high shelves around the perimeter of the operating room that could not be seen from normal eye level and when they interviewed the patients who experienced the NDE in the operating rooms they set up, they would ask them to describe any of those objects. Oddly enough none of them could.

The results of the AWARE study were actually more surprisingly mixed. (Here's the full study) I expected no results and had as my priors that most NDEs were just due to oxygen effects on the brain - especially since it's possible to generate NDE like effects and there are good explanations for many of the effects.  In this study 9% of survivors had an NDE and 2% "exhibited full awareness compatible with OBE’s with explicit recall of ‘seeing’ and ‘hearing’ events."

• “This is significant, since it has often been assumed that experiences in relation to death are likely hallucinations or illusions, occurring either before the heart stops or after the heart has been successfully restarted, but not an experience corresponding with ‘real’ events when the heart isn’t beating. In this case, consciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat. This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn’t resume again until the heart has been restarted. Furthermore, the detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events. 

  “Thus, while it was not possible to absolutely prove the reality or meaning of patients’ experiences and claims of awareness, (due to the very low incidence (2 per cent) of explicit recall of visual awareness or so called OBE’s), it was impossible to disclaim them either and more work is needed in this area. Clearly, the recalled experience surrounding death now merits further genuine investigation without prejudice.”

With respect to the hidden images

• While pre-placement of visual targets in resuscitation areas aimed at testing VA was feasible from a practical viewpoint (there were no reported adverse incidents), the observation that 78% of CA events took place in areas without shelves illustrates the challenge in objectively testing the claims of VA in CA using our proposed methodology.

Although the somewhat positive results are open to different interpretations. I wouldn't say the study overall really offers any reason to trust NDEs.

4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Consider what would interest you most during an out of the body experience?

I confess I'd be most focused on trying to find something that could establish that it was real for someone as skeptical as I am.

Edited July 10, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The Elephanti community was accepted by Priests in Palestine and presumably Babylon (not to mention left unscathed by the Persians) yet was a more syncretic form of Judaism despite doing animal offerings in their temple. That strongly suggests a fair bit of diversity even in the post-exilic period even if the Deuteronomists and Priestly traditions were trying to solidify things along their theology.

Just to add to the earlier comments, I find the Elephantine community completely fascinating relative to the Book of Mormon. Most of the texts are post-exilic so that doesn't get us too much. However even in the post-exilic period we have a more syncretic type of Judaism apparently fully accepted by the rest of Judaism. While it's somewhat speculative, the consensus is that the community of the island was started by Manasseh around 700 BC or thereabouts. i.e. well before Lehi. If Lehi was a trader, as some indications suggest, that's a pretty straightforward way for a more Egyptian rather than Canaanite or Deuteronomist form of Judaism to have affected Lehi. (Not that the Deuteronomist tradition in the Book of Mormon is neglected - but the relationship to the Deuteronomist theology is mixed in the text)

[Gray]

On 7/6/2018 at 4:46 PM, clarkgoble said:

Well yes. Exactly. And the point being Nephi came out of that Axial age. So I'm not sure why you think that thin. We'd expect the Judaism from before the reforms and centralization to be more like those typical axial age theologies including especially Canaanite. (Recall that most scholars see Judaism developing out of Canaanite religion)

As for ritual impurity, if you're talking of the period of Christianity when there were few Jews of course you're correct. If you're talking early Christianity when most were Jews of course you're wrong. The controversy with Peter over gentiles is entirely tied to ritual purity. Again I think most scholars see sin as a concept developing partially out of ritual impurity combined with the unique Hellenistic elements that Augustine made use of a few centuries later.

Except that we see exactly that among the Canaanites. So it's not exactly that speculative to suggest this was removed from Judaism (which even according to the Bible was syncretic at times) by Deuteronomists and Priestly reformers.

The connections are thin enough that you can make them between any two religious traditions you choose. At this point we're talking about Joseph Campbell level archetypes. Christianity simply did not exist 600, 500 or 200 years before Jesus. Christianity didn't exist in Jesus' lifetime, either. There is certainly an evolutionary chain you can follow back before the advent of Christianity, where certain concepts start to evolve (resurrection of the dead, God/Satan dualism, etc). But that's just the point. These concepts gradually evolved, making their appearance in the BOM outside of time and place very jarring.

