Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

False. They did. There were some in the Old Testament. What was believed was that the eschatological resurrection was at the end of the age.



Correct



Correct



This is not known. Earthquakes in themselves would have been common and if there was darkness, most would say that was an eclipse of some sort. It also assumes this is a literal account.



See above.



Which would in fact raise suspicion. Personality was static.



Paul saw them being arrested more often. The death we know he saw was Stephen and Stephen would be easy to write off for Paul.



And for that, it needed to be stopped.



For the reasons I gave. Paul would have let his other positions come through instead and there's no indication that he was "investigating" the claims of Christ. He just heard them and decided they were false. Also, as for the honor-shame, a lot of that stuff came about AFTER Paul.

And furthermore, if you say "I will not believe unless I have a person experience" then that tells me no study of history will convince you. Whatever historical argument you're given, you will not accept it because of your experiences.

That is not how to do history. I have given a standard apart from experience. You have given one that just says "I will not listen to what you say because I do not have what I want."

I never said that first century Jews did not believe in a Resurrection. The Pharisees believed in a resurrection! Saul was a Pharisee! But I am using your argument that no first century Jew would believe that ONE individual would be resurrected prior to the general Resurrection at the end of the age UNLESS they had seen very, very convincing evidence to convince them that it had happened. Therefore, if thousands of devout Jews in Jerusalem (five thousand in one day!) WERE suddenly believing that one man HAD been resurrected prior to the general Resurrection, how do you explain the fact that this did not sway an educated Jew like Saul of the truthfulness of the resurrection claim of Jesus??

Again, I believe that what you are subtly saying (but may not want to admit) is that your evidence is not good enough for educated, Bible-literate Jews, but only for uneducated Jewish peasants and Bible-ignorant Gentiles.

[Sea of red]

Well first of all, you don't have to be a non-Christian to be considered a critical scholar. Some of academia's most critical scholars call themselves Christian. But anyways, Gary Habermas wrote a peer reviewed paper on this subject in 2005 called "Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?". I don't think anyone has successfully challenged his claim that the majority of biblical scholars do accept the tomb was empty. Again, major disagreement tends towards why it was empty.

Um, you kinda have to in my book. I couldn't care less if you or Habermas consider someone that still believes in Christianity to be a "critic". I'm looking for Jews, Muslims, Hindu's, Buddhists, Humanists, atheists, agnostics, and deists not Liberal Christians. When people have a stake in the outcome, it's important that we separate the sides to the argument. You keep using the word 'scholar' over and over again here, instead of the word 'historian'. With a few exceptions, most of the people whom study this stuff went to Bible colleges and received training in theology, philosophy, religious philosophy, or NT studies. Most of both sides here - critics and believers alike - are not historians in training or practice, and I certainly don't see them involving their works in the secular community.

[Sea of red]

Scholars agree that the gospels (except John) were written BEFORE 70AD (the destruction of the Temple) Jesus himself prophesied the falling of the temple. It is strange that none of the gospels would not mention the actual event if they were written after 70AD. As for Mark, he was the scribe for Peter, who was martyred in 68AD, so it is most likely his gospel was written before that. Evidence found shows it closer to 55AD

This is just false. For the most part, it's generally agreed they were written well after the destruction of the temple. What's stranger than anything else is that Paul never uses the gospels in his arguments with Jews or Gentiles, when it would have come in handy when trying to settle arguments. You'd think that if Paul had access to these documents or the traditions had started, he would have uses them as evidence. Not at all. None of the gospel elements are found in his early teachings, which is the reason most historians - including a lot of Christians - put them later than that.

[Gary]

I am willing to look at any real evidence, I just do not consider assumptions and hearsay as strong evidence. My issue is that you have decided to accept the position of the fringe of NT scholarship on the early dating of the Synoptics. Please don't tell me that Nick agrees with you on this issue.

[Gary]

Wow!

I have shown that Saul had all the evidence Nick gave to me and yet did not find it convincing. Yet Nick and the rest of the Christians on this site think that I and other non-believing skeptics are close-minded for NOT believing the very same evidence that a Bible-literate, educated, first century Jew did not find convincing. And Nick's only explanation for Saul's nonbelief is that Saul knew MORE Jewish beliefs and customs than the average first century Jew converting to Christianity in his day!

