Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[One Bad Pig]

The guard at the tomb does make sense as an apologetic device. Of course, that doesn't eliminate its historicity. I simply think its lack of acknowledgement in Mark, Luke, and John speaks as to its nature. Of course it doesn't make it any less historical, but there are significant questions it raises.

If you're looking for questions, I suppose.

Matthew does have an anti-Jewish tone in parts. Matthew explicitly has Jesus' blood on the Jews' hands (Matthew 27:25), and Pilate washes his hands, a symbol of his innocence.

That's explicitly on the hands of those present calling for his crucifixion - IOW, the Jewish leaders and the mob they rounded up to influence Pilate's decision. Reading it as "the Jews" ignores the context; that it was popular to do so later does not make it any more correct. Pilate washing his hands was a symbol of his cynicism, not his innocence. After all, he was the only one with authority to carry out the death sentence.

[tabibito]

Regarding miracles, I have no way to prove that miracles don't happen, but I believe that the proponents of miracles are hard pressed to prove they do. I realize that tens of thousands of people, even highly intelligent, highly educated, people believe that miracles have and do occur, but here is why I don't believe them:

As a physician I have the following situation happen to me at least once a month: "Hey doc, have you heard of this new treatment, blah blah blah, that cures cancer/diabetes/warts, etc., etc.?

When I respond, "No" their reaction is: "My god, Doc. Aren't you keeping up with the latest studies? This product has cured "thousands" of people. It is a proven fact it works."

When I ask why mainstream medicine has not endorsed it, I typically am told that mainstream medicine is biased; or that most doctors are just in it for the money and want people to stay sick. Doctors are hiding this "vital" information from the public; and other paranoid conspiracy theories. Now that is not to say that there could be something out there that helps people that traditional medicine just hasn't picked up on yet, but the overwhelming probability is that the reason that western medicine doesn't accept it is because studies show it makes zero difference in the disease in question. There are always exceptions, but I believe they are rare. Traditional medicine and doctors want to help people get better. We do not hide effective treatments in order keep people sick and our schedules full.

And that is how I feel about miracle claims. Tens of thousands of people may claim that they have been healed by a divine miracle, but for some strange reason, none of these cases have caught the attention of traditional medicine. And the explanations for traditional medicine's lack of interest in these miracle claims is brushed off with the same paranoid conspiracy theories that people use for every fad cure that traditional medicine poo-poos or ignores.

When Christians can show me an amputee whose limb has grown back overnight due to prayer to Jesus, then you will have my full and undivided attention, but until then, I'm not impressed.

The frequency of the occurrence of miracles is pretty much proportionate, though not absolutely proportionate, to the number of people who
1/ hold to sound doctrine.
2/ submit to the commands of God.

And being presented with a maimed person who's limbs have been restored would result in a substantially higher rate of disbelief than the combined rate of disbelief of the globular Earth, Moon landing, the terrorist action of 9/11, and any 20 other demonstrable facts combined.

[Gary]

The frequency of the occurrence of miracles is pretty much proportionate, though not absolutely proportionate, to the number of people who
1/ hold to sound doctrine.
2/ submit to the commands of God.

And being presented with a maimed person who's limbs have been restored would result in a substantially higher rate of disbelief than the combined rate of disbelief of the globular Earth, Moon landing, the terrorist action of 9/11, and any 20 other demonstrable facts combined.

???

[psstein]

I'm told that Keener has thousands of cases of unexplainable, undeniable miracles. I'm sure he is 100% sincere in believing that all these claims are true; that prayer to Jesus healed these people. But alas, it seems that Jesus is not the only one curing the "incurable":

These people have a secret cure for cancer "which doctors have been hiding from the public for years so that they can keep the money pouring in":
http://www.thebigcancerlie.com/

And here is a "testimonial" for a supplement that will cure "any disease":


CAT Scan Proves That Cancer Disappeared!
This is a real-life case study reported by a medical doctor who wishes to remain anonymous. The name of the patient has been changed for privacy reasons.

