Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Good morning, Sea of Red,

    If I may make a suggestion, I recommend

    The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice, by Simon Greenleaf of Harvard University, HTML with hyperlinks here,

    and a modern look at his essay,

    Seeking Truth on the Other Side of the Wall: Greenleaf's Evangelists Meet The Federal Rules, Naturalism, And Judas, by Nancy J. Kippenhan, Liberty University Law Review, v. 5, n. 1, Fall 2010.

    These are available for free at the links provided. Further recommendations can be found here and here.

    Good luck with your research.

    Comment


    • How many Christians are aware that the story of guards at the tomb only appears in one gospel. And the story of the guards at the tomb is not the only unique detail that appears in this one gospel. Dead saints walking out of their tombs to roam the streets, Roman guards guarding a Jewish peasant, messiah-pretender's grave, and other wild claims only appear in the gospel of... Matthew.

      Christian apologists use the alleged "fact" of an empty tomb as their trump card for evidence for the Resurrection. Let's assume that the entire account in Matthew regarding Aramathea burying Jesus in his private tomb, the great stone in front of the door, and the Roman guards are all fact. Let's assume that on Sunday morning the women really did find an empty tomb. How strong of evidence is this "fact"? I assert that the empty tomb is only strong evidence IF Christians can prove that the body was guarded 24/7 from the very moment that Aramathea placed Jesus' body in the tomb to the moment the women found the tomb empty.

      If there is even a ten minute window when the tomb was unguarded, that is enough time for a group of men to roll back the stone, grab the body, and make off with it. Christians will assert that NO ONE would do this for a long list of reasons, including breaking the Sabbath. I assert that Jews breaking the Sabbath is much more probable than that an invisible middle-eastern deity reanimated the dead body of a Jewish prophet and sent angels to move back the stone. Yes, in a world where anything is possible, the latter is possible, but it just is not probable. It is much more probable that devout Jews would break the Sabbath. We have evidence of the disciples breaking the Sabbath in the Gospels, so why not do it again? Also, maybe it wasn't the disciples. Maybe it was some of Jesus' family who wanted the body buried in Galilee. Or maybe it was just grave robbers who thought they could make a profit selling the remains of a messiah pretender. Maybe a small group of the Sanhedrin didn't like the idea of a blasphemer being buried in a respectable tomb, so they stole the body and tossed it into a hole, and did not tell the high priest and the other members. Or, maybe Aramethea only put the body in his tomb until Sabbath was over. After sunset Saturday night, with Pilate's permission, he removed the body and threw it into an unmarked grave.

      Again, all of these scenarios are much more probable than the Christian supernatural explanation. Bottom line: We do NOT have evidence that the tomb was guarded 24/7 from the moment that Aramethea placed the body in the tomb and rolled the stone in front until the women found the tomb empty on Sunday morning. Below is the passage from Matthew:

      Now when evening had come, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus. 58 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be given to him. 59 When Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and laid it in his new tomb which he had hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the door of the tomb, and departed. 61 And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the tomb.

      Pilate Sets a Guard

      62 On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate, 63 saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ 64 Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night[m] and steal Him away, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead.’ So the last deception will be worse than the first.”

      65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know how.” 66 So they went and made the tomb secure, sealing the stone and setting the guard.
      Last edited by Gary; 07-25-2015, 12:22 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by fm93 View Post
        Actually, the account if anything indicates that Pilate is a highly intelligent and manipulative ruler who plays the Jewish leaders on a string. It must be kept in mind that the Jews and Romans weren't particularly fond of each other at the time, as the Jews detested being under the rule of the Romans; they certainly wouldn't have nonchalantly engaged in any sort of diplomatic relations with them. Under Roman rule, the Sanhedrin generally didn't have the right to perform executions, so they tried to depict Jesus' words and ministry as sedition, a charge that a Roman procurator like Pilate would actually care about (unlike allegations of blasphemy).

