Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Sea of red]

William,

Thank you for being polite and I apologize if I sounded rude. It was not meant to be personal.

No one says you HAVE to believe the evidence. If that were the case, then there would be no unbelievers. I do hope you decide to study the evidence more closely and read a few books on the topic as Nick and Adrift have suggested and referenced.

God bless.

Sparko

I'd be curious as to what you consider the best study on the matter from your side.

I've read Strobel, McDowell, Habermas, Bill Craig, and some NT Wright but I think I'm ready for something heavier. The book I have considered purchasing is Jesus and The Eyewitness Accounts, what is the opinion of the book in apologetic circles?

[Gary]

What??? Where the heck do you get that? They didn't believe UNTIL they saw the post-resurrection Jesus. They were not idiots. They thought someone had stolen Jesus' body at first, but then Jesus appeared to them and they believed.

sheesh. How ignorant ARE you? And by the way, are you and William friends? You show up at the same time, both claim to be agnostics, both make the same arguments, and both show you don't have any background on the subject.

Did you read the passage in Luke, Sparky? It clearly states that the disciples needed more convincing than just an appearance of a reanimated dead body. They needed to see him, hear him, see his wounds, touch his body, watch him eat broiled fish, AND, have their minds opened with quotes that they had heard him say many times before (ie, he used supernatural powers to "open" their minds so that they would finally get it).

[Sea of red]

When do you think Paul wrote his letters???

In the 50s and 60s. And Luke, his companion, wrote his gospel late, after Matthew and Mark. And he wrote Acts at about the same time. He never mentions the temple destruction in his gospel either, so it was written before 70AD.

Maybe Paul didn't have access to the gospels - it wasn't like you could run out to kinkos and make a copy. Or maybe he didn't bother mentioning them because those churches he wrote to already had them.

I think Paul started writing in the 50's and after he died churches began writing down stories about Jesus there after in the following decades. Basing the dating on the temple destruction really isn't good methodology. It could have been a prophecy or could have been Christians living later trying to make appear as though that Jesus had predicted it.

[One Bad Pig]

If you cannot comprehend that even after seeing their dead friend talk to them and point out his wounds, they were still not believing that he wasn't a ghost (hallucination), I question your mastery of the English language.

You may question all you like, but you're the one who's badly misreading the text. If they were as disbelieving as you pretend, why were they simultaneously experiencing joy?

[Gary]

Before I leave this website, I would be curious to know how "Little Joe", other moderators, or any Christian who has not yet left a comment on this thread views my statement about Saul. I went to a popular skeptic website and they agreed with me that my argument for Saul's non-belief (unbelief after seeing most of the Christian evidence first hand, such as an empty tomb, people dying who wouldn't "die for a lie", etc.), the same evidence used by Nick and other Christian apologists today, is a very strong argument for our assertion that the Christian evidence is poor...without...a personal "heavenly vision" from Jesus to each one of us.

Would any of you mind commenting?

[Abigail]

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??

I think you burned a strawman there. Jesus was somewhat different than the Jews had been expecting. Not because their scriptures said so but because of certain assumptions they had read into them. Jesus' talk with Nicodemus etc demonstrate this. In other words some people needed to take a step outside themselves to appreciate a fresh look at the evidence. Those who had more to lose, like the religious leaders had less motivation to do this. Paul was born in Tarsus of Cilicia but brought up in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3), educated at the feet of Gamaliel a Pharisee and teacher of the Law. Gamaliel could list a string men who had risen up claiming to be somebody and on the strength of that he warned people to stay away from the disciples (Acts 5:33-40). There is also no mentions of Saul before the stoning of Stephen. The stoning of Stephen sees Saul guarding the coats of the witnesses (Acts 7:58) and in this verse he is presented as a 'young man'. These 'witnesses' were induced by the Synagogue of the Freedmen which included Cilicians (Acts 6:9-13) and it is no big leap to think, being proud as he was of his Tarsus of Cilicia birthplace, these men could have been a another big influence on the young Saul. Further when he reports his past to Agrippa we see him using the exact same methods as the guys responsible for the stoning Stephen did (Acts 26:11).