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

On 7/7/2018 at 2:41 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

You are not only misinformed about early Jewish Christianity (the primitive church), but likewise about Mormon theology.  In such case, it is impossible for you to make a legitimate comparison.

I don't think I'm misinformed Robert, although of course I'm as fallible as the next person. Are you saying that Jesus wasn't thoroughly Jewish? Are you claiming that Mormonism IS thoroughly Jewish? Despite the fact that it rejects the law of Moses, teaches feudalistic penal substitution atonement theory, teaches eternal salvation based on faith in Jesus, and so forth? None of those things were part of Jesus' program.

Quote

Depends on whether you have any inkling of what scholarship is.  I hope that you are not confusing ends with means.  You seem to prefer the former.

The fact that you keep trying to connect critical scholarship with atheism tells me you don't really grasp what critical scholarship is. Am I wrong? Are you not attempting to associate the two somehow?

Quote

Perhaps you believe that Mormon leaders are trained theologians, and that you also believe that to have been true of Jesus and the Twelve.  It is so easy to confuse folklore and traditional outward appearances with the Grundlage, and you will continue to be confused until you engage with some scholarly sources on the subject.

When those in authority teach folklore, it becomes doctrine. Scholars can tell you what Mormonism was, but leaders define what Mormonism is, at least for the institutional church. That's almost a metaphor for the the larger discussion we're having now.

Your personal Mormonism may vary.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Gray

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

The connections are thin enough that you can make them between any two religious traditions you choose. At this point we're talking about Joseph Campbell level archetypes. Christianity simply did not exist 600, 500 or 200 years before Jesus. Christianity didn't exist in Jesus' lifetime, either. 

Agreed. Consider the connections people make between Jesus and Mithra. 

[Gray]

On 7/7/2018 at 2:51 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

You are quite wrong.  You might want to spend some time in the deep study of Judaism, and read Jewish commentaries on the New Testament.  A good place to start would be with Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds., The Jewish Annotated New Testament, 2nd ed. (Oxford Univ Press, 2017).

I don't think I'm wrong, but please feel free to cite specific scholarship to the contrary. Nevo seems to have already done so.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

On 7/7/2018 at 11:46 AM, Nevo said:

This is a good resource.

Marc Zvi Brettler's essay, "The New Testament Between the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and Rabbinic Literature," notes that "there is much in the New Testament that is not anticipated in the Tanakh, such as the core idea of a divine messiah who brings redemption by dying for Israel's sins."

He continues:

In Lee Levine's essay, "The Synagogue," he notes that "synagogues in Judea are first attested in the first century BCE, and in one case (Modi'in) perhaps as early as the second century" (compare 2 Nephi 26:26). 

In her essay, "Afterlife and Resurrection," Martha Himmelfarb observes that "most of the writings that eventually became part of the Tanakh say nothing about reward and punishment after death. Rather, they envision the dead, righteous and wicked together, enduring a shadowy existence in Sheol, an inhospitable place often described as a miry pit . . . . The blessings and curses that attach to Israel's covenant with God play a central role in the Torah and prophetic writings, but they are typically experienced collectively by the people of Israel as a group, and they take place in this world. The only strand of the Tanakh to emphasize the reward and punishment of the individual is Wisdom literature, but these texts locate rewards and punishments in this life" (compare 2 Nephi 9:15–18). Himmelfarb notes that the first Jewish text to describe a final judgment and reward and punishment after death is the Book of the Watchers, which is dated to the end of the third century BCE. From there, she traces the idea through the second-century BCE books of Daniel (ch. 12) and 2 Maccabees (ch. 7) to the New Testament and beyond.

Much appreciated, thank you

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Agreed. Consider the connections people make between Jesus and Mithra. 

Yes, exactly. Those kinds of caparisons are extremely strained, and have been largely rejected. Comparisons to Canaanite traditions are, I think, even more strained.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Gray