        But Pilate realized that Jesus, who (as it turned out) had only a small band of disciples (who fled when the troops arrived) and meekly surrendered was no serious seditious threat. So he initially refused to sentence Jesus and instead forced the leaders and crowd to choose between Jesus and Barabbas, the man who was arrested for actually being a serious seditious threat. He also dares them to crucify Jesus themselves, knowing full well that they aren't allowed to and that if they do, Rome would inflict punishment. Ultimately, the leaders and mob are forced to essentially ally themselves with a known seditionist, with the risk of being viewed as supportive of sedition. Additionally, by constantly referring to Jesus as "their king," Pilate manipulates them into pledging allegiance to Caesar, knowing full well that they must've been dying inside when they said that.
        Most Jewish scholars view the accounts about Pilate as Christian attempts to make Pilate the good guy (forced to execute Jesus against his will due to pressure from the Jews) and make the Jews look like the evil bad guys. You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but my assessment of the passages is not unique. It is only unique to Christians who are not aware that Jews view these passages as blatant anti-Semitic propaganda. If you don't believe me, google it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abigail View Post
          Though your account carries all sorts of inconsistencies. For instance Paul was a Pharisee who believed in bodily resurrection so him saying someone had 'risen' would have been meant as the reanimation of their fleshly body.

          If, say, your grandmother dies does that mean someone can come along and suddenly rewrite your family history. Only if there was no one around who knew your grandmother or knew of her through the oral accounts of her passed down as family and friends do. We know this was not the case with Jesus since people knew Him and told others about Him. Also things are often written down long before they are officially published. Add to that the fact not all Jews lived in Palestine. Look at accounts in early Acts which speak about the Synagogue of Freedmen, their ties with other places in the empire clearly listed. Also the accounts of people coming up to Jerusalem from all over the place to celebrate feasts.

          You, or/and William are quick to say that you believe the disciples saw something but were mistaken, but then you basically say that the stories about what they saw really bore no resemblance to what they actually saw and how the events around the crucifixion unfolded. Again if people were interested in being truthful witnesses this is a problem since a person interested in saying what he believes is a true account of something will not say something wildly at odds from what actually happened.

          I doubt the disciples would have been motivated to do what they did on account that they thought they saw Jesus (but every time they wanted to make sure they woke up, or when out in the city the fleeting figure disappeared into the crowd.) Again you then have to explain Paul, the pharisee, away and the clear hope the early church had of being physically resurrected, all of which seem to have been clear in Paul's writings.

          It is said that many people suspected Pliny's (younger) account of Vesuvius' eruption in particular the pyroclastic flow until they saw something similar. Pliny the elder was a naturalist and helped raise and educate his nephew so the odds are that he would have recorded what was actually observed rather than fanciful stuff on account of being an ignorant ancient. We observe before we understand. You don't have to understand something to record what your observations are.
          "Though your account carries all sorts of inconsistencies. For instance Paul was a Pharisee who believed in bodily resurrection so him saying someone had 'risen' would have been meant as the reanimation of their fleshly body. "

          I do not contest that Paul believed that Jesus had been reanimated/bodily resurrected. From what in my statement do you assume otherwise?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abigail View Post
            Though your account carries all sorts of inconsistencies. For instance Paul was a Pharisee who believed in bodily resurrection so him saying someone had 'risen' would have been meant as the reanimation of their fleshly body.

            If, say, your grandmother dies does that mean someone can come along and suddenly rewrite your family history. Only if there was no one around who knew your grandmother or knew of her through the oral accounts of her passed down as family and friends do. We know this was not the case with Jesus since people knew Him and told others about Him. Also things are often written down long before they are officially published. Add to that the fact not all Jews lived in Palestine. Look at accounts in early Acts which speak about the Synagogue of Freedmen, their ties with other places in the empire clearly listed. Also the accounts of people coming up to Jerusalem from all over the place to celebrate feasts.

            You, or/and William are quick to say that you believe the disciples saw something but were mistaken, but then you basically say that the stories about what they saw really bore no resemblance to what they actually saw and how the events around the crucifixion unfolded. Again if people were interested in being truthful witnesses this is a problem since a person interested in saying what he believes is a true account of something will not say something wildly at odds from what actually happened.

            I doubt the disciples would have been motivated to do what they did on account that they thought they saw Jesus (but every time they wanted to make sure they woke up, or when out in the city the fleeting figure disappeared into the crowd.) Again you then have to explain Paul, the pharisee, away and the clear hope the early church had of being physically resurrected, all of which seem to have been clear in Paul's writings.

