Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

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.

Again, I like your thinking. Very reasoned.

On the point of Pilate respecting Jewish burial customs, I find this odd: If the Jewish custom was to give the body to the family...why did Pilate give the body to the Sanhedrin (Arimathea)? The author of John says that Arimathea was a "secret" disciple, so it wasn't as if Arimathea could ask for the body in the name of the family. His council was responsible for Jesus' execution. I believe that the whole "Arimathea and his tomb" story is an embellishment. Again, Paul never mentions a tomb.

And back on Pilate. If Pilate knew the Christians would claim a resurrection if the tomb was empty, this may have been his cover for removing the body of a traitor to Rome and disposing of it before the tomb was turned into a nationalist Jewish shrine.

Caesar did care enough about Judea to remove Pilate a few years later due to the protestations of the Jews.

[Gary]

Will Nick or anyone who knows Nick's positions answer these questions:

1. Does Nick agree with Stein that there are other plausible explanations for the empty tomb?
2. Does Nick agree with William that it is plausible that the disciples accepted and believed a shameful, new, belief simply due to their belief that they had received appearances, not necessarily due to actual, in-the-flesh appearances?

If Nick believes that both of these scenarios are plausible, then I will be willing to state that Nick's position is just as reasonable as that of Stein. We will still differ on which explanation is more plausible, but as long as Nick agrees that alternative explanations for both of these positions are plausible, I will no longer view his position as unreasonable, dogmatic, and fundamentalist.

[William]

Then you're ready to say that everyone who claims one is delusional, lying, etc.?

delusional, lying, or mistaken. Yes, i do think that. And if I saw something huge and grand and miraculous, I wouldnt expect to be believed either. I'd fully expect to met with doubt.

Now, if my dead grandfather walked up to me and spoke with me, I'd believe that. I wouldnt believe anyone that told me a story of my dead grandfather walking up to them without seeing myself. if they seemed sincere, and urged me to come see him too, then I'd go - but I'd suspect that they were mistaken or tripping until I saw him for myself.

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.

sure, or unless one of them says something to you that sounds so far off of what's right. That's why people get second opinions often. If my dr told me to amputate my arm because I had a cold, I would not trust that. Or if my mechanic told me I owed him $1K to replace my clutch when I drive an automatic, I wouldnt trust him either.

when scholars tell me that Jesus likely lived and was likely crucified - sure. I can buy that. when they say that Jesus had a following and was believed by some to be a messiah and miracle worker, then i can buy that too. But when they say the he was a miracle worker... that's something else.

To say that no witness ever questioned whether jesus worked a miracle or not is speaking about something no one knows anything about. If the scholars claim to know that, then they're lying. Now, maybe the accounts we have of jesus miracles (the gospels) dont record that, or that they record them as believing in them but being angry over it, but biases reports of grandiose claims is not proof nor is it even good evidence for supernatural claims.

the fact that so many didnt follow jesus may indicate that they didnt believe what he was selling. you're exaggerating what the scholars say, especially if you look at the majority of scholars.

Which means you're letting your philosophy dictate how your historiography goes. Do you really think that's valid?

I'm not sure what you're saying. my philosophy? because I am skeptical of supernatural claims and suspect that there is more likely a natural explanation? did you know that war historians are often skeptical of many accounts of numbers killed in a given battle? There's nothing supernatural about it, but it's hard to place 100% accuracy on these numbers. why? because the historians know that an army might exaggerate the number of enemy killed or downplay the number of friendlies killed for propaganda purposes. SO they take these recorded numbers with a grain of salt.

Even accounts of Socrates are viewed with suspicion. written History is based on a true story.

with miracles, again, every religion claims them. That includes all the tiny forgotten ones. And then I have never seen one. Couple that anecdotal evidence with the empirical evidence of science today, and we feel pretty certain that miracle are right up there with tales of magic. and like alien encounters, or bigfoot, or vampires, miracles are the kind of thing that are usually met with skepticism.

Keener wrote a book on claims of miracles. he could even claim to have witnessed some himself. that may work for you, and him and others, but it just isnt convincing to me.

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.

Magness does not find the evidence compelling either.

I accept that there are accounts of a Resurrection - and like her, i doubt there actually was one.

explain why all 4 gospels agree on the Resurrection? how early are you talking? I would guess that another, non-miraculous explanation is simply this: That it was a claim and a rumor. No one knew where the body was, and since you cant really say, "look, there it isnt," the absence was used as "proof." and then there were those who saw something and mistook it for a jesus or said they saw jesus, and then as time went on, the stories became embellished until Mark wrote them and the Matthew and Luke copied from him.

that may be over simplified. You may not like it, but it's possible. And any possible natural scenario is already more likely than an impossible miraculous one. So you can "no, that's not possible" all you like, but as soon as you say that "the most likely scenario is the one where jesus came back to life and flew into heaven," it looses all credibility. It is impossible for a man to return to life, 3 days after dying.

