Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[William]

It would have been gravely inconsistent had they believed exclusively in YHWH. For many Jews, YHWH was being seen as one in a pantheon. They could have been henotheists, but they were seen as deviants by the other cultures around them, hence even wanting a king. They wanted the honor of the other nations and the blessings of the gods of the other nations so you have to do what those gods require. If that means sexual orgies, well that means sexual orgies. It's all a way of gaining blessings from the patron.

He did? That's odd because you don't really see that in the epistles at all. The epistles say very little about Heaven and Hell and in fact, I consider our ideas of both in many ways to be a modern misconception. However, your claim is that the crucifixion would not be seen as shameful to those who were poor and could not climb the social ladder. Okay. Show it. Give some evidence these people existed. Meanwhile, I'm still pointing out we have people who were high on the social ladder and were not poor who did become Christians. Why?

They hadn't? This was Jerusalem. This was where the Passover had been taking place. What do you think people would be talking about? Recent events. This would include the talk about a crucified Messiah and his tomb being found empty. You're also forgetting something else. If you accept the account as accurate, a miracle took place at Acts 2. People who did not know foreign languages starting speaking in a foreign language. That would have been seen as a fulfillment of Scripture particularly Joel 2. That would get people's attention. I've also addressed sympathy many times. If someone did have sympathy, what would stop them from doing what you're doing? They could say "Yeah. Jesus was wrongfully convicted. Yes. That was an outrage of injustice." That's it. You could think that about the historical Jesus right now and yet not willing to say "Therefore, I will believe He rose from the dead."

Fine. Feel free to find the people in the ancient world who did not put honor and shame as their main motivators.

You know what that tells me? It tells me we could discuss historical evidence until we're blue in the face here, but it wouldn't work unless you have an experience. Is that really the way to do a historical investigation?

Okay. Feel free to show who was arguing that. As for Newton, feel free to find the quote.

No. Not at all. But I am saying when you have a compendium of miracle claims from all over the world and many of them with medical documentation, it seems a stretch to say at the start "They must all be wrong." I have no dogma at this point in this. If all of them were false, it would not prove miracles impossible. If one of them is true, it proves miracles possible and that changes everything.

I don't claim to hear the voice of God either. What of it? I do claim that the evidence for the resurrection is more than sufficient and so I've been asking for a better explanation that explains all the data.

No one has given one.

Such a downplay of semantics, as if words should be used another way. You said God desires all men to be saved the most. I don't think so. That's not just talking about phrases but doing theology. As for saved, I make the case that God does not want converts. He wants disciples, and disciples are people who are willing to do the work of a disciple. Those who are not willing to work are not ready to be disciples.

I haven't been over there.

No. A basic message can be got from the text easily enough, but to understand the text on a greater level one needs to do the research, just like we would with any other text. It's amazing that you speak so much about all this knowledge we have but seem so hesitant to apply it.

Ah. So you haven't read the book, but you already know that no miracles are proven. That's nice. Your evidence was to have miracles taking place. I think Keener shows that they are indeed taking place. But now you're saying "Well if other people are receiving miracles, that's not enough. I must receive one also."

Why should you think you'll get one?

Yeah I am. The claim in Romans 1 is that all of creation is testifying of His existence and reality. That's another way He has revealed Himself.

[William]

part 2

The difference is I've given my evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. If you want to say the Gospels were writing it as a metaphor, give some evidence of that. It's quite invalid to say "Because it was written this way here, it's written the same way there."

This is largely an argument from silence. Some of the church fathers however did speak about these people and spoke about them as real people and some could have even still been around.

Sure, but if multiple people see the same thing, that's something that is not really a hallucination. It has to be explained what was seen.

Devoid of science....

Okay. Let's see what scientific discovery they didn't know.

Could you tell me when it was that modern science proved that dead people stay dead? After all, in the ancient world, they buried their dead because they weren't coming back, but maybe they all thought otherwise. (Despite my showing the Greek plays where it says the dead do not arise)

As for prone to superstition, this just fits into the "Ancient People Were Stupid." When you're a middle or upper class person with wealth whose reputation is on the line entirely, you're not just going to blindly believe in something.