            It is said that many people suspected Pliny's (younger) account of Vesuvius' eruption in particular the pyroclastic flow until they saw something similar. Pliny the elder was a naturalist and helped raise and educate his nephew so the odds are that he would have recorded what was actually observed rather than fanciful stuff on account of being an ignorant ancient. We observe before we understand. You don't have to understand something to record what your observations are.
            Abigail,

            I am not saying that I think the disciples were lying. I am not saying that I don't believe the disciples when they say that they saw Jesus eat broiled fish. I think that the disciples were probably very devout, very honest people. What I am saying is that I doubt the STORY about the disciples is true. What I am saying is that since we don't know who wrote the Gospels or the Book of Acts, we cannot be sure that any of the claims not corroborated by other historical sources, are true. No one had to lie for all these resurrection and appearances stories to be nonhistorical.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              The evidence of Christ's supernatural bodily resurrection is the claim presented in the NT documents ascribed to authors by the names in which said documents were handed down. You did not answer what I asked. So either that Sabbath night one supposes that the body was removed, or the Creator of all things indeed raised up the one being called the Son of God.

              That can only be supposed. We are not told this in the documents.
              I am not asking you to make an assessment of historical fact, I am asking if you believe it is PROBABLE that Saul was aware of all this evidence. That is no different than asking you if it is probable that Saul knew the name of the Roman caesar at the time since that too is not stated in the documents in question.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                Most Jewish scholars view the accounts about Pilate as Christian attempts to make Pilate the good guy (forced to execute Jesus against his will due to pressure from the Jews) and make the Jews look like the evil bad guys. You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but my assessment of the passages is not unique. It is only unique to Christians who are not aware that Jews view these passages as blatant anti-Semitic propaganda. If you don't believe me, google it.
                I'm aware of your view, but do you have an actual argument to advance here, something more substantial than simply "some scholars believe?"
                Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                Comment


                • Originally posted by fm93 View Post
                  I'm aware of your view, but do you have an actual argument to advance here, something more substantial than simply "some scholars believe?"
                  I have posted several alternative scenarios that I and many skeptics believe are much more probable explanations for the resurrection belief among early Christians, including the empty tomb. Do you care to comment on them?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                    I have posted several alternative scenarios that I and many skeptics believe are much more probable explanations for the resurrection belief among early Christians, including the empty tomb. Do you care to comment on them?
                    Not really. I asked you what arguments you had in favor of your interpretation of Pilate.
                    Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                    I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                    Comment


                    • [QUOTE=fm93;222186]Not really. I asked you what arguments you had in favor of your interpretation of Pilate.[/QUO

                      We have no idea what really happened, friend! All we have are four anonymous books written decades after the event, two/maybe three of which borrow heavily from the first. We are both guessing what really happened. My point is that the Gospels seem, to me at least, to portray Pilate as "moral" as he prefers not to execute an "innocent" man. Based on the description of Pilate in Roman documents, I don't think he would have had any pangs of conscious in executing any Jew for any reason. My point is that the character of Pilate painted in the gospels does not square with the character of Pilate in non-Christian texts. To me this adds more doubt to the reliability of the Gospels as historically reliable texts.

                      Regarding the sign above Jesus, I believe that this little detail is an embellishment. I doubt its historicity, but historical or non-historical, it is inconsequential to the question at issue here, which is: Is there sufficient evidence for the claim of a first century reanimation of dead human tissue, for any reasonable person today to believe it as historical fact. I say, no. I have presented the evidence that Saul most probably also found the evidence for this claim poor. The persons in the first century who did believe there was good evidence for this supernatural story were overwhelmingly poor, uneducated Jews and Bible-ignorant Gentiles. That is NOT a ringing endorsement for the historicity of this claim.

                      Imagine if someone in this country made the claim of seeing a Bigfoot that levitates into the clouds, and when he presents the evidence for his claim, the only people who believe it are a group of poor, uneducated people from Appalachia and some Japanese tourists.
                      Last edited by Gary; 07-25-2015, 03:15 PM.

