Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Adrift]

I hear this all the time that even critical accept an empty tomb and yet, I only ever get like one or two non-Christians that ever fit this bill.

Well first of all, you don't have to be a non-Christian to be considered a critical scholar. Some of academia's most critical scholars call themselves Christian. But anyways, Gary Habermas wrote a peer reviewed paper on this subject in 2005 called "Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?". I don't think anyone has successfully challenged his claim that the majority of biblical scholars do accept the tomb was empty. Again, major disagreement tends towards why it was empty.

[Sparko]

well, I could say that you seem a lot like the guy you accuse Gary of being, but where does that get us? I find it is more profitable to stick to the subject rather than resorting to name calling and petty insults. I'm not the smartest or more educated man you'll encounter - if you only wish to have dialogue with the very best, I might suggest staying away from internet forums, and applying to mensa maybe.

If we're taking totality of the evidence, then it's perfectly reasonable to look at each specific one more closely. if it fails under such scrutiny, it shouldnt be used. You cant assert that one cannot look at a particular tree, this just isnt true. Like in map reading, one continually transitions from a narrow view to abroad view. the view is never static when viewing something closely - it's when one selects only one particular view that mistakes are made and things are missed as some things can only be seen in detail, while the overall picture is best seen from afar.

But the totality of the evidence doesn't end with women, dates, places and times. There is quite a lot of discrepancies between the gospels. There are issues throughout the bible that give me pause. If i cant trust many of things that can be verified, why trust the supernatural claims that cannot be verified?

and we should say that Jesus rising from the dead and flying into heaven and the existence of Alexander the Great are two very different claims, which are in no way comparable. there are many historical references to Alexander, and many archaeological artifacts that lend credence to man having existed. There's far more evidence for Alexander being real than there is for Jesus being real, but the question isnt whether Jesus existed, it is "did he come back to life and fly into heaven?"

These are very, very different. So different, I am unsure why you chose to compare the two.

Actually there are not many archeological artifacts showing he existed. There are statues and coins, but there are statues and paintings and coins with Jesus on them too. There are some places named after Alexander, but there are places named after Jesus.

There are NO contemporary accounts of Alexander that I know of. We have several contemporary accounts of Jesus.

[Sparko]

They knew? How is this a big deal? All kinds of cult members became victim to their leaders lies and died horrible deaths. Marshall Applewhite convinced the members of heavens gate that he was Jesus and that he would take them to heaven if they castrated themselves and poison. You can go down a list of cults that get their members to break laws, hurt/kill themselves, or even get put into prison, and nobody looks at that as a sign of the claims being true.

You don't think seeing someone rise from the dead is a bit different than some cult leader fooling his followers? Nobody expected Jesus to rise again. But he did. So they KNEW. If if did not happen then they lied to everyone for no reason and died horrible deaths (most were executed and tortured) and all they had to do was keep their mouth shut and be good Jews again.

[Sparko]

I find it strange that you're dating Mark so early when (as you would say) most scholars put him about 70 A.D and others thereafter. It's like this early dating is done to get the gospels closer to the apostles as possible. I mean, it would have been difficult to write a gospel if you were in jail and being martyred. Plus, it's unlikely people like John lived to be ninety years old when that was such a rare age to live to back then. I understand it's possible but considering the others factor in play here, it sure seems to be a charitable stretch.

I do think a fellow name Jesus lived, was killed for his practices, and his follows proclaimed God. The stories that come after that in the gospels seem to be influenced by a little bit of Hellenistic, Buddhist, Hindu, and Jewish traditions that are centered around Jesus. It's good literature when we stop trying to think of everything in the gospels as history, and instead appreciate the power of good mythology and literature.

Scholars agree that the gospels (except John) were written BEFORE 70AD (the destruction of the Temple) Jesus himself prophesied the falling of the temple. It is strange that none of the gospels would not mention the actual event if they were written after 70AD. As for Mark, he was the scribe for Peter, who was martyred in 68AD, so it is most likely his gospel was written before that. Evidence found shows it closer to 55AD

[Sparko]

Ok, so the debate thread has been closed, so I assume that means I can now comment here on the comment thread.