Could an all powerful God do that? I dont see why not. But is God real? How do we know? Creation. How do we know that creation points to the bible God? the Resurrection. That's impossible. how can you be sure that happened? Paul's letter 1 Cor 15 (which talks about a spiritual Resurrection and a non-physical body) as well as 4 gospels that were written centuries after the event. So you think a man came back to life because a few old books said it happened... I dont know, it still seems so unlikely. But nothing is unlikely or too hard for God - he created the universe. How do you know? well, something had ti create it, so God did it. How do we know that creation points to the bible God? The Resurrection...

I'm sorry man, i just cant swallow it.



and CS Lewis' trilemma stopped short of a full thought.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Will Nick or anyone who knows Nick's positions answer these questions:

1. Does Nick agree with Stein that there are other plausible explanations for the empty tomb?

I find some that could be possible perhaps if that works, but I just don't find they explain the data. They leave me more questions than answers.

2. Does Nick agree with William that it is plausible that the disciples accepted and believed a shameful, new, belief simply due to their belief that they had received appearances, not necessarily due to actual, in-the-flesh appearances?

This is the claim that I make. THe disciples believed they saw the risen Christ. We have to discuss what they did see.

If Nick believes that both of these scenarios are plausible, then I will be willing to state that Nick's position is just as reasonable as that of Stein. We will still differ on which explanation is more plausible, but as long as Nick agrees that alternative explanations for both of these positions are plausible, I will no longer view his position as unreasonable, dogmatic, and fundamentalist.

Are you ever going to answer the questions I asked you way back?

Also, what about OBP's questions?

[William]

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 well that's fine. I dont think that the fire mentioned is fire, just like I never though teh streets of gold were actual Gold. But heaven is described that way to speak on preciousness and greatness. It was also said to be eternal, so i thought that heaven was eternal, and that the figurative descriptions spoke of a great and happy place.

Similarly, I believed hell was eternal, and that the figurative fire and worms spoke to a horrid place. It may not be paion as we understand it in these bodies no more that happiness in heaven would be as we understand it in the bodies, but I did believe both were eternal, just the heaven was etneral bliss while hell was eternal anguish.

I never said I though the flames were literal flames as we'd see in a camp fire.

They used figurative fire to teach about literal anguish. if the anguish is metaphor for annihilation or just an absence of God, then it doesnt match the metaphor. so if we can change any of that around then anything can be changed around, like a Resurrection.

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.

it's played because that card was round back then more than it is today. Of course they knew that dead people stayed dead... unless some supernatural event reversed that, per their particular superstition. so while they knew people died, they also believed that magic or gods or God could overturn that. .. because they were superstitious. Jesus would be the first to have come back to life if we believed all the tales.

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.

because even with the superstitious, the dead seldom came back to life.

[Gary]

I find some that could be possible perhaps if that works, but I just don't find they explain the data. They leave me more questions than answers.



This is the claim that I make. THe disciples believed they saw the risen Christ. We have to discuss what they did see.



Are you ever going to answer the questions I asked you way back?

Also, what about OBP's questions?

Excellent! Then I apologize for misunderstanding your position. I thought that your position was that the cumulative evidence leaves only ONE plausible explanation: a miracle: the bodily resurrection of the dead Jesus. As long as you are willing to acknowledge that other plausible explanations exist for the cumulative evidence, I have no problem with your position. We simply disagree on which explanation is more plausible.

Please repeat or refer me to the questions you would like me to answer. This is a long comment thread. And which questions of The Pigster do you want me to answer?

[Adrift]

Nick, don't feed the trolls.

[psstein]

Again, I like your thinking. Very reasoned.

On the point of Pilate respecting Jewish burial customs, I find this odd: If the Jewish custom was to give the body to the family...why did Pilate give the body to the Sanhedrin (Arimathea)? The author of John says that Arimathea was a "secret" disciple, so it wasn't as if Arimathea could ask for the body in the name of the family. His council was responsible for Jesus' execution. I believe that the whole "Arimathea and his tomb" story is an embellishment. Again, Paul never mentions a tomb.

And back on Pilate. If Pilate knew the Christians would claim a resurrection if the tomb was empty, this may have been his cover for removing the body of a traitor to Rome and disposing of it before the tomb was turned into a nationalist Jewish shrine.