                      Comment


                      • *pops in*

                        Do we have any response yet to what E.P. Sanders said about works being anonymous or the fact that the writers would not be unknown to the hearers or do we have any response to the facts on oral tradition and material not being written instantaneously?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                          *pops in*

                          Do we have any response yet to what E.P. Sanders said about works being anonymous or the fact that the writers would not be unknown to the hearers or do we have any response to the facts on oral tradition and material not being written instantaneously?
                          Would you please repost Sanders statement and I will respond.

                          Comment


                          • From the debate itself.

                            I previously pointed out to Gary what E.P. Sanders said about the idea of being anonymous. It looks like Gary didn't learn from it. To return to Sanders,

                            The authors probably wanted to eliminate interest in who wrote the story and to focus the reader on the subject. More important, the claim of an anonymous history was higher than that of a named work. In the ancient world an anonymous book, rather like an encyclopedia article today, implicitly claimed complete knowledge and reliability. It would have reduced the impact of the Gospel of Matthew had the author written 'this is my version' instead of 'this is what Jesus said and did.' - The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders page 66.


                            Furthermore, these writings would not be delivered to their recipient and be told "Well I don't know who wrote them. It's a mystery." The writer would have been known and could have even had his name on the scroll. Church tradition itself is practically unanimous with the authorship, save that John is thought to be by a John but disputed on which John it was. They were also attributed to figures who were not necessarily as well known in the accounts, save for John.

                            As for decades later, I also pointed out to Gary that this isn't a problem and as I showed above, applies to much ancient history. Suppose you live in this time. You have a message to get out. There are two ways. You can tell other people and let oral tradition do its work. Oral tradition is reliable (As people have much better memories), costs nothing, and gets the word out to people who can't read. Or you can write. Writing is timely, expensive, and reaches people who can read only. Which will you choose? Gary lives in a time of what is called the Gutenberg Galaxy where it is thought "Well surely if you want to spread a story you write it down." That is projecting his time onto the social context. It doesn't work. The person interested in more can consult Walton and Sandy's The Lost World of Scripture. Much of this is moot anyway since my argument relied on the creed found in 1 Cor. 15.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                              We have no idea what really happened, friend! All we have are four anonymous books written decades after the event, two/maybe three of which borrow heavily from the first. We are both guessing what really happened. My point is that the Gospels seem, to me at least, to portray Pilate as "moral" as he prefers not to execute an "innocent" man. Based on the description of Pilate in Roman documents, I don't think he would have had any pangs of conscious in executing any Jew for any reason. My point is that the character of Pilate painted in the gospels does not square with the character of Pilate in non-Christian texts. To me this adds more doubt to the reliability of the Gospels as historically reliable texts.
                              But here you're just repeating your claim, rather than refuting what I presented (about how Pilate's depiction is actually similar to his depiction in Roman documents).

                              Regarding the sign above Jesus, I believe that this little detail is an embellishment.
                              I have no problem with this, but the point remains that the reader in that ancient context would've recognized the irony being portrayed.

                              historical or non-historical, it is inconsequential to the question at issue here, which is: Is there sufficient evidence for the claim of a first century reanimation of dead human tissue, for any reasonable person today to believe it as historical fact. I say, no. I have presented the evidence that Saul most probably also found the evidence for this claim poor.
                              Okay, but why are you bringing this up with me? I wasn't trying to defend the historicity of the resurrection. I just responded to you to clarify a few points about Pilate.

                              The persons in the first century who did believe there was good evidence for this supernatural story were overwhelmingly poor, uneducated Jews and Bible-ignorant Gentiles. That is NOT a ringing endorsement for the historicity of this claim.
                              This is technically inaccurate, as it's my understanding that a sizable portion of converts were upper-class. But that's neither here nor there.
                              Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                              I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                              Comment


                              • btw Gary, with regard to anonymous claims, I find it interesting that you say we shouldn't trust the accounts of sources said to be anonymous. (Despite we have a long range of tradition on who wrote the Gospels and this is something the early church did not really dispute) Let's go with it still. Don't use anonymous sources.

                                Please note these blogs here that you have on your site:

                                http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com...d-against.html

                                http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com...-tumbling.html

                                Both of those say "copied from Wikipedia."

                                Can you tell me who wrote those wikipedia entries?

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X