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

  • Originally posted by William View Post
    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...
    If two authors are in collusion, there is only one witness. Where one author cites another it is a little more complex.
    Last edited by tabibito; 08-17-2015, 07:45 PM.
    sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

    Comment


    • Originally posted by psstein View Post
      First, thanks for actually looking it up. In the scholarly world (i.e. the world I'm in 95%+ of the time), this isn't even a question. The guards at the tomb are attested in only two sources, one of which is the Gospel of Peter (written about 150 CE).
      From my perusal of Wintery Knight's article, it appears that people are equating "not well attested" with "ahistorical." And since when did facts have to be embarrassing to be true? I get that the guards are less defensible from a critical POV, but one should not forget that the charge of literary fiction is largely an argument from silence; we have no account attesting to an unguarded tomb, after all.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
        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?
        Going through them one by one:

        Joseph of Arimathea: James Tabor advanced this in his Jesus Dynasty, which I'm told has some decent parts. Of all the reburial hypotheses, I think this is the most plausible. However, there are two issues. 1. Joseph is described as sympathetic to Jesus. He even asks for his body so he can bury him. I don't think Joseph is going to move the body and not tell the disciples.

        Family: This one has the biggest problems. James, the brother of Jesus, becomes a leader in the Jerusalem church. Mary is present with the disciples when they replace Judas. If Jesus' family removed him, then neither Mary nor James knows about it. It seems rather odd that family members who thought Jesus insane wouldn't tell his mother and brother they took the body from the empty tomb and moved it elsewhere.

        Sanhedrin: I don't see the Sanhedrin violating the Jewish laws and traditions regarding burial. Removing a body after its burial would be a huge violation and would render all of them ritually impure.

        I think Joseph of Arimathea reburying the body is plausible, though highly unlikely. The family is possible though implausible. The Sanhedrin seems implausible as well, though more likely than the family.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          From my perusal of Wintery Knight's article, it appears that people are equating "not well attested" with "ahistorical." And since when did facts have to be embarrassing to be true? I get that the guards are less defensible from a critical POV, but one should not forget that the charge of literary fiction is largely an argument from silence; we have no account attesting to an unguarded tomb, after all.
          You're not making a bad point, though here's why I disagree:
          1. Matthew sets up the guard as a literary device to close the circle started by the Murder of the Innocents (which may or may not have happened). Just as Herod worked with the scribes and priests, so does Pilate. Matthew does have an anti-Jewish tone, so it does make sense.
          2. The guard only exists to refute the Jewish polemic against the empty tomb (i.e. the disciples came and stole it away). Obviously, if the guard was even remotely competent, he would've seen the disciples taking the body out.

          Poorly attested is not the same as ahistorical, that's true. Arguments from silence can be dangerous, but I think it's clear, at least in this case, that the guard is designed to refute the Jewish polemic. I find the fact it's not mentioned in Mark, John, or Luke rather troubling for its historicity.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            From my perusal of Wintery Knight's article, it appears that people are equating "not well attested" with "ahistorical." And since when did facts have to be embarrassing to be true? I get that the guards are less defensible from a critical POV, but one should not forget that the charge of literary fiction is largely an argument from silence; we have no account attesting to an unguarded tomb, after all.
            You do admit, however, that even if Matthew's account is historical, and that guards were there, they did not arrive until some time had passed and the stone had not yet been sealed. So there was still an opportunity for someone to have taken the body.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by psstein View Post
              Going through them one by one:

              Joseph of Arimathea: James Tabor advanced this in his Jesus Dynasty, which I'm told has some decent parts. Of all the reburial hypotheses, I think this is the most plausible. However, there are two issues. 1. Joseph is described as sympathetic to Jesus. He even asks for his body so he can bury him. I don't think Joseph is going to move the body and not tell the disciples.

              Family: This one has the biggest problems. James, the brother of Jesus, becomes a leader in the Jerusalem church. Mary is present with the disciples when they replace Judas. If Jesus' family removed him, then neither Mary nor James knows about it. It seems rather odd that family members who thought Jesus insane wouldn't tell his mother and brother they took the body from the empty tomb and moved it elsewhere.

