Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[One Bad Pig]

You may question all you like, but you're the one who's badly misreading the text. If they were as disbelieving as you pretend, why were they simultaneously experiencing joy?

for Gary

[Gary]

I gave you the same counter-scenario that Saul and other educated Jews of his day gave, and the same counter-scenario that every Jewish scholar ever since (except Lapide) has given: it is a nonsensical story, originally only believed by uneducated Jews and Bible-ignorant Gentiles, told in four anonymous books, written decades after the events, most probably by Gentile Christians, writing in far away lands, about alleged events for which they had no first hand knowledge, three of the books which plagiarize the first, riddled with contradictions and outlandish embellishments.

If you want to believe your evidence is "strong", go right ahead, but the fact that 99% of knowledgeable Jews, for 2,000 years, haven't believed your evidence is a pretty good indication to me that your evidence is very weak.

Take care, Nick.

[37818]

". . . And Joseph taking the body wrapped it up in a clean linen cloth: And laid it in his own new monument, which he had hewed out in a rock. And he rolled a great stone to the door of the monument and went his way. And there was there Mary Magdalen and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre. And the next day, which followed the day of preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees came together to Pilate, Saying: Sir, we have remembered, that that seducer said, while he was yet alive: After three days I will rise again. Command therefore the sepulchre to be guarded until the third day: lest perhaps his disciples come and steal him away and say to the people: He is risen from the dead. And the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate saith to them: You have a guard. Go, guard it as you know. And they departing, made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone and setting guards."

This is my question for Christians regarding the empty tomb claim: Are there any more probable causes for an empty tomb? Are there any more probable explanations for a grave to be open than that an invisible ancient god reanimated and removed the body? I say, absolutely. And here is why: Even if the Roman guard story in the Gospels is true, if you read the Gospels closely you will see that there was a period of time when the body of Jesus was in the tomb, without Roman guards, and without the stone being sealed...in the darkness. Even if there was just a half hour gap, that is plenty of time for a group of man to roll back the unsealed stone, take the body, and roll the stone back...all under the cover of darkness.

Interesting. So are you supposing that Sabbath night they came and took the body?

Before I leave this website, I would be curious to know how "Little Joe", other moderators, or any Christian who has not yet left a comment on this thread views my statement about Saul. I went to a popular skeptic website and they agreed with me that my argument for Saul's non-belief (unbelief after seeing most of the Christian evidence first hand, such as an empty tomb, people dying who wouldn't "die for a lie", etc.), the same evidence used by Nick and other Christian apologists today, is a very strong argument for our assertion that the Christian evidence is poor...without...a personal "heavenly vision" from Jesus to each one of us.

Would any of you mind commenting?

I do not think Saul saw any of such evidence. What makes you think he did?

[One Bad Pig]

I'd like to thank Gary for mostly ignoring me.

[Gary]

". . . And Joseph taking the body wrapped it up in a clean linen cloth: And laid it in his own new monument, which he had hewed out in a rock. And he rolled a great stone to the door of the monument and went his way. And there was there Mary Magdalen and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre. And the next day, which followed the day of preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees came together to Pilate, Saying: Sir, we have remembered, that that seducer said, while he was yet alive: After three days I will rise again. Command therefore the sepulchre to be guarded until the third day: lest perhaps his disciples come and steal him away and say to the people: He is risen from the dead. And the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate saith to them: You have a guard. Go, guard it as you know. And they departing, made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone and setting guards."



Interesting. So are you supposing that Sabbath night they came and took the body?


I do not think Saul saw any of such evidence. What makes you think he did?

None of us can know for sure what happened that night, so we are left dealing in probabilities and improbabilities based on whatever evidence we have, evidence which in this case, are four anonymous books written decades after the event. So which is more probable:

1. Someone (Jew/Roman/pagan/non-disciple/disciple) steals the body of the "King of the Jews" on the Jewish Passover.
2. An ancient middle-eastern god reanimates the dead and decomposing flesh of a first century Jewish prophet.