Well if you want the data for his followers in his lifetime, that's in the GOspels, and some were lower-class, but not all. Luke 8 points to a number of wealthy women who were his patrons and Jesus had to have several to be able to travel all over Israel. Matthew was a tax collector which would have required a good deal of education. Fishermen would actually need to have basic literacy in that day.

Okay. Do you have any evidence that any of this was going on? Why would they talk about a spiritual kingdom not on Earth and yet have Mark with Jesus on the move throwing out the devil and taking back the world for God and why would Matthew say "Your Kingdom come your will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven?"

Except it wouldn't. This would lead to a charge that the Messiah was illegitimate. Worse than that, it would be like placing the blame of God on Mary having a child "out of wedlock." Furthermore, why would the Gospel writers make up so many shameful things about Jesus? He's from Nazareth? He's betrayed by one of his own trusted disciples? (And since Judas handled the money, he could have been the most trusted) His own family doesn't believe in Him? This doesn't fit with a hypothesis of fiction. Furthermore, if the church was making this up, why would Matthew and Luke have such radically different accounts?

Do you really have any idea about the concept of YHWH in Second Temple Judaism? This isn't something taken lightly. No one up until then was included in the Godhead. No one. Yet scholars like Hurtado and Bauckham have shown that Jesus being seen as fully in the divine identity was not a later development. That's how the movement started.

One reason they killed him, I suppose.

Because the Jews were not Greeks. Faithfulness to YHWH was essential to the covenant. If Jesus was crucified, then YHWH had spoken. He was under a curse. Also, there is not the emphasis on the afterlife that you think there is.

Makes me think of Deuteronomy 13.

Not more plausible after the evidence. Theft theories really aren't taken as seriously today. The disciples stole the body and then lied. Why? How does that explain the appearances then? The Jews or Romans stole it. Why? Grave robbers? They didn't steal whole bodies. They just stole certain parts. Went to the wrong tomb? Kirsopp Lake argued this at one time. He didn't get much success with it. Anyone would have been more than happy to point out the right tomb.

I think otherwise and a Google search could provide a lot. It could provide a lot of nonsense as well. The best material to go to is the books by the people who have studied this the most. Keep in mind what someone like Jodi Magness, a Jewish scholar, say about the burial accounts in the Gospels.

I do not find it hard to see that. What I find hard to see is people who will go with "I'll believe anything before I believe a miracle."

I will believe something natural happened, until I actually see something unnatural happen.



[QUOTE=Apologiaphoenix;231247]James Crossley on his first debate with Gary Habermas on Unbelievable referred to the creed in 1 Cor. 15 as golden. This is the kind of stuff historians would dream of having for other works. The appearances remain something really undisputed in the scholarly

literature and this is not just Christians. Gerd Ludemann tried to connect it to what happened at Pentecost in Acts, but now he's abandoned that position.

Even though you did say it.

Even though you took it out of context? Even though you appeared to take it out of context deliberately? I had hoped we were above that.

When we go to any point in the ancient text, yes, the scholars do know better than we do.

No we don't. That's also why you must learn how to recognize what books are the most worth reading, such as looking at the credentials of the author and looking at the publishing house that printed it.

Okay.

No. Not really. A scholar should not be just dismissed, but their claims taken seriously save the extreme fringe positions. (The number of NT scholars and classicist scholars in the world who say Jesus never existed could be counted on one hand. That position is not taken seriously.)

I think miracles are an extreme fringe position, which why I ask for more evidence beyond the claims of people who lived in very superstitious times, amongst all sorts of religions and superstitious ideas.

A large number could go for a spiritual resurrection if not a physical one. Many of them when they get to the point of the resurrection just stop writing. This even includes Christian scholars.

Yes. Put forward an argument as to why we should think miracles cannot occur or do not occur.

It doesn't mean I haven't done the reading. I've read the Mormon Scriptures, the main works of Taoism and Confucianism. I've also read the Koran. But I can tell you that if I was going to go and argue against Muslims regularly, for instance, and argue about their holy book, I would be reading up a lot more about it.

I would contend that's because you've still got a fundamentalist idea of what the Scriptures are supposed to be, an idea that's completely foreign to them.

[Gary]

I'm still in shock, literally, from "Stein's" statement that the majority of evangelical scholars no longer believe that the Roman guards at the tomb was historical. Have I misunderstood Nick's position all along??

