Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

The only reason we even have Celsus is because Origen quoted him and met him point by point. Not an argument, just a note.

The reason we don't have Celsus is because Christians burned/destroyed all documents critical of their supernatural tall tale.

[JonathanL]

The reason we don't have Celsus is because Christians burned/destroyed all documents critical of their supernatural tall tale.

[Gary]

[Adrift]

Dear Readers:

What imaginary audience do you think you're talking to when you go into these diatribes? There aren't hundreds of people reading this thread. At this point there are maybe half a dozen of us who are subscribed, and maybe skimming through most of it. If they're anything like me, they're skipping most of your larger diatribes altogether. Trust me, this great lurker presence you think you're preaching to when you do one of these soapbox posts is mostly in your head.

[William]

A Mexican novella would be much more entertaining than your contrived, imaginative "contradictions." If I adopted your method of interpretation, every single account written from more than one POV would be found to contain contradictions.

well let's be fair, the contradictions we're discussing aren't imagined. What is imagined is the bridge between the two different stories. You've imagined that bridge and now act as if the crevice is what's imagined, but that's just not true.

Perhaps your imagined bridge happens to be 100% correct, but even then, these would be "apparent" contradictions, if not out right.

and mexican novellas? I guess without reading any i just can speak intelligently about them - they may be very entertaining.

[William]

What imaginary audience do you think you're talking to when you go into these diatribes? There aren't hundreds of people reading this thread. At this point there are maybe half a dozen of us who are subscribed, and maybe skimming through most of it. If they're anything like me, they're skipping most of your larger diatribes altogether. Trust me, this great lurker presence you think you're preaching to when you do one of these soapbox posts is mostly in your head.

I think I get your point, but i am not sure it's helpful. For one, it looks like it's made solely out of frustration since it really adds nothing to the discussion, and two you seem to be admitting that you purposely avoid reading sections of what is being said in the discussion which could give the indication that you're more interested in defending what you already think is right instead of imagining in an honest an open discussion where ideas and points are shared.

it may not be the case, but it could come across that way.

[William]

i dont know whether what Gary said was true or not, but it seemed like the point that Christian apologists make as to why Egypt records didnt match the claims in Genesis and Exodus.

[William]

And yet: when some years ago, my daughter's class was being given a practical demonstration of the principle, the lighter object in fact landed some seconds after the heavier object - the teacher was not happy.

LOL, right? I guess Aristotle was right afterall, lol.

you know, i dont doubt it, of course the obvious questions like,

were the two objects actually released at exactly the same time and exactly the same distance from the ground?

and was one something very light, like a feather, where it caught went and glided a bit?

I am sure you're joking, but just in case, i am sure we can all plainly see erroneous ideas lasting a long, long time. and if the above isn't a good example for you, look at all the other religions, several of which predate Christianity.

[William]

I think it's the height of arrogance to assume otherwise.

I think it's the height of arrogance to assume you have the correct knowledge of God.

Writers making mistakes isn't a wild unfounded idea.

And this sort of reasoning is astonishing - Human authors and editors wouldn't have made mistakes, but then it's absurd for anyone to think that a Perfect God should commission a Book that would be error free.

A perfect God gets a pass, but the fallible humans couldn't make mistakes. It's just dumb.

But did Luke write Acts? we think so. But writers don't have perfect memories. How long between writing one did he write the other? did he write other stuff too? It's not unheard of for authors to make errors. That's not arrogant, it's just the truth.

[William]

My~y my. Imagine that - What? None of his writing exists? How is it then that, with but one witness to declare his existence, and a Christian witness at that, Gary yet affirms the existence of Celsus.

I don't think this is fair. Gary doesn't seem to be disputing the existence of Jesus, just the larger than life miraculous stuff. Does Gary believe that Celsus did miracles or flew away? No he does not. he believes that Celsus wrote a book.

A man writing a book just doesn't require the same amount of faith that it takes to believe a man was born of a virgin, came back from the dead and flew away.

does this really not make sense?

[tabibito]

well let's be fair, the contradictions we're discussing aren't imagined. What is imagined is the bridge between the two different stories. You've imagined that bridge and now act as if the crevice is what's imagined, but that's just not true.

Perhaps your imagined bridge happens to be 100% correct, but even then, these would be "apparent" contradictions, if not out right.

and mexican novellas? I guess without reading any i just can speak intelligently about them - they may be very entertaining.

Some of the contradictions exist to be sure. But the core of the story: death, burial, and resurrection are not in conflict. The records are also in agreement regarding the dawn visit on the Sunday to the tomb by Mary (whether or not among others), and her subsequent report to the apostles. Likewise, the accounts of the burial cloths are not in conflict.
Some of the discrepancies can be logically attributed to a matter of focus by the author. One refers to events here, another to events "meanwhile, back at the ranch."
Moreover, Jesus' ability to perform miracles and his death, and the teachings of the early church, are attested in extra-Biblical sources both hostile and sympathetic.