So let me get this straight: If you knew MORE about the beliefs of ancient Judaism in the early days of Christianity, you were less likely to believe the Christian claims???

In other words then: ignorance is bliss!

My goodness, my Christian friends. Don't you see a massive problem with this argument??

[Gary]

Think about this, Christian friends:

If you read the Gospels, specifically the Gospel of Luke, if the Gospels are historically accurate, none of the evidence given by Nick convinced the eleven apostles either...including post-resurrection appearances!!

Get out your Bible and read it for yourself: The Eleven had been with Jesus for three years, they had seen incredible miracles INCLUDING raising people from the dead, they had just seen with their own eyes the empty tomb guarded by Roman guards 24/7, AND then, Jesus appears right in their midst...and do they believe? No! They are terrified because they think they are seeing a ghost (hallucinating).

Jesus then shows them his wounds, he tells them to touch him, he eats broiled fish, all to convince them that he is not a ghost. BUT, that isn't enough! Jesus then has to use his supernatural powers to "open their minds" so that FINALLY, they see the truth.

Dear friends: If seeing a walking/talking/broiled fish eating corpse is not good enough evidence for the apostles to believe, and if first century Jews converting to a religion of shame by the thousands; a shameful religion that uses women as its first witnesses; and, these many Jewish Christians are people who would not die for a lie, but yet they are being executed right and left at the hands of Saul...and Saul doesn't find the evidence convincing, why on earth should anyone living today, 2,000 years later, find your "cumulative" evidence convincing??

If the Bible accounts regarding the Eleven and Saul/Paul are true then that means that the pillars of the Christian Church required one of two events to occur in order to believe the same evidence you are asking me to believe:

1. A reanimated dead first century prophet/god must use his supernatural powers on me to open my brain.
2. I must have a "heavenly vision" in which I see and hear a talking bright light tell me it is a dead prophet/god and that I am going to be its missionary.

These are NOT rational beliefs, friends. You would never accept this kind of logic from any other religion.

[One Bad Pig]

Think about this, Christian friends:

If you read the Gospels, specifically the Gospel of Luke, if the Gospels are historically accurate, none of the evidence given by Nick convinced the eleven apostles either...including post-resurrection appearances!!

Get out your Bible and read it for yourself: The Eleven had been with Jesus for three years, they had seen incredible miracles INCLUDING raising people from the dead, they had just seen with their own eyes the empty tomb guarded by Roman guards 24/7, AND then, Jesus appears right in their midst...and do they believe? No! They are terrified because they think they are seeing a ghost (hallucinating).

Jesus then shows them his wounds, he tells them to touch him, he eats broiled fish, all to convince them that he is not a ghost. BUT, that isn't enough! Jesus then has to use his supernatural powers to "open their minds" so that FINALLY, they see the truth.

Dear friends: If seeing a walking/talking/broiled fish eating corpse is not good enough evidence for the apostles to believe, and if first century Jews converting to a religion of shame by the thousands; a shameful religion that uses women as its first witnesses; and, these many Jewish Christians are people who would not die for a lie, but yet they are being executed right and left at the hands of Saul...and Saul doesn't find the evidence convincing, why on earth should anyone living today, 2,000 years later, find your "cumulative" evidence convincing??

If the Bible accounts regarding the Eleven and Saul/Paul are true then that means that the pillars of the Christian Church required one of the two following events to occur in order to believe the same evidence you are asking me to believe:

1. A reanimated dead first century prophet/god must use his supernatural powers on me to open my brain.
2. I must have a "heavenly vision" where I see and hear a talking bright light which tells me it is a dead prophet/god.

These are NOT rational beliefs, friends. You would never accept this kind of logic from any other religion.

How about you work on your reading comprehension? You are patently still a fundamentalist; you've simply changed sides.

