Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

That proves it to me

You are a fraud and a troll

A) anyone claiming to have been a christian claiming they didnt need to study before they gave up their faith was never a true Christian

B) anyone getting into specific questions about the text and claiming to be discussing issues and making challenges that begs off having to do research to answer counter points is an intellectually dishonest lightweight.


My recommendation at page 308 is a lock of the thread. It is quite obvious this is just someone looking for attention and not someone wishing to engage any issues. Its ran its course.

Again, I ask: What claim regarding the alleged Resurrection of Jesus, held by the overwhelming majority of scholars, have I denied or disagreed with? And again I ask, Do you have any evidence for the central claim itself: the resurrection of a dead first century body?

Saying that, at best, alleged second hand/hearsay testimony, recorded by anonymous authors, writing decades after the event, describing several alleged, post-death appearances by a deceased person to his loved ones, and one vision-prone rabbi, is NOT evidence for a resurrection. It is only evidence for an early Christian belief in a resurrection.

Give me one eyewitness, who identifies himself or herself by name, whose eyewitness testimony describes the resurrected body of Jesus.

[tabibito]

1John 1:
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes,
which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life—
2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life
which was with the Father and was manifested to us—
3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us;
and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

[One Bad Pig]

That proves it to me

You are a fraud and a troll

No, he's not. He's just desperately seeking validation.

A) anyone claiming to have been a christian claiming they didnt need to study before they gave up their faith was never a true Christian

False. He simply wasn't a well-grounded Christian.

B) anyone getting into specific questions about the text and claiming to be discussing issues and making challenges that begs off having to do research to answer counter points is an intellectually dishonest lightweight.


My recommendation at page 308 is a lock of the thread. It is quite obvious this is just someone looking for attention and not someone wishing to engage any issues. Its ran its course.

You're correct in that he's not looking to engage any issues; he's just trying by hook or crook to get people to join him in his folly so he feels better about it.

[Mikeenders]

No, he's not. He's just desperately seeking validation.

False. He simply wasn't a well-grounded Christian.

OBP I think you are deeply kidding yourself with Gary's need for your validation (a wider reading of him than just here makes that obviously false to me)and as for true Christian saved and lost I think I'd go with God's word on that and call it true regardless of your different opinion. I find the NT unambiguous on the issue despite two main passages people point to - but in both those instances Gary would be better off not having been a Christian and I am confident they don't erase the unambiguity at least for me.

[Mikeenders]

I'm not totally sure what you're asking. However, there are a few reasons to suppose it's not (completely) a Pauline teaching device. If we're referring to 1 Cor 15, the use of Cephas, an Aramaism, suggests that the creed originated in Jerusalem or in Judea, more generally. The rhyming text seems to be indicative of an oral tradition, because (as almost everyone will attest) rhymes are easier to remember than simple sayings. This is why several parables are thought to be original.

Well I thought since a skeptic was making an issue of change or alleged removal of a creed it was worth finding out whether there was even anything substantial to the basis of claiming a universal creed to begin with. I've found a lot of times the accepted positions on these things often have very little concrete behind them to determine them with quite the finality that scholars claim. Its something I have noticed since my seminary days and having read again some skeptics recently noticed the same trend. So I was just wondering since that particular issue was something I had never delved into. I agree that rhyming would be indicative of some device but just wanted to know if there was more because that by itself doesn't really prove a universal church creed and Aramaism's given Paul was a Jew that spent time considerable amount of time in Jerusalem with the apostle doesn't seem that compelling either. However if you could direct me perhaps to a source where this is discussed I'd like to look into it further and wouldn't expect to impose further on your time. Thanks for the answer

[37818]

Just as one does not need to study the books of leprechaun scholars to know that leprechauns do not exist, one does not need to study the books of reanimated-ancient-dead-Jewish-prophet scholars to know that such an entity does not exist.

Gary the claim of the supernatural bodily resurrection of God's Christ is a claim that on the premise of being true shows God's Son to have come, lived, died for the sins of men, having been raised and so justifying our trust in God as Savior. Now if this claim is not true, no one should believe it.

[John 7:16-17]

[tabibito]

Well I thought since a skeptic was making an issue of change or alleged removal of a creed it was worth finding out whether there was even anything substantial to the basis of claiming a universal creed to begin with. I've found a lot of times the accepted positions on these things often have very little concrete behind them to determine them with quite the finality that scholars claim. Its something I have noticed since my seminary days and having read again some skeptics recently noticed the same trend. So I was just wondering since that particular issue was something I had never delved into. I agree that rhyming would be indicative of some device but just wanted to know if there was more because that by itself doesn't really prove a universal church creed and Aramaism's given Paul was a Jew that spent time considerable amount of time in Jerusalem with the apostle doesn't seem that compelling either. However if you could direct me perhaps to a source where this is discussed I'd like to look into it further and wouldn't expect to impose further on your time. Thanks for the answer

The story apparently originates with Gary Habermas and the majority of scholars seem to accept the evaluation as valid. However, he does not declare that it is a creed, but that the presentation is in creedal form.