So, what we have are records of a series of singularly emotion laden events, recorded at least a few decades after the event (in the case of Luke's gospel*). The records agree as to core issues, but are at odds in the background detail. That detail is so confused that determining the facts is an all but impossible task. There are undeniable errors.

* Unless Luke accidentally referred to his record of the Acts of the Apostles as the second letter to Theophilus when it was really the first, the Gospel of Luke was written prior to AD80 - the commonly held date for the writing of Acts. While there is dissent regarding the date of Acts, it is very much dissent by a fringe group of scholars. Paul's death is (to my satisfaction) reliably recorded as AD 65 +- a few years: ergo, nothing written by Paul can have a late date.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I am not sure what you mean. Whores in the OT or NT weren't only pagan worshipers. being a whore was shameful, yet it was done. Being with Whores was shameful, yet it happened, as did adultery, and many other things. But how, if they are only motivated by Honor/shame?

It was? Not necessarily. In the OT, the sexual rituals were a way of gaining the favor of the deity one sought. What does that translate to? Honor. It was shameful to not seek the favor of these deities and Jews in the OT before being sent to Babylon were tempted to hedge their bets by going with everyone in the local pantheon.

And it looks like you're saying also that sometimes honor people seek can be in conflict, like seeking honor among nearby nations or honor from within your own nation, stuff like that. that's what i am saying too. I think suggesting that They only had shame for Crucifixion, but not in injustice or being completely mistaken is a little more black and white that what people really are.

Those who believed YHWH alone was God would be mortified by the ritual prostitution. Those who thought there were other deities would not be. The same happened in the NT. The Jews were granted tolerance instead of affirmation. If they would not sacrifice to the emperor, they should at least sacrifice FOR the emperor. The Christians didn't get that pass when it was seen they were a new belief and not just a Jewish sect. Everyone else back then knew you needed to seek the blessings of the gods lest they judge us. Christians refused considering the honor of Christ greater than the honor of other deities or even the honor of their fellow man. Some did fall away, and why? Hebrews tells us. It was honor. After all, the writer says they had not yet shed their blood in persecution, but they were being shamed.

I just dont follow the shame/honor argument. They felt like being crucified was shameful, so since they believed their savior was crucified, his resurrection must be true if they were willing to admit a belief in a person who had shameful death? I see what appear to me as being several leaps here.

Heck no. Nowhere was it said his resurrection is true because he was crucified. There were several who were crucified. What's being said is that if they believed the stigma of crucifixion had been reversed, it would take a powerful belief to do that. Bodily resurrection is necessary.

oh that's cool. Early It looked to me like you were implying that they solely thought in terms if honor and shame. I can agree with primarily, I just dont think solely is realistic.

If you think there were people who did not think in terms of honor and shame in the ancient Mediterranean, produce some evidence of these people.

That's what i thought. I read the entire debate. I just didn't find anything there convincing is all.

At this point, I wonder what would be convincing.

you want to see examples of natural events?

No. I'm interested in beliefs you said we used to think were based on the gods and now we don't.

I don't assume that miracles can never occur. What i am saying that I have never seen any. I am saying that I have seen things people call miraculous or divine intervention that turn out to be purely natural and physical. So what i am saying is that i am skeptical of miraculous claims, especially when there's a natural possibility that explains it - in all my experiences, that's how it turns out. There could be miracles, you and I just have different levels of what it takes to be convinced of such claims.

I've never seen a miracle myself either. So what? Yet I think the research is in and yes, someone like Keener has provided numerous numerous accounts. For your worldview to be true, all of those accounts have to be false in some way. If even one is true, there is a problem. It could be shown for me meanwhile that all are false and that would not demonstrate they cannot or do not happen.

It's no replacement for the book, but you could consider my interview with Keener: http://deeperwaters.ddns.net/podcast...raigKeener.mp3

Actually, it doesn't. I agree with the perfection of God, but that means He lacks nothing in His being. As for Him desiring nothing more than all of mankind to be saved, that's false. God desires His glory the most. You say what He's done does not support the claimed characteristic, but while you speak against the honor-shame idea, how much of this is coming from your modern Western individualism? Are you treating the NT documents like ancient documents from their time or imposing modern standards on them?

And I suspect most of this comes from modern Western individualism.

How could the miraculous be confirmed except by claim? Well, more miracles would be one way.

So with Keener, that's done.

God speaking or revealing himself in some other way would work too.

And with Romans 1, that's done.