[Adrift]

Um, you kinda have to in my book. I couldn't care less if you or Habermas consider someone that still believes in Christianity to be a "critic". I'm looking for Jews, Muslims, Hindu's, Buddhists, Humanists, atheists, agnostics, and deists not Liberal Christians. When people have a stake in the outcome, it's important that we separate the sides to the argument. You keep using the word 'scholar' over and over again here, instead of the word 'historian'. With a few exceptions, most of the people whom study this stuff went to Bible colleges and received training in theology, philosophy, religious philosophy, or NT studies. Most of both sides here - critics and believers alike - are not historians in training or practice, and I certainly don't see them involving their works in the secular community.

Well, then, thankfully you're not anyone that academia cares about impressing when they define who is, and who is not considered a notable critical scholar. An agnostic like Ehrman, a Muslim like Aslan, and a Jew like Vermes have (or had in the case of Vermes) absolutely no issue working on the shoulders, or accepting the critical analysis of those historians who identify themselves as Christian. The work of critical Christian scholars like Theissen, Sanders, Meier, Brown, and others have added invaluable perspectives to New Testament studies. You'd even lose scholars like John Crossan and Robert Funk, and much of the Westar Institute and the Jesus Seminar if you disregarded anyone who claimed to be a Christian. Where are you getting this idea that New Testament scholars are not historians or have not had to attain training related to history? Who told you that? I think you're incredibly mixed up in what makes a critical NT scholar. Robert Funk lays it out here: http://www.westarinstitute.org/membe...tical-scholar/

Finally, if you think that getting rid of anyone who claims to be a Christian from NT studies will rid it of bias, you have another think coming. Dogmatic atheists like Richard Carrier have out and out said that the reason they're involved in NT scholarship is to defeat Christianity.

The best approach to assessing scholars is to allow their arguments to speak for themselves. Anything else is religious bigotry in my book.

[Adrift]

Let's just assume that the empty tomb is historical fact. However, does the reanimation of a dead corpse best explain this fact?

Of course not, but again, and for the final time, that's not the argument. The empty tomb is a piece in a larger, cumulative case. I'm not sure why that's not getting through to you.

[Gary]

How about you work on your reading comprehension? You are patently still a fundamentalist; you've simply changed sides.

[b]

[Gary]

Of course not, but again, and for the final time, that's not the argument. The empty tomb is a piece in a larger, cumulative case. I'm not sure why that's not getting through to you.

My point is that even with the same cumulative evidence, including an empty tomb, that you, Nick, and other Christians have presented here, Saul and the Eleven did not believe until Jesus had run out of options and was forced to resort to his supernatural powers (mind opening and talking bright lights).

[Adrift]

None of the gospel elements are found in his early teachings

That's not entirely true. Paul mentions Jesus' teaching on divorce, on the material support for evangelists, and on the significance of the bread and the wine at the last supper. Since Paul's letters were occasional in nature, there would have been little reason for him to repeat the Gospels (if they were available to him) beyond the immediate need.

[Adrift]

My point is that even with the same cumulative evidence, including an empty tomb, that you, Nick, and other Christians have presented here, Saul and the Eleven did not believe until Jesus had run out of options and was forced to resort to his supernatural powers (mind opening and talking bright lights).

[One Bad Pig]

[b]

I am not your friend; your use of the word renders it practically meaningless. Try matching up your earlier post with the passage, and see if you can figure out why they don't match. And he "opened their minds" by explaining the Old Testament prophecies concerning himself - verse 46 should clue you in on that. No "supernatural" mind-opening required!

[Gary]

I'm being 100% serious. Saul, Peter, John, Andrew, and the rest did not believe the evidence for the Resurrection, including the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances, even when they saw the evidence with their own eyes, yet you seem to believe that your "cumulative" evidence for this alleged 2,000 years old event should be believed by any reasonable person today!

No.

You either believe this claim using a huge leap of faith (otherwise known as "superstition") or you believe it because you want to since the belief makes you feel safe, at peace, and hopeful for the future. Bottom line: natural evidence did not convince Saul. Natural evidence and even supernatural evidence did not convince the apostles. It took extra-heavy duty "mind opening" powers to finally get these 12 guys to believe that a dead man had walked out of his grave.