Gary said, "Almost all contemporary scholarship believes Paul received this material (Gal. 1.18) when he went to Jerusalem about 5 years after the cross. Some put it as early as 3 and as late as 8, but he was converted about 2 years after the cross before he went away for 3 years. Paul spent 15 days with Peter. It is safe to say they talked about more than just the weather. Paul said he preached nothing but Christ crucified." Gary said about James D.G. Dunn, "In his recent book Remembering Jesus that this passage (1 Cor. 15.3ff) wasn't just taught. It was already stratified. It was already put in this creedal form within months of the crucifixion."

[Gary]

1John 1:
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes,
which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life—
2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life
which was with the Father and was manifested to us—
3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us;
and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

Who made this statement?

Let me ask again: Give me one eyewitness, who identifies himself or herself by name, whose eyewitness testimony describes the resurrected body of Jesus.

[Gary]

No, he's not. He's just desperately seeking validation.

False. He simply wasn't a well-grounded Christian.

You're correct in that he's not looking to engage any issues; he's just trying by hook or crook to get people to join him in his folly so he feels better about it.

Hi Pig,

What evidence do you have that I was not a well-grounded Christian?

[Gary]

Gary the claim of the supernatural bodily resurrection of God's Christ is a claim that on the premise of being true shows God's Son to have come, lived, died for the sins of men, having been raised and so justifying our trust in God as Savior. Now if this claim is not true, no one should believe it.

[John 7:16-17]

I completely agree.

Once again, I am not saying that reading and studying the books of NT scholars is a worthless endeavor. If one is interested in understanding the beliefs of early Christians, then it is absolutely necessary to read what scholars say on this subject. But that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the supernatural claim of the reanimation of a brain dead body that three days later exits its tomb in a superhero, immortal body and flies off into outer space.

No one needs to read one single sentence of one single book to NOT believe this supernatural claim. It is so far fetched and preposterous that it isn't worth spending five seconds investigating it. Brain dead bodies do not come back to life. Human bodies cannot walk through locked doors. Human bodies do not levitate into outer space. These kinds of extraordinary claims would require very, very extraordinary evidence. If Christians need to write entire books to explain why we should believe this outrageous claim that is evidence that not only do they not have extraordinary evidence, their evidence is so weak that they must write an entire book to "spin" together a collection of hearsay and assumptions to pass off as evidence.

You don't need to be a scholar nor do you need to read a scholar's book to know that dead bodies cannot be reanimated to fly off into outer space!

[tabibito]

Who made this statement?

Let me ask again: Give me one eyewitness, who identifies himself or herself by name, whose eyewitness testimony describes the resurrected body of Jesus.

You really are full of yourself.

There are arguments about the author of 2 and 3 John, but not about 1 John.

Author of 1John

The author of this epistle never identified himself by name, but Christians since the beginning of the church have considered this letter authoritative, believing it was written by John the apostle. That group of witnesses includes Polycarp, an early second-century bishop who as a young man knew John personally. - See more at: http://www.insight.org/resources/bib....ndcYPgSp.dpuf

[Gary]

The story apparently originates with Gary Habermas and the majority of scholars seem to accept the evaluation as valid. However, he does not declare that it is a creed, but that the presentation is in creedal form.

Gary said, "Almost all contemporary scholarship believes Paul received this material (Gal. 1.18) when he went to Jerusalem about 5 years after the cross. Some put it as early as 3 and as late as 8, but he was converted about 2 years after the cross before he went away for 3 years. Paul spent 15 days with Peter. It is safe to say they talked about more than just the weather. Paul said he preached nothing but Christ crucified." Gary said about James D.G. Dunn, "In his recent book Remembering Jesus that this passage (1 Cor. 15.3ff) wasn't just taught. It was already stratified. It was already put in this creedal form within months of the crucifixion."

I've heard that some NT scholars now believe that this creed was written within 18 minutes of the Ascension.

[One Bad Pig]

Hi Pig,

What evidence do you have that I was not a well-grounded Christian?

This thread provides quite ample evidence.

[tabibito]

This thread provides quite ample evidence.

His own words even.

[One Bad Pig]

OBP I think you are deeply kidding yourself with Gary's need for your validation (a wider reading of him than just here makes that obviously false to me)and as for true Christian saved and lost I think I'd go with God's word on that and call it true regardless of your different opinion. I find the NT unambiguous on the issue despite two main passages people point to - but in both those instances Gary would be better off not having been a Christian and I am confident they don't erase the unambiguity at least for me.

Not my validation, just whomever he can drag down along with him. And we doubtless have some fundamental disagreement on soteriology which would best be discussed elsewhere.