With the sun standing still, I think a large number of us see that as more metaphorical language in the text and it's not because a literal interpretation is difficult. Many of those are addressed here: http://christianthinktank.com/5felled.html

For the resurrection of the dead, I think you might be intrigued by Licona's hypothesis in his book that treats it the same way. Greco-Roman Bioi could contain apocalyptic imagery when someone died to show it was a great king who died. Frankly, we don't have enough information on what happened. For those buried in tombs, it would have been a minimal amount quite likely. What happened? Did these people stick around or did they go after Jesus ascended? This would help with the decision and we don't know. What I do find to be true is that there was no need for any historian in Rome to take the account seriously. They scoffed at resurrection as it was. Why should they begin to think people had been raised from the dead, especially at a crucifixion?

And again then, what does count as sufficient evidence?

It would be something worth looking into however. I don't just outright dismiss claims. My claim is that the testimony of these kinds of people was apparently enough to convince even outsiders who had the most to lose and would be the ones most prone to check the facts. Why?

Apples and oranges. I find the claims quite radically different.

Then again I still say, give the better explanation that explains the data. Don't just say there is one but we just don't know. Give it.



I can pretend?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post229644

what?

the scholars dont know any better than the rest of us. They only have Paul's claim on it. maybe you rely too heavily on NT scholars. I dont know where Paul got the 500, but I think the number isnt accurate, if at all real, and that whatever number may have actually seen something, were mistaken in what they saw, if anything.

Also, read everything? No. Always actively reading? Yep. Always searching and reading the best material that I can get my hands on. When a new Ehrman book comes out, I can't wait to read it.

This is simply false. These are people who have not just the Bible, but understand better the culture and language of the Bible and the best scholarly works on the Bible.

As far as sources, when I was a believer I thought that the best book on the topic of Christianity was the Bible. Taking it by itself it is problematic. I have some other books, but not all. I read a lot, but I admit my every waking hour is not devoted to searching these things out. How much time do you devote to reading up on Islam, Hinduism, the Norse gods and all the other religions before you felt comfortable dismissing them, or is the verdict still out?

Do you see me arguing against these other belief systems? I think they're wrong because a positive claim of Christianity has been established. If you could establish a positive claim that miracles cannot occur, then there would be no need to argue against Christianity since it would be ipso facto false. When I encounter people of other faiths, I seek to build up the NT instead as that is my area.

I have not pointed to my belief. I have pointed to the best scholarship that i can find. I can say the more I've read both sides, the more I've been amazed by the reliability of the Christian account.

[Adrift]

I think I get your point, but i am not sure it's helpful. For one, it looks like it's made solely out of frustration since it really adds nothing to the discussion, and two you seem to be admitting that you purposely avoid reading sections of what is being said in the discussion which could give the indication that you're more interested in defending what you already think is right instead of imagining in an honest an open discussion where ideas and points are shared.

it may not be the case, but it could come across that way.

William, why is it every time I cut through Gary's crap, you rush to his defence? Why aren't you condemning Gary for not being helpful? Why aren't you pointing out that almost all of his posts appear to be voiced in frustration and add nothing to the discussion?

You're a fool if you think Gary is here for an open and honest discussion. People who spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to reason with attention trolls like Gary are throwing pearls before swine. And you can think whatever it is you want about me, what you think I can defend or cannot defend. I'm honestly not posting here to impress you. I'd like to think that the people who's opinions I think count already know what I'm capable over the last decade or so.

[Apologiaphoenix]

William, why is it every time I cut through Gary's crap, you rush to his defence? Why aren't you condemning Gary for not being helpful? Why aren't you pointing out that almost all of his posts appear to be voiced in frustration and add nothing to the discussion?

You're a fool if you think Gary is here for an open and honest discussion. People who spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to reason with attention trolls like Gary are throwing pearls before swine. And you can think whatever it is you want about me, what you think I can defend or cannot defend. I'm honestly not posting here to impress you. I'd like to think that the people who's opinions I think count already know what I'm capable over the last decade or so.

Agreed. Just because someone agrees with your conclusions on many matters does not mean you must rush to their defense. I have many people come to me with talk about what other Christians are believing or doing as if I'm somehow responsible or have to defend it on every count. No. Christians can be idiots just like anyone else can be. I will defend Christianity, but I will not defend something because a Christian does or believes it.

[tabibito]

William, why is it every time I cut through Gary's crap, you rush to his defence? Why aren't you condemning Gary for not being helpful? Why aren't you pointing out that almost all of his posts appear to be voiced in frustration and add nothing to the discussion?

You're a fool if you think Gary is here for an open and honest discussion. People who spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to reason with attention trolls like Gary are throwing pearls before swine. And you can think whatever it is you want about me, what you think I can defend or cannot defend. I'm honestly not posting here to impress you. I'd like to think that the people who's opinions I think count already know what I'm capable over the last decade or so.

meh - Gary made it clear long since that he is here to parade his superior intellect and to proselytise: he has no interest in honest debate.