              Sanhedrin: I don't see the Sanhedrin violating the Jewish laws and traditions regarding burial. Removing a body after its burial would be a huge violation and would render all of them ritually impure.

              I think Joseph of Arimathea reburying the body is plausible, though highly unlikely. The family is possible though implausible. The Sanhedrin seems implausible as well, though more likely than the family.
              I respect the fact that you are willing to admit that other explanations (or at least one) are plausible, even if you don't believe the explanations are probable.

              Regarding Joseph of Arimathea, I think the claim that he was a follower of Jesus is an embellishment to the original story told by Mark.

              Here is Mark's account:

              "When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus."

              Could "waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God" mean that he was a follower of Jesus? I guess, but seems like a stretch.

              Here is Luke's account:

              " Now there was a good and righteous man named Joseph, who, though a member of the council, 51 had not agreed to their plan and action. He came from the Jewish town of Arimathea, and he was waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God. 52 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. "

              Sounds pretty similar to Mark's statement. What devout Jew was not waiting for the kingdom of God?? Again, this statement does not infer necessarily that he was a follower of Jesus.

              Now, here's Matthew's account:

              "When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus. 58This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus."

              HUGE difference! Where did Matthew get this information that both Mark and Luke missed?

              And here is John's account:

              "After these things Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate granted permission."

              Gary's analysis: So Mark has Arimathea a member of the Sanhedrin and a devout Jew. Luke has Arimathea as a member of the Sanhedrin, a devout Jew, AND a dissenter in the previous night's decision by the Sanhedrin to execute Jesus. Matthew has Arimathea as a member of the Sanhedrin and a follower of Jesus. Finally, John has Arimathea as a SECRET disciple of Jesus.

              Sounds like an embellished story, to me. Why would John's Arimathea be afraid of the Jews when Luke's Arimathea had boldly stood up to the Jews the night before when they had voted to execute Jesus??
              Last edited by Gary; 08-17-2015, 10:44 PM.

              Comment


              • And here is the evidence that I believes throws the entire story of Arimathea being a disciple in question: How is it that Luke's Aramethea voiced opposition to the sentencing of Jesus, but Mark says this in Mark chapter 14:

                Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?” 61 But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah,[j] the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 Jesus said, “I am; and


                ‘you will see the Son of Man
                seated at the right hand of the Power,’
                and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’”

                63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? 64 You have heard his blasphemy! What is your decision?” All of them condemned him as deserving death.

                Gary: Last time I checked, "all" means "all". Are we to really believe that Arimathea was a disciple of Jesus who voted to execute him??

                Comment


                • The discrepancies suggest differing memories and differing tradition over who exactly Joseph of Arimathea was, but it seems fairly unanimous he was observant and buried Jesus.

                  Based on what we know of Second Temple practices, it seems really strange to suppose he would bury a body, move it, wait for it to decay, then put it in an ossuary, all without telling anyone else, especially the Sanhedrin. Burying a body then removing it was itself considered wrong, and why would he not tell anybody about it? Why would he just leave it a secret? To me, assuming Joseph of Arimathea reburies the body requires additional information we absolutely do not have. I also find Dunn's discussion of this compelling, the tradition largely tries to shift blame onto the Jews (the later works, like Peter, are very anti-Jewish), so the spontaneous development of an upper echelon Jew sympathetic to Jesus is unlikely.

                  It's also kind of tough to know Joseph's relation to the Sanhedrin. The trial scene is not very specific, and it seems unlikely Caiaphas would convene the entire Sanhedrin in the middle of the night.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                    The discrepancies suggest differing memories and differing tradition over who exactly Joseph of Arimathea was, but it seems fairly unanimous he was observant and buried Jesus.

                    Based on what we know of Second Temple practices, it seems really strange to suppose he would bury a body, move it, wait for it to decay, then put it in an ossuary, all without telling anyone else, especially the Sanhedrin. Burying a body then removing it was itself considered wrong, and why would he not tell anybody about it? Why would he just leave it a secret? To me, assuming Joseph of Arimathea reburies the body requires additional information we absolutely do not have. I also find Dunn's discussion of this compelling, the tradition largely tries to shift blame onto the Jews (the later works, like Peter, are very anti-Jewish), so the spontaneous development of an upper echelon Jew sympathetic to Jesus is unlikely.