I first want to say that I missed seeing that Nick had posted his final comment this morning (it was on the next page which I did not see). So, sorry if my statement about jumping ahead of Nick in making my final, final comment seemed strange.

Secondly, I do NOT believe that all Christians are stupid. However, very educated, very intelligent people can still believe some really stupid things. Sorry for my bluntness, but it is my personal opinion that believing in virgin-impregnating ghosts and reanimated dead Jewish prophets who crave broiled fish after three nights in the tomb, and, who at times travel by levitation into outer space, is really dumb. The sooner people realize that these claims and similar claims in other religions are nonsense, the better off we will all be. For example, it is reported that the shooter in Chattanooga committed his despicable act for the purpose of convincing his particular god to forgive him for doing drugs and driving under the influence. Ridiculous, tragic superstition.

Lastly, Nick assumes I have not investigated the Christians claims. I have. Maybe not to Nick's satisfaction, but I have. First, I read all 800+ pages of NT Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God", and I have read articles by the following Christian authors and apologists:

1. Gary Habermas
2. Larry Esposito
3. Peter Kreeft
4. Mike Licona
5. Josh McDowell
6. Matt Slick
7. Richard Swineburne

Why didn't I quote any of them in my debate? Answer: They all use the same, unconvincing, weak evidence: assumptions about the behavior of people twenty centuries ago, biased expert opinion on the behavior of peoples living twenty centuries ago, and second century hearsay.

You basically did not debate with Nick at all, or interact with his posts. Instead it seemed to me you just used the debate as an excuse to blog about your own thoughts and reprint your articles from your website, like your closing statement which you just copied and pasted from your website here: http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com...elieve-in.html

That is not a debate. That is preaching.

[Adrift]

You don't think seeing someone rise from the dead is a bit different than some cult leader fooling his followers? Nobody expected Jesus to rise again. But he did. So they KNEW. If if did not happen then they lied to everyone for no reason and died horrible deaths (most were executed and tortured) and all they had to do was keep their mouth shut and be good Jews again.

And just to highlight it again, the argument isn't that people don't martyr themselves for false beliefs. The argument is that no one martyr's themselves for something they know to be a lie. There really isn't a parallel in the Heaven's Gate or People's Temple to the empty tomb, and the resurrected Jesus ascending into the heavenlies. If the tomb was not empty, and Jesus did not ascend into heaven, then Peter and the other disciples and followers of Jesus literally lied about seeing these things, and then they suffered for those lies, and many of them died for those lies. What lie did the members of Heaven's Gate or People's Temple invent, agreed was a lie, and yet still died with Jones or Applewhite? They believed the things that Applewhite and Jones said, and chances are, Applewhite and Jones believed the things they themselves said. They didn't die for something they knew was a lie.

[William]

Are in in a contest, to string together as many ad hominems and nonsense as you can, into a paragraph? When you're done stringing together a bunch of adjectives, to insult anybody who dares to disagree with you, perhaps you'll actually get to proving a word they said, is inaccurate or wrong. Does that work for you?




Got to love the chronological snobbery arguments. My math classes often used concepts of math that were discovered thousands of years ago. Guess they are all worthless too. Darn. When you're done with this ad hominem, how about you try to actually prove they are wrong. Deal?

if the math concepts from thousands of years ago didn't show their work or offer any proofs, but just made claims that couldn't be verified, then they may very well be worthless. I think that's Gary's point. It's not the age so much as content. And since we're not talking about math, but religion and superstition, the age does come into play as the world had a higher population of those who were less educated and tended to believe more superstitions, no?

Gary is saying that "I've looked into apologetics, and so far they all seem to use hearsay and contrived socialogical laws (women witnesses were impossible for men to imagine on their ow, etc), and interpretations of gospels that were written several decades after the alleged event..." In other words, there is no grand evidence, but claims of a very supernatural event. some just do not find such convincing.

[Adrift]

Nick,

Excuse me for my ignorance. I am missing your point.