A 60-year-old man named David Palmer collapsed in his home one day and was rushed to the hospital. After undergoing an endoscopic examination and CAT scan, his doctor told him he had a cancerous mass the size of a grapefruit in his stomach. It was a large-celled lymphoma. A few days after his diagnosis, David learned about the simple therapy revealed in The One-Minute Cure, and began doing the therapy 3 times a week. Another CAT scan was done 7 weeks after he was first diagnosed with cancer -- and his doctor was amazed because the tumor had completely disappeared! Four months later, a repeat CAT scan was done, and again, there was no evidence that there was ever any cancer in David's stomach.

See other diseases healed by the one-minute cure
or Frequently Asked Questions.

Gary: Anyone can claim to have Xrays, CT scans, and MRI's that confirm a "miracle cure", but for some reason these studies are never available for independent review by non-biased experts. If prayer to Jesus causes miracle cures, we should see statistics that bear this out: We should see that Christians have a higher healing rate and a lower death rate from cancer and other diseases. But guess what, folks. There is no statistical difference among Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists for disease incidence or death from disease, when all persons are of the same social class and living in the same country. So Jesus, Allah, and Lord Brahma aren't doing any better job at healing their supplicants (faithful) than the atheist who prays to no one.

The fundamental model of the prayer studies is flawed, so I don't think they're particularly valuable either way.

Keener doesn't just talk about Christian miracles, though most of his focus is on them. He's explicitly clear in the beginning he's not accepting or denying supernatural causation in any of them. He's reporting the data as he's been given it.

[psstein]

If you're looking for questions, I suppose.

That's explicitly on the hands of those present calling for his crucifixion - IOW, the Jewish leaders and the mob they rounded up to influence Pilate's decision. Reading it as "the Jews" ignores the context; that it was popular to do so later does not make it any more correct. Pilate washing his hands was a symbol of his cynicism, not his innocence. After all, he was the only one with authority to carry out the death sentence.

Such a claim is explicitly not borne out by the historical evidence. Stephen is put to death on orders of the Sanhedrin, and the Talmud tells of an accused sorceress put to death at the Sanhedrin's order.

I think there are other reasons Caiaphas doesn't directly put Jesus to death. Namely, there's a very high standard of evidence and it seems pretty likely Caiaphas is not convening the whole Sanhedrin.

[tabibito]

???

In simpler - and expanded - terms:
God does not act, except on the extremely rare occasion, independently.
He authorises people to act in his name to the performance of miracles. (over-simplified for the sake of clarity.)
The people whom he authorises are those who:
1/ understand and promote sound doctrine.
2/ have accepted him as their lord. (If someone is disobedient, it is self-evident that Christ is not his lord.)

In so far as the authority to perform miracles is concerned, point 1 is critical - false doctrine won't get backing from God.
Point 2 can't be reached if point 1 is compromised beyond narrow limits of tolerance.
The limits of tolerance are far more forgiving for point 2 than they are for point 1.

So - anyone who wants a guarantee of seeing miracles needs to be in the presence of someone who has completed point 1, and is reasonably well advanced into point 2. Finding such a person would be pretty much a miracle in itself.

However, the probability of seeing a miracle does increase in the presence of a person whose doctrine is sound, but is not particularly far advanced in developing obedience.

[One Bad Pig]

Regarding miracles, I have no way to prove that miracles don't happen, but I believe that the proponents of miracles are hard pressed to prove they do. I realize that tens of thousands of people, even highly intelligent, highly educated, people believe that miracles have and do occur, but here is why I don't believe them:

As a physician I have the following situation happen to me at least once a month: "Hey doc, have you heard of this new treatment, blah blah blah, that cures cancer/diabetes/warts, etc., etc.?

When I respond, "No" their reaction is: "My god, Doc. Aren't you keeping up with the latest studies? This product has cured "thousands" of people. It is a proven fact it works."