                    It's also kind of tough to know Joseph's relation to the Sanhedrin. The trial scene is not very specific, and it seems unlikely Caiaphas would convene the entire Sanhedrin in the middle of the night.
                    I don't pretend to be an expert on first century Jewish burial customs, so let me run this hypothetical by you:

                    The Sanhedrin wanted all the bodies off of the crosses before sunset and the beginning of Passover, and it is almost sunset. Arimethea, a devout JEW (but not a follower of Jesus), mentions to the other members of the Sanhedrin that he has a tomb nearby in which they can temporarily bury Jesus (and the others) until the Passover ends Saturday at sunset. On Saturday after sunset, they can move the bodies to another location as Arimathea wants to use his hand-hewn rock tomb for himself in the future. The Sanhedrin is indifferent to the possibility of the disciples making a resurrection claim due to the empty tomb, as Jesus was not the "big deal" that the gospels make him out to be. He was just another petty trouble-maker, swiftly and efficiently dealt with. "Who cares what a handful of peasants from Galilee think."

                    I'm not trying to say this is what happened, just that there are possible explanations for Arimethea being willing to bury Jesus but not being a disciple and not wanting to keep the body in the tomb past sunset Saturday.

                    You didn't comment above about the most probable suspect to move the body: Pilate.

                    Pilate gives Arimathea the body of Jesus, but a few hours later realizes that he has just given a man executed for high treason against Caesar a proper, honorable burial. "What if Caesar finds out??"

                    Pilate orders soldiers to the tomb, during Passover, while all the Jews and Christians are either at home or in the Temple. The soldiers break the seal, move the stone, take the body, and toss it into a hole in the ground, the location of which is known only to them. The women show up Sunday morning...an empty tomb!
                    Last edited by Gary; 08-18-2015, 01:29 AM.

                    Comment


                    • I forgot to mention Pilate. Oops, I've been doing this and other stuff most of today.

                      Pilate: The Romans largely honored the customs of the land they were in. Removing a body from a grave was considered improper, and seeing as how Passover had previously led to great bloodshed, I don't think Pilate would've done much to offend the Jewish population. Pilate may have been ruthless, but he was not stupid. Passover had been cancelled under (I think) Archelaus due to a riot that left 30,000 or so dead. On another note, Caesar was pretty indifferent to Judea. Judea was a backwater that occasionally spawned a rebellion.

                      Joseph was an observant Jew, and I really don't see him violating the burial laws. He would've been able to reuse the tomb either way! Once the body had decayed, the bones would've been put in an ossuary (a box, more or less) and stored in an alcove of the tomb. I also fail to see why this wouldn't have been mentioned early on, when the disciples started spreading the message of Jesus' resurrection.

                      Yet again, there are alternative explanations, hence the Resurrection not being "provable" in any strict sense of the word. History always leaves room for doubt.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by William View Post
                        You’re saying that no YHWH jew was ever a whore or whoremonger?
                        What would you say about thieves, liars, drunks? None of them either?
                        I'm saying it would be highly highly inconsistent if someone truly devoted to YHWH lived such a lifestyle. Note I said also those who held exclusively to YHWH. When you have syncretists, the game changes. These people included YHWH in a pantheon. YHWH was one of many. Maybe He might be the highest, but He's still one of many.

                        Now could YHWH people stumble? Sure. David did. They would pick themselves up again. David did.



                        Jesus is quoted several times regarding hell and heaven. He told the story of Lazarus and the Rich man and often tangled with the Jewish elite, no?
                        Yes He did tell that story. What's the point of it? It's not to give you the furniture of the afterdeath. It's to show a contrast. In the time of Jesus, the poor would be seen as under God's curse and the rich as receiving His blessing. Jesus talks about a rich man who was so rich even his underwear was of the finest material. There was a beggar so poor that he wasn't even buried when he died and dogs licked his wounds, a common medicine back then. The shock is that the rich man is under God's curse and Lazarus isn't. Also, Lazarus is named in this case I think because Jesus is pointing a contrast that Lazarus is worth talking about (And his name matches Abraham's servant also) and the rich man isn't.