All the evidence that you are asking me to believe, except for Paul's vision on the Damascus Road, was available to Saul of Tarsus, and it was NOT convincing to him. How do you explain that?

I could be wrong, but I think Nick's point is that, because of the shame and curse associated with crucifixion within Judaism, it was actually easier for a Gentile to accept the claims about the risen Jewish Messiah than it was a 1st century Jew. A crucified criminal would have been the very last person a Jew in that time and place would have expected to be the Messiah. But yeah, I'm just guessing that's Nick's point.

[William]

And just to highlight it again, the argument isn't that people don't martyr themselves for false beliefs. The argument is that no one martyr's themselves for something they know to be a lie. There really isn't a parallel in the Heaven's Gate or People's Temple to the empty tomb, and the resurrected Jesus ascending into the heavenlies. If the tomb was not empty, and Jesus did not ascend into heaven, then Peter and the other disciples and followers of Jesus literally lied about seeing these things, and then they suffered for those lies, and many of them died for those lies. What lie did the members of Heaven's Gate or People's Temple invent, agreed was a lie, and yet still died with Jones or Applewhite? They believed the things that Applewhite and Jones said, and chances are, Applewhite and Jones believed the things they themselves said. They didn't die for something they knew was a lie.

I think I see what you're saying, but the apostles wouldnt have had to be lying. There are a number of possibilities. I have read where the Romans didnt bury the crucified, but just let them rot and be eaten by the birds on their crosses. maybe they were typically buried in mas graves, i just dont know. But I am sure they didnt know exactly where the body was. They were all shocked that their messiah died and were trying to make sense of it, and as they struggled with trying to understand how they could have been wrong or figure out what they had missed, they turned back to their scriptures and little by little, like shapes in clouds, they started seeing similarities in OT stuff that could resemble why their messiah died - Like those who die in Project Mayhem have a name, and his name was Robert Paulson.

Memories are not static, they change almost every time we recall them, making anew copy and a new copy... as they thought hard about it all, and as they could find pieces here and there in the OT scriptures, they were able to make "sense" of it, and the new religion was forming. The apostles thought it was true, but were still mistaken. And many of their martyr stories aren't even verified, many being claims that surface well after they were said to have been martyred.

and then, were the apostles given a chance to recant in order to save themselves? maybe not. in which case, had they lied, they may have wanted to recant, but it was just too late.

[William]

Scholars agree that the gospels (except John) were written BEFORE 70AD (the destruction of the Temple) Jesus himself prophesied the falling of the temple. It is strange that none of the gospels would not mention the actual event if they were written after 70AD. As for Mark, he was the scribe for Peter, who was martyred in 68AD, so it is most likely his gospel was written before that. Evidence found shows it closer to 55AD

where do you get this information, and could you offer a link? from what i see it appears as though Mark is believed to have been written around 70AD with the others around 80 or 90 - but that's if you trust the scholars.

Do the gospels say who wrote them, or do we just go off of the title?

[William]

You don't think seeing someone rise from the dead is a bit different than some cult leader fooling his followers? Nobody expected Jesus to rise again. But he did. So they KNEW. If if did not happen then they lied to everyone for no reason and died horrible deaths (most were executed and tortured) and all they had to do was keep their mouth shut and be good Jews again.

this drastically oversimplifies things and narrows it down to either being only "they knew it was a lie or they knew it was 100% accurate, and since they died for it, and since no one dies for a lie, then we can know it's true." this is monty python style logic.

lie or 100% true aren't the only options. I personally think the disciples and apostles believed it were true, but they could have lied and still still died if they didn't expect the death penalty and if they weren't given the chance to recant.

If you believe it, that's fine, but it shouldn't be hard to see how many people find this tale hard to swallow.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I had not answered Gary last night because

First, I live in Tennessee in the Eastern Time Zone. It was late in the evening.

Second, I am trying to go through books here. I get several from IVP to review and then I got one from interlibrary loan yesterday that I only have until the 30th and I understand is about 500 pages long.