[Gary]

I think you burned a strawman there. Jesus was somewhat different than the Jews had been expecting. Not because their scriptures said so but because of certain assumptions they had read into them. Jesus' talk with Nicodemus etc demonstrate this. In other words some people needed to take a step outside themselves to appreciate a fresh look at the evidence. Those who had more to lose, like the religious leaders had less motivation to do this. Paul was born in Tarsus of Cilicia but brought up in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3), educated at the feet of Gamaliel a Pharisee and teacher of the Law. Gamaliel could list a string men who had risen up claiming to be somebody and on the strength of that he warned people to stay away from the disciples (Acts 5:33-40). There is also no mentions of Saul before the stoning of Stephen. The stoning of Stephen sees Saul guarding the coats of the witnesses (Acts 7:58) and in this verse he is presented as a 'young man'. These 'witnesses' were induced by the Synagogue of the Freedmen which included Cilicians (Acts 6:9-13) and it is no big leap to think, being proud as he was of his Tarsus of Cilicia birthplace, these men could have been a another big influence on the young Saul. Further when he reports his past to Agrippa we see him using the exact same methods as the guys responsible for the stoning Stephen did (Acts 26:11).

And this proves what?

So you are using the excuse that Paul was young and educated in Jewish law and custom as an excuse for him not to believe your weak evidence?? The stoning of Stephen occurred within days of Pentecost, which occurred within two months of the crucifixion. Paul very shortly thereafter had his Damascus Road vision. Should we skeptics use Saul's youth as a reason to doubt the veracity of his talking bright light story?

How many more excuses are you guys going to pull out of the hat before you admit that the only people who fell for this tall tale were uneducated Galilean peasants and Hebrew-Bible-ignorant Gentiles?

[William]

I think you burned a strawman there. Jesus was somewhat different than the Jews had been expecting. Not because their scriptures said so but because of certain assumptions they had read into them. Jesus' talk with Nicodemus etc demonstrate this. In other words some people needed to take a step outside themselves to appreciate a fresh look at the evidence. Those who had more to lose, like the religious leaders had less motivation to do this. Paul was born in Tarsus of Cilicia but brought up in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3), educated at the feet of Gamaliel a Pharisee and teacher of the Law. Gamaliel could list a string men who had risen up claiming to be somebody and on the strength of that he warned people to stay away from the disciples (Acts 5:33-40). There is also no mentions of Saul before the stoning of Stephen. The stoning of Stephen sees Saul guarding the coats of the witnesses (Acts 7:58) and in this verse he is presented as a 'young man'. These 'witnesses' were induced by the Synagogue of the Freedmen which included Cilicians (Acts 6:9-13) and it is no big leap to think, being proud as he was of his Tarsus of Cilicia birthplace, these men could have been a another big influence on the young Saul. Further when he reports his past to Agrippa we see him using the exact same methods as the guys responsible for the stoning Stephen did (Acts 26:11).

sorry, to be fair, it's not really a strawman at all. I mean, it's a legitimate point. Someone (Paul) familiar with the OT scriptures, familiar with the notion of Jesus and that his followers claimed he was risen from the Dead and Lord and all that, he didn't believe. He's not that dissimilar from many people today, yet they will not have the benefit of Divine Visions like he had. Paul may have been very biased just as you've laid out, but then the majority of mankind would have such biases if not more so and with more severe biases.

And also, Paul wasnt the only one who didnt believe until having seen first hand, as most of the apostles were very much the same, according the gospels.

SO the claim is that this evidence is enough, yet it didn't appear to be enough for the majority of the apostles, at least that's how I'd summarize Gary's point.

[Abigail]

And this proves what?
So you are using the excuse that Paul was young and educated in Jewish law and custom as an excuse for him not to believe your weak evidence?? The stoning of Stephen occurred within days of Pentecost, which occurred within two months of the crucifixion. Paul very shortly thereafter had his Damascus Road vision. Should we skeptics use Saul's youth as a reason to doubt the veracity of his talking bright light story?