                        Who do you think made up the bulk of the disciples? Do you think it was more like 50/50 wealthy and poor, or do you think one class had a majority? There’s always exceptions.
                        I can't answer that because frankly, we don't know much about many of them. However, I think after about three years with Jesus, they would be educated and to spread the message, they wouldn't need to know how to write themselves. They'd just need a good secretary.

                        Talking about something is different that witnessing something. Being aware of an execution is one thing, but witnessing the dead come back to life is something else. All we know from acts 2 is that 3000 believed Peters sermon (which was preached the way I suggested it was) while many still didn’t believe, mistaking tongues for drunkenness.
                        What Peter was pointing to was the empty tomb. Anyone could witness that. Anyone could go right down the street and see it. That also means that if this had been some trick on the part of the disicples, the last place they'd start the movement is ground zero. Also, I do not think you're accurate on how Peter's sermon was preached. More than likely, it's a synopsis. This was common in ancient literature. You didn't have to say word for word. You just had to give words that would have been said or get the thrust of the message. Note also a miracle had taken place.




                        So you’re no longer implying “sole motivator” but have come down to “main.” I am fine with that. People have many motivations and aren’t always guaranteed to be ruled by what society sees and the “main” one. And even then, as you’ve pointed out, there can still be a difference within a culture as to what is shameful or honorable, where what is one to one particular group, could even be the exact opposite to another.

                        No, the more we discuss this point, the more I think we actually agree.
                        Here's what to get. We think paying our bills is something drastically important today. For them, honor and shame was even more important.






                        LOL, depends on what we’re investigating. They found Troy. Many Greeks cited Homer. So is the Iliad true and by extension Greek mythology as the iliad refers to it?
                        No, but that's because the Iliad is a work of fiction and in that genre. The Gospels are in the genre of Greco-Roman bioi. Those are meant to be historical and we have found plenty historical in them.

                        Do you really not understand that certain claims are more plausible than others and that some require more substantial evidences than others? Your trying to put all historical claims on the same level isn’t an accurate way or view it. You’re either not as educated as you’re trying to demonstrate, or you’re just making strawmen with points like that, which is a sophomoric way to score imaginary pojnts in an argument. Let’s skip that and just chat.
                        No. I'm not saying all claims are equally plausible. That's your straw man. I'm responding to your idea that no historical evidence could convince you but only a personal experience.




                        Which part? Earlier you were saying that it was honor shame, and I asked about Harlotry (as one example) you said it would have been shameful to a jew but honorable to a pagan, right? I don’t care to look back and cut and paste. Do you not recall saying that or are you recanting/revising?
                        The part about the weather.

                        And Newton, when I get a moment I’ll try to look it up for you. You could always go to your local library…
                        You made the claim. I'd like to see you back it.




                        Well, I haven’t seen any real miracles but I have seen real fossils, and real insurance claims, so even if there are fake ones (and there are) I have real ones to know that they are also real. Vampires… I think they’re fake too – in part because of the fake ones, and in part due to the absence of real ones.
                        Your claim was the idea of fakes calls into question the real. The absence of real alone calls into question the real, and yet I've presented evidence for my claim and there are others in this thread who have said they have seen miracles. Upon what grounds do I disregard every miracle claim?

                        Serpents are wary of anything, always on the watch for danger.
                        And this does not go against the commentary I cited.






                        “I doubt they are true.” Claims of miracles are made by all religions and sects of said religions. So even if I were persuaded that miracles did happen, which god did it? Which adherence to that god is the right one? And what if there are miracles from competing religions? Are both gods real?
                        I think you look at the context. In the case of Jesus, it's all about YHWH. That's a miracle of raising the dead, something quite unique. Sometimes, it might not be as clear. Keener lists many times where it was seen and documented that someone was healed specifically after prayer in Jesus's name.

                        Visit India. Those folks have miracles every day, if you’re inclined to belief that sort of thing.

                        But I have yet to read of a miracle, validated by medical professionals, of someone being dead for 3 days and coming back to life, or regrowing a missing limb before their eyes.
                        I would expect Jesus's miracle to be unique, but his wasn't a resurrection like that. His was a resurrection to a body that would never die. That's not meant for anyone else until the end.