This is what I believed Nick was saying: "There is only ONE plausible explanation for the cumulative evidence---the bodily resurrection of Jesus. All other explanations for the evidence are either impossible or ridiculously implausible."

This is the position that I have so many issues with. If this is not Nick's position, would someone please clarify this for me? If Nick and other Christians on this site simply believe that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best of several plausible explanations, I have no problem with that position at all. I disagree, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. It is the assertion that there are NO OTHER PLAUSIBLE explanations for the evidence that I find galling.

[William]

i am wanting a little clarity on what we're calling Scholars. Are talking about NT scholars, as in those who study and are experts in the NT scripture and time period, or are we also including experts in archaeology, and historical studies for the time periods and locations and cultures surrounding the bible?

[Gary]

Duplicate comment. Please delete.

[William]

I don't recall any claim of borrowing between Luke and Matthew. There is also the matter of the prophecy that the Christ would be born of a virgin. (Yes, I know of the dispute about the actual word used, but the whole - "the pregnancy is a sign from God" bit has to be tossed before the argument will float. Almah doesn't actually say virgin, but the term implies marriagability). This one I accept as valid. (If two authors could be shown beyond reasonable doubt to have been in collusion, then there is only one witness. Same if one author simply cites another, though not as strongly.)

Paul's epistles were written to believers who were well grounded in the rudiments of the faith. Running through the basics all over again would be sort of like explaining the principles of 2+2 to a high school class. In fact, he complained about having to do just that on more than one occasion, but even then, it wasn't the basic gospel that he was forced to reiterate.

Isaiah was giving a sign to Ahaz, right? He's basically saying that Ahaz's enemies will be defeated before this young woman gives birth and her son can do this or that. and then in the very next chapter, a son is born to a young woman and before the by can this or that Ahaz' enemies are defeated.

it was a generic "sign," not that Ahaz would be amazed that a woman would give birth. and how would an event 700 years down the road serve as a sign for Ahaz?

and since virgin births are so rare, maybe even more so back then, I find it hard to believe that Isaiah would specifically say "virgin" if that's what he meant. I would think he'd even belabor the point to ensure there was no mistaking what he just said.

but young woman might have implied virgin back then, except that it never, never implied "virgin" when the young woman was pregnant. never.

I think taking Isaiah 7 and 8 in its own context will show that nothing had anything to with jesus there. I really would any scholar who claimed to have first hand knowledge of the Mary's hoo-hah post conception/prior to birth that could actually validate the claim. Even if she were a virgin, I am not sure where Isaiah alludes to it.

I have "dual prophecy" but I think that claim is only made to bridge the conflict here. It imagines a resolution. I think any discrepancy can be resolved in such a way. and it's an imagination that is needed in order to mainatin that Matthew and Luke are legit, that their claim about Jesus Mother is as they say.

[William]

I'm reading the Greek. You're reading the English. One is a translation, the other is the original language. That's why you need to know the original language. Using a translation is often grossly inadequate.

this is ab interesting point: the English translations were made my Greek Scholars. shouldnt we accept their translation, since they're the scholars?

or is that sometimes we can make differing opinions based on our own research?

[William]

Which is often the excuse advanced by preachers of various stamps for allowing nonsense to continue to be believed. ,Another excuse is that if laypersons are apprised of the truth, they might take it upon themselves to cherry pick what they want to believe.
The second happens anyway, that's why there are so many different denominations.
Where there are two different authors attesting to the same thing, I won't regard the matter as being in dispute - unless there are two others in agreement and saying something else (but I've never encountered that problem.) One author in isolation isn't counted as authoritative (by me, that is).

so you dont think that two or more people could conspire to falsehood?

You're not saying that you buy anything that 2 or 3 people says is true...

[Gary]

this is ab interesting point: the English translations were made my Greek Scholars. shouldnt we accept their translation, since they're the scholars?

or is that sometimes we can make differing opinions based on our own research?

Hi William!

Did you read the comment today that most evangelical NT scholars, including William Lane Craig, no longer believe that Matthew's "Roman guards at the tomb" was historical, but rather just a literary technique? I wonder if Nick agrees with this assertion.