Third, I was done on the computer and once I'm done with it, I normally stay off for the day, though I am often connected through my Kindle Fire. I just know if I come back I will be dragged in again and I wanted to maintain my focus.

Finally, when Allie is ready for bed, I tend to put a stop to debating. Things can wait until the morning as she wants me by her side as much as possible.

But as for Saul. Why would Saul not believe?

Probably for the same reasons others didn't. Jesus was crucified at the start. That told Saul enough about the identity of Jesus. Jesus was a blasphemer to YHWH. Why care about a blasphemer? Paul would also have views about the people of Israel and the Law of Israel. Consider a group like the Essenes. They thought that much of Judaism was corrupt and established their own society at Qumran. They still saw themselves as the fulfillment of the promises of Scripture and they still kept the law. How much? Well here's how much. We read the Gospels and we see the Pharisees as the bad guys and look at how stringent they were on the Law.

The Essenes thought the Pharisees were wimps when it came to the Law.

So yes, in Paul's view, Jesus would not be the Messiah at the start because He was crucified and because He had a reputation as a Lawbreaker. No Messiah would be a Lawbreaker.

As for the people of Israel, the Messiah would bring about the Kingdom of God and He would restore Israel to power. At least, that was popular thought. Jesus didn't do that. Jesus would have been seen as a failed Messiah for Rome was still in charge. Thus, Paul would reject Him.

Finally, if Paul believed all of this, of course He would persecute the church. They were being unfaithful to YHWH and by that, YHWH would bring about judgment on Israel. (Ironically, it was just the opposite. It was by rejecting Jesus that the Jews rejected YHWH and brought judgment on themselves.)

We have to realize what a stigma crucifixion was. I liken it to imagine being a member of the SBC and being told you were to vote on a new president named Joe Jones and his story starts with "Joe Jones was a convicted pedophile."

Everything you hear afterwards will be tarnished after that.

Crucifixion was worse.

[William]

What should be some what verifiable historically is by why of the Jewish calendar. I hold the view that those events took place in 30 AD. https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/

Only in the account ascribed to Matthew mentions other graves opening with that earthquake (Matthew 27:51-53). That those other dead rose at the time of Christ resurrection v.53. As for the darkness it was very unusual, and there is no known record outside the gospel accounts.

Even the death of Jesus was unusual. When the other two men needed their legs broken. Jesus was aready dead.
A guard standing by is recorded to have pierced Jesus' side to verify his death.

Jesus death was on the 15th of Nisan, a high holy day where the Jews could not to do any service work, otherwise very much like the weekly sabbath. So they had to wait to sundown of the 16th of Nisan to obtain Jesus' body for burial. The Sabbath was on the 17th of Nisan, and the first day of the next week was the 18th.

As for the resurrected Jesus he primarily only appeared to his disciples (Acts 1:3; 1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Saul had witnesses with him when Jesus appeared to Saul. Saul's witnesses did not see Jesus, only the light, heard a voice speak to Saul, but did not hear what was said (Acts 9:1-9; Acts 22:5-11; Acts 26:8-18).

The resurrection claim has purpose, " And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, . . ." -- Romans 1:4 and ". . . was raised again for our justification." -- Romans 4:25.

Now there were those who in Corinth who reportedly accepted Christ's resurrection but denied the resurrection of the dead in general v.12, for whom Paul wrote, "For if the dead rise not, then Christ is not raised:" -- 1 Corinthians 15:16, 12-19, 29-30 > Romans 6:3-4.

So the resurrection claim is essential to Christianity.

The general resurrection claim has to do with the belief in the future judgement (Daniel 12:1-3; Revelation 20:1-15).

So really unless one understands how the good news of God's grace is to be obeyed without any merit being required by deeds, belief in the resurrection is without benefit. And that the bodily resurrection of Christ is the the evidence of this promise of grace. (Grace = undeserved favor.)

For those outside the faith it is merely a claim, for those in the faith the bodily resurrection of Christ is the reality (John 7:17; John 17:3; 1 John 5:1,20; 1 John 5:9-13).