                        Healing Steven Hawkins might be good trick. Win over your enemies is a pretty sound tactic.
                        And why should that be done?




                        This all comes down to opinion. I haven’t seen sufficient evidence for the resurrection. You think the best explanation is the miraculous in this case. We just differ.
                        It comes down to the evidence. It looks like you're saying you can take all the evidence but it won't matter because it's a miracle. That's no longer doing history. That's doing metaphysics.




                        And you call me a fundy? Fine. “God is not willing that any should perish, and who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” That better?
                        Saying that God desires that does not mean that He desires that most. It also depends on what is meant by saved. Seriously. Caesar was said to be the savior of the world. You also might have this idea that saved means to just believe. No. God doesn't want people to just believe in Him. As James says, even the demons do that. He wants people who are willing to be disciples.

                        If you're not looking, you're not willing to be a disciple.



                        It’s neat.





                        Do i? in what way? I read. I study and travel. I do not devote 100% of my time to it, no – but if that’s what it takes, I don’t think anyone would make it.
                        It depends on the level of knowledge one wants. If one wants more, it is available. If one wants to ask questions, they should seek the best answers to those questions.

                        And you should know that there is more knowledge to be learned that what is found in religion and philosophy. Or do you not consider your computer or doctor, or automobiles? You speak of the natural world as one of God’s revelations, but you seem here to be implying that for one to apply this knowledge, they must study to become an NT scholar. That seems shallow in thought, but I assume it was a remark shot from hip in a effort to score some sort of point?
                        No. No assumption like that at all. I have never downplayed the sciences or technology or anything like that and in fact have often stated that each field must rely on the knowledge in that field. I consider the knowledge of God most important, but knowing the Trinity will not help you if you're a high school student wanting to learn algebra. You need a math book for that. Being able to quote the Nicene Creed backwards won't help a doctor make a right diagnosis.

                        But yes, we have more knowledge today than they did back then. Is that really news?
                        Not at all. What I'm asking is do we really care? The knowledge out there won't matter if people aren't using their brains and studying to apply that knowledge. By contrast, we have plenty of gyms and diet programs here in America today, but that doesn't mean we don't have a problem with obesity.






                        I question claims regarding miracles and your solution is to send me a fellow who makes more claims about miracles, and you really don’t understand why that isn’t adequate?
                        Why yes it is, because he has numerous ones and reasons why we should think they're valid and with medical documentation for many of them.

                        And I don’t think I’ll get one. But I’d be more likely to believe one I witnessed than one I didn’t. It supposedly happened and worked for Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, the Israelites, Hezekiah, Naaman, all the apostles, Herod and Paul.
                        And it didn't work for a number of other people. It's been in the Bible that when miracles are most abundant, you find the most hostility. I really don't think a miracle would change your mind a bit.




                        What ion creation points toward the bible? I can see where creation may indicate an intelligent designer or designers, but does any part of it lead to the bible? Some of the things in creation seem counter to what’s found about it in the bible – what then? Just assume the bible must mean something other than what it says?
                        Look back at what you're responding to. Did I mention the Bible? Nope. I said it speaks of God. It's general revelation.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                          I'm saying it would be highly highly inconsistent if someone truly devoted to YHWH lived such a lifestyle. Note I said also those who held exclusively to YHWH. When you have syncretists, the game changes. These people included YHWH in a pantheon. YHWH was one of many. Maybe He might be the highest, but He's still one of many.

                          Now could YHWH people stumble? Sure. David did. They would pick themselves up again. David did.


                          no, it's alright. It's looking like we're seeing eye to eye. So it was possible for people in the 1st century, even within an honor/shame culture, to do dishonorable things, shameful things, to be motivated by things other than honor or shame at times, in given situations. We also seem to agree that even within the same culture and place, people can define actions in terms of honor or shame quite differently, whether influenced more by one section of the population or the other (rich/poor, pagan/jew, etc).