[psstein]

this is ab interesting point: the English translations were made my Greek Scholars. shouldnt we accept their translation, since they're the scholars?

or is that sometimes we can make differing opinions based on our own research?

In my opinion, knowing the Greek is paramount. The English translations are worked on by very competent scholars, but often Greek (and Hebrew) will have words and sayings for which there are no English equivalents. If you have a copy of the JPS Tanakh, just look through it. There are a bevy of footnotes with "no English equivalent." It's far better to read the original text if you can.

[psstein]

Again, I believe that all your statements here are very reasonable.

In regards to the "appearances" to Paul, James, and the 500:

We know that Paul was prone to visions and Paul specifically states in Acts 26 that he only saw a talking bright light...in a vision. A bright light is not a body and a vision is not reality.

Regarding the "500", we only have ONE source that makes this claim. Yes, most scholars believe it is a very early Creed, but no details of this appearance is given. If Paul believed that Jesus had appeared to him when he had only seen a talking bright light on a desert highway, how do we know that the 500 didn't have a similar experience?: They all saw a bright light or something that they believed to be Jesus. And one important point: the Creed in I Corinthians says that Jesus "appeared" to the 500, it says nothing about Jesus speaking to them, touching them, or letting them touch him. Therefore the "appearance" of Jesus to the 500 could have been no different that the appearance of the Virgin Mary to THOUSANDS of Roman Catholics.

What about James? Again, we have only ONE source that claims James received an appearance. No where in the Gospels is such a claim made. Could the brother of Jesus have had a vision similar to Paul's, seeing only a bright light? Sure. Once again, the Creed says nothing about James seeing a "body", or hearing a voice, or touching a body, or being touched by a body.

You said: "The belief in the Resurrection itself is very odd, especially in the context of Second Temple Judaism. The beliefs about resurrection have often been oversimplified (see Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God for a complete treatment), but it seems very strange anyone would believe in a dying and rising Messiah. Usually, if your Messianic claimant died, you went home or you got a new Messiah (often the brother). I don't think it's incompatible with another explanation; it's possible they were convinced by hallucinations alone. There are some other issues with a hallucinatory hypothesis though."

I agree it would be very odd for any Jew to suddenly believe in a resurrected Messiah in first century Palestine as such a concept was unheard of in all of Jewish history. But I see a problem in your theory: If the leader of a new Jewish sect in first century Palestine has been teaching for THREE YEARS that he will die and be resurrected three days later I DON'T think that anyone should be surprised if after the leader's death, his followers suddenly believe that their leader's prophesy has been fulfilled when several of them start having false sightings of him and others having visions of him in which he tells them he is resurrected...as he promised.

First, about James. It's pretty widely acknowledged James had an appearance. We're using a source dating within 18 months of the crucifixion, so I'm inclined to believe it's reliable. It's also extremely strange James, who wasn't a disciple, then becomes the central figure of the Jerusalem church. We're talking about a guy who thought his brother insane! Asking the creed to give more information than it does is a very strange position. The Greek is fairly clear about it as a bodily resurrection.

Acts is not nearly as reliable as the Pauline epistles with regard to Paul, so I'd throw out the Acts account. Paul himself is fairly vague as to what the nature of his appearance was, but what Paul does say is he immediately went to Arabia, spent three years there, then went to James, Peter, and John to figure out whether or not the message he was preaching was the correct one. He then says "they added nothing to me." Paul is generally a reliable source, and the ancient creed we've been discussing suggests seeing in the objective sense, rather than a vague sense.

The appearance to the 500 is a total mystery to me, and I won't pretend to know exactly what they saw. However, it would be in keeping with the theme of the creed if Paul is referring to some sort of bodily appearance (or apparently bodily appearance), rather than some bright light.

I don't think that claim is a problem for the theory at all. Jesus may or may not have been predicting his death. Scholars are still debating that topic, and probably will be for the next 50 years. I think it possible Jesus predicted his death in the belief that he would die like John the Baptist did. I happen to be rather agnostic on the topic. I think it possible Jesus thought he would die and be vindicated by the new age, but such a resurrection would be part of the general resurrection, not an individual one.