I think there are people who make an honest search regarding what is true. They honestly do not know that it is Christ. And yet some that do still get it wrong. Now my comment has the following behind it:
Jesus in a closing remark to Pontius Pilate said, "Every one that is of the truth hears my voice." -- John 18:37 (Compare John 10:26, 27). And that night Jesus was to be betrayed he made the claim to be Truth (John 14:6). And the sole access to God.



Well, consider this, God being omnipresent (Acts 17:28), will be forever present with those whom He so punishes. (Psalm 139:8; Ezekiel 18:32; Revelation 14:10-11.)

Now the promise of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34) is that God Himself keeps it and says, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

thanks. I guess I dont know what else to say here. I do not mean to be a rude, nor do i mean to concede you've answered my point or presented anything compelling. I think you wrote from the heart and by your faith. Thanks for your consideration.

[William]

I had not answered Gary last night because

First, I live in Tennessee in the Eastern Time Zone. It was late in the evening.

Second, I am trying to go through books here. I get several from IVP to review and then I got one from interlibrary loan yesterday that I only have until the 30th and I understand is about 500 pages long.

Third, I was done on the computer and once I'm done with it, I normally stay off for the day, though I am often connected through my Kindle Fire. I just know if I come back I will be dragged in again and I wanted to maintain my focus.

Finally, when Allie is ready for bed, I tend to put a stop to debating. Things can wait until the morning as she wants me by her side as much as possible.

But as for Saul. Why would Saul not believe?

Probably for the same reasons others didn't. Jesus was crucified at the start. That told Saul enough about the identity of Jesus. Jesus was a blasphemer to YHWH. Why care about a blasphemer? Paul would also have views about the people of Israel and the Law of Israel. Consider a group like the Essenes. They thought that much of Judaism was corrupt and established their own society at Qumran. They still saw themselves as the fulfillment of the promises of Scripture and they still kept the law. How much? Well here's how much. We read the Gospels and we see the Pharisees as the bad guys and look at how stringent they were on the Law.

The Essenes thought the Pharisees were wimps when it came to the Law.

So yes, in Paul's view, Jesus would not be the Messiah at the start because He was crucified and because He had a reputation as a Lawbreaker. No Messiah would be a Lawbreaker.

As for the people of Israel, the Messiah would bring about the Kingdom of God and He would restore Israel to power. At least, that was popular thought. Jesus didn't do that. Jesus would have been seen as a failed Messiah for Rome was still in charge. Thus, Paul would reject Him.

Finally, if Paul believed all of this, of course He would persecute the church. They were being unfaithful to YHWH and by that, YHWH would bring about judgment on Israel. (Ironically, it was just the opposite. It was by rejecting Jesus that the Jews rejected YHWH and brought judgment on themselves.)

We have to realize what a stigma crucifixion was. I liken it to imagine being a member of the SBC and being told you were to vote on a new president named Joe Jones and his story starts with "Joe Jones was a convicted pedophile."

Everything you hear afterwards will be tarnished after that.

Crucifixion was worse.

i doubt that crucifixion was akin to pedophilia by any stretch. this is just a statement that is invented to make this point seem credible than it is.

"oh, he was unjustly executed because they didnt like his message of love and peace, that's awful, tell me more." "... oh. he was crucified. ew, never mind, that's just as nasty as raping children, never mind..."

thieves were crucified. rebels were crucified. it may have been embarrassing to be crucified, but it just makes no sense to suggest that the people viewed being crucified the same way we view being a pedophile. that's almost as absurd as suggesting dead people can come back to life and fly away.

look, making statements that like, or about the female witnesses, and then saying, "so see, a man couldnt not have just made that up," doesnt help support the claim. If the dead coming back to life and flying into heaven, through the sky, is possible, then people plugging female witnesses and crucifixions into a contrived or embellished story certainly is. saying "impossible" to a perfectly possible and natural event is just ridiculous when you're simultaneously trying to claim that the impossible event of dead people coming back to life and flying away is not only "possible," but "the most likely" is close to insanity.

[Apologiaphoenix]

with what Sea of Red said about history and science, when I thought about how we have different fields, I thought about this immediately.