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by William View Post
                            part 2


                            It seems as arbitrary as the points you’ve made. Hell seems like a literal, eternal place of torment, yet you claim otherwise. I was just saying that anyone can play that game – and I did so to show how dumb it can be.
                            But that could be said of any metaphor. It's raining cats and dogs today! How can I know you're using a metaphor? It just seems arbitrary! You can by studying the way the Jews spoke. Fire was often seen as both a purifier and a symbol of judgment. Hebrews says "Our God is a consuming fire." Okay. Does that mean God is a giant cosmic bunsen burner? Of course not. You also see that Hell has fire and darkness together. That doesn't add up. Flames light things up.

                            I honestly can't point to an evangelical scholar today who thinks the fire is real.

                            Oh, I’d be curious to see it. Many of the early church fathers also spoke about other gospels and books that we don’t recognize as cannon today. Some wrote about the differences in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Lots of interesting stuff.
                            Probably one of the best articles on this right now is Mike Licona's in response to the charges of Norman Geisler. Am I sold on Mike's interpretation yet? Nope. Am I open to it? Yep. I come down hard on neither side.

                            And as with alien sightings or mass witness miracles from other religions, it’s usually explained as mistaken identity.
                            That might have applied if some of these groups were not people who knew him well, such as disciples and the apostles and his own brother.





                            Just because a few upper middle class people bought into it, doesn’t mean that they all did. Look at scientology. And it doesn’t take a history scholar to know that they didn’t know as much back then or that they were far more superstitious.
                            Never said they all did, but yet again the superstition card is played. Excuse me, but are you saying back then they did not know that dead people stay dead? As for scientology, we're not in an honor-shame society so that doesn't apply.

                            I don’t think ancient people were stupid, I think that they didn’t have the benefit of 2000 more years of learning that we have today. I feel like you’re trying to play this down to make your position sound better. You don’t have to. You’re reluctance to admit this simple fact doesn’t make me question my position on it. I am an educated man – just because I admit to not having read on the subject of Christianity that there is isn’t a statement of ignorance or lack of education.
                            I have said we have more knowledge today than they did. How is that reluctance. What I am saying is that they knew that dead people stay dead. Even Jews who believed in resurrection buried their dead.

                            I don’t doubt that the people had literacy or that some wealthy people joined in- I just don’t think thye majority of the early Christians were wealthy people.
                            When did I say the majority were?



                            Any evidence that his disciples were distraught and confused? Or that people search for answers when they’re taken by surprise, when what they thought was the case was actually not the case at all?
                            Evidence the disciples were distraught or confused.

                            Jesus was dead. The fact that their “messiah (guy who they thought would sit on David’s throne)” was dead, may have prompted a second look at the idea of him ruling on earth…
                            Except they didn't. They prayed His Kingdom come on Earth. They were anticipating that coming in the future. Also, if their Messiah was dead, why did they not abandon Him or even better, go with His brother, a common tactic? They also furthermore claimed that Jesus was bodily raised.



                            That rumor was going around, wasn’t it? Shameful? but your first paragraph to this iteration started off by saying that most were influenced by the pagans. Pagans already had a lot of Demigods, so now the jews did too. Same reason there were whores and johns back then. And thieves. And explains why there were jewish tax collectors in Roman occupation. Lazy drunkards too.
                            Oh yes. There were shameful people in Israel. Never denied that. Also, Jesus would not be considered a demigod and saying that He was one would be even more problematic to the Jews and who is one of the writers who tells us that He was virgin born? Matthew. Matthew is quite likely the most Jewish writer of all the Gospel writers. Saying Jesus was born of a virgin would be an implicit claim that He was not born in the traditional way which would open Him up to charges of illegitimacy.

                            You accuse me of being fundy, but you keep suggesting that this shame/honor society made people into robots and there was never a deviation. Deviations happen all the time, regardless of culture. Travel sometime and maybe you’ll experience a little on your own.
                            No. You assume I say that. I just say people did not deviate from honor and shame. Some would just see honor beyond their grasp.

                            One reason they killed him, I suppose.
                            If Matthew's account is correct, it was. Saying that is how the movement got started however is more referring to post-resurrection.

                            Makes me think of Deuteronomy 13.
                            IT's something along the lines of Lewis's trilemma.