How many more excuses are you guys going to pull out of the hat before you admit that the only people who fell for this tall tale were uneducated Galilean peasants and Hebrew-Bible-ignorant Gentiles?

The uneducated Galilean peasants were in a position to know whether or not they had hidden the body. Saul was in a position to know whether the religious leaders had disposed of the body. Obviously he had no such knowledge or he would not have made the claims he did in 1 Corinthians 15

[Abigail]

sorry, to be fair, it's not really a strawman at all. I mean, it's a legitimate point. Someone (Paul) familiar with the OT scriptures, familiar with the notion of Jesus and that his followers claimed he was risen from the Dead and Lord and all that, he didn't believe. He's not that dissimilar from many people today, yet they will not have the benefit of Divine Visions like he had. Paul may have been very biased just as you've laid out, but then the majority of mankind would have such biases if not more so and with more severe biases.

And also, Paul wasnt the only one who didnt believe until having seen first hand, as most of the apostles were very much the same, according the gospels.

SO the claim is that this evidence is enough, yet it didn't appear to be enough for the majority of the apostles, at least that's how I'd summarize Gary's point.

My comment about the strawman was Gary's presentation of what Nick had posted. Nick's answer was more nuanced than

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???

He has done the same again with my post.

So you are using the excuse that Paul was young and educated in Jewish law and custom as an excuse for him not to believe your weak evidence??

My point being that a young man with much learning is often cocky and overly sure of himself and especially in the face of 'uneducated peasants', add that to the fact he was under the influence of people who had dismissed the disciples out of hand on account 'we've seen these types before, they're trouble so keep away from them' in the case of Gamaliel, or just pure hatred because of loss of face as in the case of the Synagogue of Freedmen.

[Gary]

The uneducated Galilean peasants were in a position to know whether or not they had hidden the body. Saul was in a position to know whether the religious leaders had disposed of the body. Obviously he had no such knowledge or he would not have made the claims he did in 1 Corinthians 15

Again, what does this prove? Saul may have not known why the tomb was empty, but if an empty tomb existed as Christians were claiming (if the Gospel accounts are true), he had to consider the Christian claim of a resurrection as a possibility, and he obviously didn't buy this as a reasonable possibility. He continued persecuting and executing Christians regardless. "Would not die or a lie" did not fly with Saul.

[Gary]

My comment about the strawman was Gary's presentation of what Nick had posted. Nick's answer was more nuanced than
He has done the same again with my post.
My point being that a young man with much learning is often cocky and overly sure of himself and especially in the face of 'uneducated peasants', add that to the fact he was under the influence of people who had dismissed the disciples out of hand on account 'we've seen these types before, they're trouble so keep away from them' in the case of Gamaliel, or just pure hatred because of loss of face as in the case of the Synagogue of Freedmen.

So what you are saying is that the evidence for the Resurrection is only believable to uneducated, unbiased peasants?? If you are educated and don't believe in the reanimation of dead human flesh, you are a hopeless cause? In order to believe this supernatural claim, you must ignore your education and shut off your brain?

[Apologiaphoenix]

I'd be curious as to what you consider the best study on the matter from your side.

I've read Strobel, McDowell, Habermas, Bill Craig, and some NT Wright but I think I'm ready for something heavier. The book I have considered purchasing is Jesus and The Eyewitness Accounts, what is the opinion of the book in apologetic circles?

Do you mean Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham?

I think it's an excellent work and it will have to be responded to by skeptics. I do understand Bart Ehrman is in fact working on a response to it.

[Apologiaphoenix]

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.

Because people are not robots. There's no magic bullet guarantee about convincing, but I'd say Paul never investigated the claims. He wrote them off for the reasons I gave you earlier. Again, you can talk all you want about why others don't believe something, but what you fail to give is a convincing counter-scenario.

[Sea of red]

Do you mean Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham?

I think it's an excellent work and it will have to be responded to by skeptics. I do understand Bart Ehrman is in fact working on a response to it.

Yep, that's the one. My buddy that's into this stuff has the book and said it's the best book on the subject - he's a pantheist.

If you could recommend that and two others, what would they be?