When I ask why mainstream medicine has not endorsed it, I typically am told that mainstream medicine is biased; or that most doctors are just in it for the money and want people to stay sick. Doctors are hiding this "vital" information from the public; and other paranoid conspiracy theories. Now that is not to say that there could be something out there that helps people that traditional medicine just hasn't picked up on yet, but the overwhelming probability is that the reason that western medicine doesn't accept it is because studies show it makes zero difference in the disease in question. There are always exceptions, but I believe they are rare. Traditional medicine and doctors want to help people get better. We do not hide effective treatments in order keep people sick and our schedules full.

And that is how I feel about miracle claims. Tens of thousands of people may claim that they have been healed by a divine miracle, but for some strange reason, none of these cases have caught the attention of traditional medicine. And the explanations for traditional medicine's lack of interest in these miracle claims is brushed off with the same paranoid conspiracy theories that people use for every fad cure that traditional medicine poo-poos or ignores.

You're using the same incorrect definition of "miracle" that those touting "miracle cures" are. Traditional medicine should not be interested in supernatural cures because the supernatural is not testable by definition. That doesn't mean they don't happen.

When Christians can show me an amputee whose limb has grown back overnight due to prayer to Jesus, then you will have my full and undivided attention, but until then, I'm not impressed.

I'm sure you'd do your best to find an alternative explanation, like being fooled by identical twins.

St. John of Damascus had his hand chopped off in the 8th century. After prayer to Jesus' mother, it was reattached.

I know of a woman who had lost her first 4 babies (IIRC) because a connection never developed between the brain and spinal column. When she became pregnant again, she was anointed with myrrh from a miraculously streaming icon (which I've seen handled several times; there are no easy explanations for what happens) just before getting an ultrasound. I've seen a copy of the ultrasound - there's a bright area in the lower left corner stretching towards the center of the image, touching the fetus right where the connection failed to occur in her earlier pregnancies. The baby was born healthy. I also know of a girl who had her upper lip restored (after having been partially ripped off by a dog attack 10 years earlier) overnight after being anointed with the myrrh. Does everyone who gets anointed with the myrrh have a miraculous healing? No. God works as he wills. But many healings have taken place through it.

[One Bad Pig]

Such a claim is explicitly not borne out by the historical evidence. Stephen is put to death on orders of the Sanhedrin, and the Talmud tells of an accused sorceress put to death at the Sanhedrin's order.

No, Stephen was put to death by an angry mob. And there were times when the Sanhedrin had the power of capital punishment; it's not clear from your allusion to the Talmud if that was during one of those times or not (also, the Talmud is quite late). You're also ignoring the evidence from Josephus, who relates that James the brother of Jesus was put to death when the Sanhedrin seized the opportunity in between governors.

[Gary]

In simpler - and expanded - terms:
God does not act, except on the extremely rare occasion, independently.
He authorises people to act in his name to the performance of miracles. (over-simplified for the sake of clarity.)
The people whom he authorises are those who:
1/ understand and promote sound doctrine.
2/ have accepted him as their lord. (If someone is disobedient, it is self-evident that Christ is not his lord.)

In so far as the authority to perform miracles is concerned, point 1 is critical - false doctrine won't get backing from God.
Point 2 can't be reached if point 1 is compromised beyond narrow limits of tolerance.
The limits of tolerance are far more forgiving for point 2 than they are for point 1.

So - anyone who wants a guarantee of seeing miracles needs to be in the presence of someone who has completed point 1, and is reasonably well advanced into point 2. Finding such a person would be pretty much a miracle in itself.

However, the probability of seeing a miracle does increase in the presence of a person whose doctrine is sound, but is not particularly far advanced in developing obedience.

Persons of other Faiths make claims of divine miracles just as numerous and just as spectacular as Christians. How is that possible? Do you have any evidence other than anecdotal evidence that Christians who follow sound doctrine are more likely to experience a miracle?