                            People do weird things. Disciples could have stolen it to start a story about resurrection, I really dont know.
                            Why? They'd lose everything in the eyes of society and then eventually they'd lose the blessing of YHWH.

                            The Jews could have stolen it to prevent there from being a martyr monument (same reason USA dropped Bin Laden into the sea).
                            Crucifixion was enough to do that.

                            And the Romans? Heck if I know. Maybe Joseph really did try to buy the body to burry it, but the Romans reneged when he came to collect, just throwing the body in a mass grave in Gehenna instead. It seems so odd that none of these are taken seriously, but that an idea about a body coming back to life and flying away is…
                            They're not taken that way because they go against Jewish burial customs of the time and we have no evidence that any of this happened.



                            Yeah I can buy that Joseph may have offered his tomb. Jesus may have actually been buried there – but what archeological evidence is there? I doubt she means a tomb with an inscription “from: Joseph, To: Jesus” on it that dates to around 30AD. That’s kind of a joke, yes, but there’s plenty of reason to suspect it’s fictions. It may be as much information as we have for anyone buried at that time, yes, but other burials aren’t tied to claims of coming back to life and flying off. That huge claim makes the entire story suspect for me. I can believe there are nuggets of truth intermingled, but I wouldn’t bet my life on which ones.
                            Who's saying you're betting your life? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Still, Magness does not believe in the resurrection, but she accepts the account. If you think the evidence is bad, then you need to explain why all four Gospels agree on this one and why we have no competing theory early on. They only show up later.


                            I will believe something natural happened, until I actually see something unnatural happen.
                            Which means you're letting your philosophy dictate how your historiography goes. Do you really think that's valid?


                            That some believed or claimed jesus appeared to them isn’t disputed, it’s the accuracy of those claims and the reality of those beliefs that are disputed.
                            Crossley also said he doesn't even prefer to describe them as hallucinations. Even if they were, here's what a hallucination would mean to them. It would mean the person was dead.


                            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.
                            I don't think I did. I think in any case the scholars know better because they know the language and they know the culture better.


                            I don’t deny that they have a grand education, and know more than me on many topics. But I am unclear as to what you’re getting at – are you saying that since they have studied more and have read more, that I should have faith in them and align with their position by default?

                            If so, should we do this with experts in every field?
                            No. It means that all things being equal, their opinion should be taken much more seriously and be given the benefit of the doubt. By all means we can disagree with experts, but our opinions are not equal to theirs.

                            And do you realize that no one can be the best at everything, so everyone will end up having to default to the beliefs of someone else on various topics… is that what you do?
                            Of course. We all have to. I take my car to the mechanic? He's a good guy and I trust him. The same with my doctor. We can ask questions all we want and we should, but in the end we listen to their judgment.

                            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.
                            Except they're not. In fact, even in the early church, the opponents of Jesus never denied that He worked miracles. Never. More scholars are becoming more open to miraculous events, even if some of them think that it was really psychosomatic.








                            I guess they can. And if you’ve seen one, I am sure it was impressive. I just don’t buy claims that they happened. It would take me seeing one, or seeing someone I knew had been lame or dead healed/raised.
                            Then you're ready to say that everyone who claims one is delusional, lying, etc.?

                            Again, a claim of the miraculous is not the same as claim of the mundane and common. And I’d be skeptical of wild claims of huge feats that weren’t miraculous.

                            You even requesting this seems odd to me. Why don’t you put forth evidence that they do happen, or is all you have claims that some have happened? And if claims are evidence, then my claim that there isn’t, is evidence. And if you’ve never witnessed one, then that’s more evidence.
                            In all of this, an argument they do not occur has been put forward. Skepticism is not an argument. It is a position. Your position as Earman shows in Hume's Abject Failure is one that would also kill modern science if we followed it consistently. I have put forward the evidence by pointing to the work of Keener. It's a scholarly peer-reviewed book published by an academic press and by a scholar in the field.