[Gary]

". . . And Joseph taking the body wrapped it up in a clean linen cloth: And laid it in his own new monument, which he had hewed out in a rock. And he rolled a great stone to the door of the monument and went his way. And there was there Mary Magdalen and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre. And the next day, which followed the day of preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees came together to Pilate, Saying: Sir, we have remembered, that that seducer said, while he was yet alive: After three days I will rise again. Command therefore the sepulchre to be guarded until the third day: lest perhaps his disciples come and steal him away and say to the people: He is risen from the dead. And the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate saith to them: You have a guard. Go, guard it as you know. And they departing, made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone and setting guards



Interesting. So are you supposing that Sabbath night they came and took the body?


I do not think Saul saw any of such evidence. What makes you think he did?

Do you think Saul knew of an empty tomb claim?

[Gary]

One Bad Pig: I apologize. Please repost your question.

[Pentecost]

Before I leave this website, I would be curious to know how "Little Joe", other moderators, or any Christian who has not yet left a comment on this thread views my statement about Saul. I went to a popular skeptic website and they agreed with me that my argument for Saul's non-belief (unbelief after seeing most of the Christian evidence first hand, such as an empty tomb, people dying who wouldn't "die for a lie", etc.), the same evidence used by Nick and other Christian apologists today, is a very strong argument for our assertion that the Christian evidence is poor...without...a personal "heavenly vision" from Jesus to each one of us.

Would any of you mind commenting?

Please correct me kindly if I'm wrong, but your position is that Saul had all the same evidence presented to him that Nick has presented to you and because Saul didn't believe until an obviously (to his mind) supernatural event occurred to him that you should not believe until a similar experience has happened to you?
---
From my point of view, the Pharisaic tradition (from which modern Orhodox Judaism largely descends) had a false understanding of the OT Scriptures, which was a theme in the Gospels when they and the Sadduces challenged Jesus' teachings, and had them turned on their head, not by Jesus making null OT teachings which would have made him a heretic in their eyes, but instead Jesus interpreted the Hebrew Scriptures in a way they did not understand. Saul was a Pharisee and would have held to their "traditional" understandings, and so was prejudiced against the claims that Jesus was the Messiah, and did not allow himself a rational understanding of the events around him.

And that's from an academic level, there were also political issues (Jesus' was convicted of sedition), emotional issues (giving up the comfortable and widely held view for a minority view), and even up to a certain point Saul participated in killing Christians.

There are many very good reasons for Saul to ignore or persecute Christians and not look at the evidence objectively. It has been a while since I've used syllogism (and I'm on mobile) so if below I make a mistake please forgive it and point it out.

1. (Given) Saul was not convinced by the evidence you were given, and he is rational.
2. (Given) You are not convinced by the evidence you were given, and you are rational.
3. (Given) Saul changed his mind after a supposed supernatural event.
4. Because you are both rational, what applies to Saul's chain of reasoning applies to your chain of reasoning.
5. Therefore (from 3 and 4) it is reasonable for you to not change your mind without a supernatural event.

I have sought to demonstrate that (1.) is contested because Saul had reasons not to examine the evidence, and I find it more reasonable to think that he did not examine the evidence until the supposed supernatural event than that he did.

Of course this is not the reason you have for discounting the Resurrection as you've said that it's simply a lack of evidence and only meant to use Saul as an example of someone who would agree with you that the available evidence was not strong enough then, and still isn't strong enough now. If I'm recalling my informal fallacies correctly then you've committed the Historian's Fallacy by assuming the same standards of evidence between now and nearly 2000 years ago, as well as a Red Herring because this is practically off topic anyways.

As an aside, that William guy seems perfectly delightful, and someone I would like to see on TWeb more.

I also support Boxing Pythagoras debating someone, Nick being a possibility. BP is a smart guy and generally affable from what I've seen.

[Abigail]

Again, what does this prove? Saul may have not known why the tomb was empty, but if an empty tomb existed as Christians were claiming (if the Gospel accounts are true), he had to consider the Christian claim of a resurrection as a possibility, and he obviously didn't buy this as a reasonable possibility. He continued persecuting and executing Christians regardless. "Would not die or a lie" did not fly with Saul.

He was resistant, but if you read the accounts it seems he also became unsettled by the Christians and his own behaviour towards them. Acts 26:14 "...Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads. The most natural reading is that Saul probably would have become a Christian in the ordinary way because he was facing deliberations of sorts. His dramatic ripening through revelation was most likely because it validated that he had been set aside for special work ie apostle to the Gentiles.