[Gary]

You're using the same incorrect definition of "miracle" that those touting "miracle cures" are. Traditional medicine should not be interested in supernatural cures because the supernatural is not testable by definition. That doesn't mean they don't happen.

I'm sure you'd do your best to find an alternative explanation, like being fooled by identical twins.

St. John of Damascus had his hand chopped off in the 8th century. After prayer to Jesus' mother, it was reattached.

I know of a woman who had lost her first 4 babies (IIRC) because a connection never developed between the brain and spinal column. When she became pregnant again, she was anointed with myrrh from a miraculously streaming icon (which I've seen handled several times; there are no easy explanations for what happens) just before getting an ultrasound. I've seen a copy of the ultrasound - there's a bright area in the lower left corner stretching towards the center of the image, touching the fetus right where the connection failed to occur in her earlier pregnancies. The baby was born healthy. I also know of a girl who had her upper lip restored (after having been partially ripped off by a dog attack 10 years earlier) overnight after being anointed with the myrrh. Does everyone who gets anointed with the myrrh have a miraculous healing? No. God works as he wills. But many healings have taken place through it.

Do you believe that only the Christian god performs miracles or are the gods of other Faiths capable of performing miracles? Muslims, Hindus, and Mormons all claim many, many miracles by their gods.

[Gary]

Such a claim is explicitly not borne out by the historical evidence. Stephen is put to death on orders of the Sanhedrin, and the Talmud tells of an accused sorceress put to death at the Sanhedrin's order.

I think there are other reasons Caiaphas doesn't directly put Jesus to death. Namely, there's a very high standard of evidence and it seems pretty likely Caiaphas is not convening the whole Sanhedrin.

I think that your disagreement points out the obvious: the gospel accounts are so variable, that it is hard to know what actually happened and what was embellished or invented.

[Gary]

The fundamental model of the prayer studies is flawed, so I don't think they're particularly valuable either way.

Keener doesn't just talk about Christian miracles, though most of his focus is on them. He's explicitly clear in the beginning he's not accepting or denying supernatural causation in any of them. He's reporting the data as he's been given it.

Did he or neutral experts investigate the claims themselves? Or did he accept as fact when someone claimed that the miracle, Xray, CT scan, MRI had been verified by neutral experts?

[psstein]

I think that your disagreement points out the obvious: the gospel accounts are so variable, that it is hard to know what actually happened and what was embellished or invented.

Not really. There are criterion NT scholars involved in life of Jesus research will use, the criterion of embarrassment (is this embarrassing to the early Church/Christians?), the criterion of dissimilarity (is this dissimilar to Jewish teaching or early Church teaching?), the criterion of multiple attestation (if you have more than one source attesting something, it's more probable it happened), the criterion of coherence (does it fit with other teachings, or is it seemingly pasted in?), Semitisms (i.e. does this clearly have Aramaic roots?), and the criterion of frequency (if something appears time and again, it's far more likely to have real roots in Jesus).

Moreover, form and source criticism have developed in order to figure out what exactly goes back to Jesus and what the early Church invented. Figuring out what Jesus actually did and said isn't all that tough. The interpretation, however, can be tough. Therefore, you get a lot of differing views of Jesus, from Jesus the eschatological prophet (Allison, Meier, Schweitzer, etc.) to Jesus the Cynic philosopher (Crossan, Borg, the Jesus Seminar more generally).

The following are almost universally accepted facts across the spectrum, from people like Crossan (liberals) to Darrell Bock (a conservative). These are not mine; these are E.P. Sanders'.