                            I have read the bible extensively and still do. I read up on extra biblical literature that relates to the bible from sources on all sides, pro, con and neutral. What I reject regarding scholars is that one must take their side until we’ve read as much as they.
                            No. I am not saying that. If you can make a sufficient scholarly case, that is enough, but to make a case without citing the leading scholars and saying why the other scholars are wrong is ridiculous. Bart Ehrman has said it best talking to mythicists. 99.9% of scholars in the field are convinced Jesus existed. Now he says that is not proof Jesus existed, but if you want to argue against that, your evidence had better be pretty good. It would be the same with creationists wanting to argue against evolution.

                            That’s silly, as it would have us aligning with every expert on every field. Plus, it’s just trying to force people into agreeing with your select scholars – if one should default to their opinion until they’ve read more than them, then they’ll likely never have read as much as we don’t have academic jobs where we can sit around and study this subject to the extent they can.
                            No. It's not. I've never said to read only my select scholars. I've said repeatedly to read scholars on both sides of the fence. Read the pro case and read the con case. If you want to argue about the NT, be willing to read the best on the NT. Would it be reasonable of me to argue against evolution without bothering to read the best scientific work on both sides?

                            And honestly, I am still a little unsure as to how you define subject ,matter experts. You keep saying NT scholars, and by that do you mean the people who specialize in the NT, or do you include the non-religious who specialize in the time period and location?
                            Anyone with a Ph.D. in NT or classical literature of the time from an accredited university who has peer-review work. I don't give a rip about their worldview after that.

                            But even so, once you felt certain that the other religions weren’t from God, you abandoned them and didn’t keep studying until you were convinced they were right. You treat the bible special and you seem to expect others to toss other religions aside, but when it comes to the bible, keep reading all you can until you believe it, and if you don’t, trust the NT scholars who believe it’s real until you’ve read more than them. This is kinda dumb.
                            No. I treat the Bible with the same historical standard I do any other claim. One reason I can reject Islam easily is because of historical claims. It claims Jesus was never crucified. I don't trust Mormonism because there is zero evidence of Jewish people living over here that came over around the time of the Babylonian conquest. I also don't expect anyone to toss other religions aside. If you think the Koran might be true, by all means study it. If you think Buddhism could be true, by all means study it. If you want to learn about Islam, read the scholars of Islam. If you want to learn about Buddhism, read the scholars of Buddhism.

                            It's the same standard.








                            You May be right. But you, like the rest of us, assume that you’re closer to the truth now, than you were before; and like the rest of us think that you’re right, while those you argue with are wrong. But without God whispering in each of our ears, or proclaiming from on high that you’re right, I’d just have to take your word for it, and that’s just not enough. That’s not a dig, it’s just the obvious, as you’d no sooner take my word for it.
                            Why should we expect God to whisper in our ears? Once again, you have an expectation and saying you won't believe until you get an experience you want. My worldview does not depend on an experience.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post

                              What Peter was pointing to was the empty tomb. Anyone could witness that. Anyone could go right down the street and see it. That also means that if this had been some trick on the part of the disicples, the last place they'd start the movement is ground zero. Also, I do not think you're accurate on how Peter's sermon was preached. More than likely, it's a synopsis. This was common in ancient literature. You didn't have to say word for word. You just had to give words that would have been said or get the thrust of the message.
                              witnessing an empty tomb is not quite the same as witnessing a man who returned from the dead. I've seen empty graves before, but never though that must mean there was an undead person walking about.

                              and there's all the missing bodies in the world... I doubt you'd suspect that any of them had flown into heaven. And literacy among a population does not imply that they were not superstitious. those were undeniably superstitious times. You've even mentioned the tendency among everyone there to not only believe in YHWH but also the multitude of the Greek gods, and even others.

                              and there was already dissent among the jews, with the zealots, pharisees and saducees. Those people were accustomed to different views already.



                              Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                              Note also a miracle had taken place.
                              ...a miracle that many of the witnesses did not find convincing...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                                Why should we expect God to whisper in our ears? Once again, you have an expectation and saying you won't believe until you get an experience you want. My worldview does not depend on an experience.
                                I may not have been clear. I wasnt trying to say that god should speak into our ears, I was trying to point out that since we dont have that, none of can KNOW for sure what God intended (or if it's even his book). God doesnt tell us, "you got it," we look and search and do what we think is right. It's our best effort. And despite our best effort and/or confidence, we could be as wrong as we believe the other to be.

                                Comment

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