Caesar did care enough about Judea to remove Pilate a few years later due to the protestations of the Jews.

The custom was usually to give the body to whomever requested it. Clearly, the family would usually request the body, but in this case, we have someone else requesting it.

Based on what we know of Joseph of Arimathea and Jewish burial practices, as well as historical evidence from Josephus and Philo, the burial in the tomb seems very historically probable. As for Paul not mentioning it, who cares? Paul doesn't mention a huge number of events in Jesus' ministry. Paul's epistles largely address specific concerns of the early Church, rather than give biography of Jesus. Moreover, as I've mentioned before, imperial Roman governance was largely respectful of local customs. There had already been a severe incident at Passover in living memory, and I strongly doubt Pilate would want to create another. Pilate, while ruthless, was far from incompetent.

There are also some questions as to how reliable the account in the gospels about the trial is. I find it very hard to believe the entire Sanhedrin was convened in the middle of the night before Passover.

Finally, I see Nick and I are in agreement. There are other explanations for the empty tomb/appearances. However, all of them require additional assumptions or don't address all the data we have.

[William]

Nick, don't feed the trolls.

adrift, don't label those you disagree with as trolls just because you disagree with them.

[Adrift]

adrift, don't label those you disagree with as trolls just because you disagree with them.

Oh, shut up. Gary is totally trolling and he knows it. Nick agreed that there are possible explanations for just the empty tomb. He did NOT agree that there was more than one plausible explanation for the cumulative evidence for the resurrection. And Will, stop your own dang trolling with all this fake outrage anytime anyone points out how ridiculous Gary is being. It's tiresome.

[Gary]

Oh, shut up. Gary is totally trolling and he knows it. Nick agreed that there are possible explanations for just the empty tomb. He did NOT agree that there was more than one plausible explanation for the cumulative evidence for the resurrection. And Will, stop your own dang trolling with all this fake outrage anytime anyone points out how ridiculous Gary is being. It's tiresome.

"He did NOT agree that there was more than one plausible explanation for the cumulative evidence for the resurrection."

Is that true, Nick?

I guess I assumed this to be the case. If there are plausible explanations for each individual piece of evidence doesn't that automatically mean that there are alternative plausible explanations for all of the evidence? If I am incorrect, Nick, please explain.

[Christianbookworm]

Oh, shut up. Gary is totally trolling and he knows it. Nick agreed that there are possible explanations for just the empty tomb. He did NOT agree that there was more than one plausible explanation for the cumulative evidence for the resurrection. And Will, stop your own dang trolling with all this fake outrage anytime anyone points out how ridiculous Gary is being. It's tiresome.

Gary could be a , sincerely wrong due to not having the correct processing speed, wrong due to being deliberately ignorant, wrong due to being biased against the "supernatural", or he could be right in an alternate universe where his worldview is right. Of course we Christians would think that said alternate universe does not exist in this reality.

[Gary]

The custom was usually to give the body to whomever requested it. Clearly, the family would usually request the body, but in this case, we have someone else requesting it.

Based on what we know of Joseph of Arimathea and Jewish burial practices, as well as historical evidence from Josephus and Philo, the burial in the tomb seems very historically probable. As for Paul not mentioning it, who cares? Paul doesn't mention a huge number of events in Jesus' ministry. Paul's epistles largely address specific concerns of the early Church, rather than give biography of Jesus. Moreover, as I've mentioned before, imperial Roman governance was largely respectful of local customs. There had already been a severe incident at Passover in living memory, and I strongly doubt Pilate would want to create another. Pilate, while ruthless, was far from incompetent.

There are also some questions as to how reliable the account in the gospels about the trial is. I find it very hard to believe the entire Sanhedrin was convened in the middle of the night before Passover.

Finally, I see Nick and I are in agreement. There are other explanations for the empty tomb/appearances. However, all of them require additional assumptions or don't address all the data we have.

If Mary was at the cross, why didn't she ask for the body? Wouldn't custom go to the family first? Why would Mary NOT ask for the body and why would Pilate give the body to Arimathea before giving it to the mother?

[William]

Oh, shut up. Gary is totally trolling and he knows it. Nick agreed that there are possible explanations for just the empty tomb. He did NOT agree that there was more than one plausible explanation for the cumulative evidence for the resurrection. And Will, stop your own dang trolling with all this fake outrage anytime anyone points out how ridiculous Gary is being. It's tiresome.

well that was an ugly thing to say.

you said "trolls" not "troll."

[William]

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.

I actually agree. Though I am no scholar, I often consult interlinear bibles - it's the best I can manage at this point.