1) Jesus was born some time between 6 and 4 BC, before the death of Herod the Great. He may have been born in either Nazareth or Bethlehem.
2) Around AD 28 or 30, he was baptized by John the Baptist and began his public ministry.
3) He confined his activity to Judea.
4) He called disciples
5) He was known as an exorcist and healer.
6) He preached about the Kingdom of God, likely in a way related to John the Baptist and, more broadly, Jewish apocalypticism.
7) He went to Jerusalem either in 30 or 33
8) In Jerusalem, he caused a disturbance at the Temple.
9) He had a meal with his disciples, where he instituted the Lord's Supper (Eucharist)
10) He was arrested by and interrogated by Jewish authorities, under Caiaphas, the high priest.
11) He was executed by orders of Pontius Pilate by crucifixion.
12) His followers had some experience of the risen Jesus after his burial and death.

This is a general outline of what happened. The specifics are a little fuzzier, but these are all multiply attested points (John fails to mention the Eucharist for reasons beyond this list of facts). So we actually do know something substantial about the historical figure of Jesus. Relative to many figures of the ancient world, our knowledge about Jesus is pretty impressive.

With regard to Keener's book, I haven't yet read through all of it; it's very long. Someone who has actually read the whole thing can better answer your question.

[Gary]

Not really. There are criterion NT scholars involved in life of Jesus research will use, the criterion of embarrassment (is this embarrassing to the early Church/Christians?), the criterion of dissimilarity (is this dissimilar to Jewish teaching or early Church teaching?), the criterion of multiple attestation (if you have more than one source attesting something, it's more probable it happened), the criterion of coherence (does it fit with other teachings, or is it seemingly pasted in?), Semitisms (i.e. does this clearly have Aramaic roots?), and the criterion of frequency (if something appears time and again, it's far more likely to have real roots in Jesus).

Moreover, form and source criticism have developed in order to figure out what exactly goes back to Jesus and what the early Church invented. Figuring out what Jesus actually did and said isn't all that tough. The interpretation, however, can be tough. Therefore, you get a lot of differing views of Jesus, from Jesus the eschatological prophet (Allison, Meier, Schweitzer, etc.) to Jesus the Cynic philosopher (Crossan, Borg, the Jesus Seminar more generally).

The following are almost universally accepted facts across the spectrum, from people like Crossan (liberals) to Darrell Bock (a conservative). These are not mine; these are E.P. Sanders'.

1) Jesus was born some time between 6 and 4 BC, before the death of Herod the Great. He may have been born in either Nazareth or Bethlehem.
2) Around AD 28 or 30, he was baptized by John the Baptist and began his public ministry.
3) He confined his activity to Judea.
4) He called disciples
5) He was known as an exorcist and healer.
6) He preached about the Kingdom of God, likely in a way related to John the Baptist and, more broadly, Jewish apocalypticism.
7) He went to Jerusalem either in 30 or 33
8) In Jerusalem, he caused a disturbance at the Temple.
9) He had a meal with his disciples, where he instituted the Lord's Supper (Eucharist)
10) He was arrested by and interrogated by Jewish authorities, under Caiaphas, the high priest.
11) He was executed by orders of Pontius Pilate by crucifixion.
12) His followers had some experience of the risen Jesus after his burial and death.

This is a general outline of what happened. The specifics are a little fuzzier, but these are all multiply attested points (John fails to mention the Eucharist for reasons beyond this list of facts). So we actually do know something substantial about the historical figure of Jesus. Relative to many figures of the ancient world, our knowledge about Jesus is pretty impressive.

With regard to Keener's book, I haven't yet read through all of it; it's very long. Someone who has actually read the whole thing can better answer your question.

Those are very vague generalities. Basically: Jesus lived; was a preacher; got on the wrong side of the Jewish authorities; the Jews asked the Romans to kill him, which they did; shortly after his death his followers believed he had been raised from the dead.

I'm not a mythicist so I don't need to be convinced that Jesus was a real human being. I need evidence he was a god. You don't need to believe in miracles or in gods to believe any of the above. It is the miracle claims of Christianity which are disputed by most skeptics. See the post below. It is very long, but in my opinion, blows Keneer and his "miracles" out of the water.

[Gary]

http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com...heres-why.html