[Adrift]

Adrift: So what you are saying is that the Resurrection story needed to mature before it became believable?

No.

[Adrift]

Please correct me kindly if I'm wrong, but your position is that Saul had all the same evidence presented to him that Nick has presented to you and because Saul didn't believe until an obviously (to his mind) supernatural event occurred to him that you should not believe until a similar experience has happened to you?
---
From my point of view, the Pharisaic tradition (from which modern Orhodox Judaism largely descends) had a false understanding of the OT Scriptures, which was a theme in the Gospels when they and the Sadduces challenged Jesus' teachings, and had them turned on their head, not by Jesus making null OT teachings which would have made him a heretic in their eyes, but instead Jesus interpreted the Hebrew Scriptures in a way they did not understand. Saul was a Pharisee and would have held to their "traditional" understandings, and so was prejudiced against the claims that Jesus was the Messiah, and did not allow himself a rational understanding of the events around him.

And that's from an academic level, there were also political issues (Jesus' was convicted of sedition), emotional issues (giving up the comfortable and widely held view for a minority view), and even up to a certain point Saul participated in killing Christians.

There are many very good reasons for Saul to ignore or persecute Christians and not look at the evidence objectively. It has been a while since I've used syllogism (and I'm on mobile) so if below I make a mistake please forgive it and point it out.

1. (Given) Saul was not convinced by the evidence you were given, and he is rational.
2. (Given) You are not convinced by the evidence you were given, and you are rational.
3. (Given) Saul changed his mind after a supposed supernatural event.
4. Because you are both rational, what applies to Saul's chain of reasoning applies to your chain of reasoning.
5. Therefore (from 3 and 4) it is reasonable for you to not change your mind without a supernatural event.

I have sought to demonstrate that (1.) is contested because Saul had reasons not to examine the evidence, and I find it more reasonable to think that he did not examine the evidence until the supposed supernatural event than that he did.

Of course this is not the reason you have for discounting the Resurrection as you've said that it's simply a lack of evidence and only meant to use Saul as an example of someone who would agree with you that the available evidence was not strong enough then, and still isn't strong enough now. If I'm recalling my informal fallacies correctly then you've committed the Historian's Fallacy by assuming the same standards of evidence between now and nearly 2000 years ago, as well as a Red Herring because this is practically off topic anyways.

As an aside, that William guy seems perfectly delightful, and someone I would like to see on TWeb more.

I also support Boxing Pythagoras debating someone, Nick being a possibility. BP is a smart guy and generally affable from what I've seen.

Yep. This was pretty much my point in pointing out that after being blinded Paul was directed to Ananias' house, and then spent several days with the disciples at Damascus.

[Sparko]

Exactly! Educated people should not believe this supernatural tale unless we see Jesus in a vision first.

Well then you should believe because you are not educated. You remind me of Firstfloor, another member here. A total idiot.

[Sparko]

I think Paul started writing in the 50's and after he died churches began writing down stories about Jesus there after in the following decades. Basing the dating on the temple destruction really isn't good methodology. It could have been a prophecy or could have been Christians living later trying to make appear as though that Jesus had predicted it.

Well Paul does quote Luke's gospel, and Luke's gospel use parts of some of the other gospels, so that would mean that Paul and Luke were traveling together when the synoptic gospels were already written. So we are back in the 50's and 60's.

[Sparko]

I'd like to thank Gary for mostly ignoring me.

Why not? He mostly ignored Nick in the actual debate.

PS - I agree with Pentecost, I like William and I hope he sticks around. Gary on the other hand is basically an smug idiot, much like Firstfloor.

[rogue06]

I think Paul started writing in the 50's and after he died churches began writing down stories about Jesus there after in the following decades. Basing the dating on the temple destruction really isn't good methodology. It could have been a prophecy or could have been Christians living later trying to make appear as though that Jesus had predicted it.

Keep in mind that many of those who witnessed what Jesus said and did along with those who heard what the apostles said when they first went out spreading the news were still around during this time. If people just simply started "writing down stories about Jesus" that weren't true these witnesses would have noticed and called them out on them. The Gospels would have been rejected as fiction rather than being accepted.