[psstein]

i am wanting a little clarity on what we're calling Scholars. Are talking about NT scholars, as in those who study and are experts in the NT scripture and time period, or are we also including experts in archaeology, and historical studies for the time periods and locations and cultures surrounding the bible?

I'm defining scholars as people with PhDs in New Testament, Classics, or early Christianity, preferably with peer-reviewed published work. Under those qualifications, people like Earl Doherty don't count, nor do people like Nick or myself.

[psstein]

I'm still in shock, literally, from "Stein's" statement that the majority of evangelical scholars no longer believe that the Roman guards at the tomb was historical. Have I misunderstood Nick's position all along??

This is what I believed Nick was saying: "There is only ONE plausible explanation for the cumulative evidence---the bodily resurrection of Jesus. All other explanations for the evidence are either impossible or ridiculously implausible."

This is the position that I have so many issues with. If this is not Nick's position, would someone please clarify this for me? If Nick and other Christians on this site simply believe that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best of several plausible explanations, I have no problem with that position at all. I disagree, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. It is the assertion that there are NO OTHER PLAUSIBLE explanations for the evidence that I find galling.

I believe the Resurrection is the best explanation of the information we have. It's certainly not the only explanation. As I've stressed, this is not math. We can't "prove" things to the same degree.

There are other explanations, as with all historical data. However, many of them require additional assumptions or require creative reinterpretation/ignorance of the data.

For example, it's totally possible (though very, very unlikely) that aliens stole Jesus' body and played mind games to trick the disciples into believing in resurrection. However, such a hypothesis requires a huge number of additional assumptions.

[Gary]

I believe the Resurrection is the best explanation of the information we have. It's certainly not the only explanation. As I've stressed, this is not math. We can't "prove" things to the same degree.

There are other explanations, as with all historical data. However, many of them require additional assumptions or require creative reinterpretation/ignorance of the data.

For example, it's totally possible (though very, very unlikely) that aliens stole Jesus' body and played mind games to trick the disciples into believing in resurrection. However, such a hypothesis requires a huge number of additional assumptions.

I agree with you. The hypothesis of aliens stealing Jesus' body is possible in a world allowing for the supernatural, but highly implausible. However, wouldn't you agree that the hypothesis that Aramathea, Pilate, the family of Jesus, or a group of the Sanhedrin taking/moving the body is not only possible but also plausible? You may not believe that they are the most likely explanations, but still they are plausible, not implausible, right?

[tabibito]

Isaiah was giving a sign to Ahaz, right?

It was a sign for the House of David. "Hear, o king" was not said, nor "Hear, Ahaz". The prophecy was translated by native speaking Hebrews into Koine Greek using the word παρθενος - virgin. The said pregnancy is stated to be a sign from God: that precludes a pregnancy resulting from swyving.

"Hear O House of David, I shall swyve with a woman and she shall become pregnant, and her pregnancy will be a sign from God." ... Really?

and how would an event 700 years down the road serve as a sign for Ahaz?

and since virgin births are so rare, maybe even more so back then, I find it hard to believe that Isaiah would specifically say "virgin" if that's what he meant. I would think he'd even belabor the point to ensure there was no mistaking what he just said. but young woman might have implied virgin back then, except that it never, never implied "virgin" when the young woman was pregnant. never.

You have said it yourself - bethula could not be used with regard to someone who was pregnant.

I think taking Isaiah 7 and 8 in its own context will show that nothing had anything to with jesus there. I really would any scholar who claimed to have first hand knowledge of the Mary's hoo-hah post conception/prior to birth that could actually validate the claim. Even if she were a virgin, I am not sure where Isaiah alludes to it.

Isaiah 8:1 begins a new topic, just as Isaiah 7:10 begins a new topic.

I have "dual prophecy" but I think that claim is only made to bridge the conflict here.

Really? - dual prophecy? By comparison, the "Isaiah gets the prophetess pregnant story is sensible.

It imagines a resolution. I think any discrepancy can be resolved in such a way.

Just as any inconvenient reading can be explained away by changing the meaning.

and it's an imagination that is needed in order to mainatin that Matthew and Luke are legit, that their claim about Jesus Mother is as they say.

It takes an imagination to ignore the fact that Isaiah 8:1 begins a whole new topic - unrelated to the topic of Isaiah 7:10 - 25.