Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[William]

Given his faith designation says Christian, he definitely believes there is more evidence for Jesus. I may not know much about Mormonism, but I spent quite a bit of time studying Islam. All self taught, but I learned a lot over the years. Gary hasn't a clue how Islam started, and the evidence involved in it. Many of the criticisms he's hurled at Christianity apply more so to Islam. Especially textual integrity.

because one if christian and find more evidence for Jesus doesn't mean that said christain actually knows the evidence or has looked beyond their present faith.

I am no longer a christian, so I obviously found the evidence lacking at some point, and isn't this why we have the discussion?

[Apologiaphoenix]

I am willing to discuss the claim of the Resurrection based on accepting the positions of the majority of NT scholars, but for some reason, now Nick is not so sure of himself. If we accept the positions of the majority of NT scholars, this is what Nick and I would be forced to agree upon:

1. Jesus was a real person in first century Palestine, crucified by the Romans.
2. Shortly after his death, his tomb was found empty.
3. Very soon after his crucifixion, Christians believed in a bodily resurrection of Jesus.
4. Very soon after his crucifixion, Christians claimed that the resurrected Jesus had appeared to multiple people.
5. Early Christians were willing to die for their belief in a Resurrection.
6. Paul, a Jewish Pharisee, converted to Christianity due to a heavenly vision on the Damascus Road.
7. Paul wrote at least seven, maybe thirteen, epistles after his conversion. Most scholars believe these epistles were written in the 50's and possibly early 60's.
8. The first of the four Gospels, Mark, was written in the period 65-75 AD, most probably not by an eyewitness, nor an associate of any eyewitness.
9. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written approximately 70-90 AD, and both borrow heavily from the Gospel of Mark. Most scholars do not believe that these gospels were written by eyewitnesses either (Luke says he wasn't.)
10. The last gospel, John, was written in the last decades of the first century or the first few decades of the second, and most scholars do not believe that this gospel was written by an eyewitness.

Nick: Can we agree to assume the above as the accepted evidence and move forward in our discussion? If not, why not? You said that even if the above is true, it wouldn't hurt your case and I said that the inclusion of the empty tomb would not hurt my case. So shall we proceed?

Gary. The sad thing is that my case in the debate never relied on the Gospels and you've based it entirely on the Gospels. Grant all of these as true and I have zero problem whatsoever. I have a scenario that easily explains all the data and only requires taht God exists and wants to raise Jesus from the dead. Add in that I have the honor-shame motif working in my favor.

If you had a response to this, why did you not give it earlier? Every time you've had a "just-so" scenario, I've presented a problem with the scenario and you ignore it and don't answer it.

[Gary]

Gary. The sad thing is that my case in the debate never relied on the Gospels and you've based it entirely on the Gospels. Grant all of these as true and I have zero problem whatsoever. I have a scenario that easily explains all the data and only requires taht God exists and wants to raise Jesus from the dead. Add in that I have the honor-shame motif working in my favor.

If you had a response to this, why did you not give it earlier? Every time you've had a "just-so" scenario, I've presented a problem with the scenario and you ignore it and don't answer it.

My "majority of scholars" evidence does NOT only include information from the Gospels. If you review the list, it includes Paul and his seven epistles (which would include I Corinthians 15) in that evidence. Please read my entire statements before brushing them aside with rash generalizations.

Ok. So we've agreed on the base evidence. Now, would you concisely present your argument in brief below based upon this base evidence. (Not a full page discussion).

[Apologiaphoenix]

My "majority of scholars" evidence does NOT only include information from the Gospels. If you review the list, it includes Paul and his seven epistles (which would include I Corinthians 15) in that evidence. Please read my entire statements before brushing them aside with rash generalizations.

Ok. So we've agreed on the base evidence. Now, would you concisely present your argument in brief below based upon this base evidence. (Not a full page discussion).

I didn't brush it aside.

What would my argument be?

Read the first post of the debate. Still the same.

[Gary]

I didn't brush it aside.

What would my argument be?

Read the first post of the debate. Still the same.

[Gary]

[Apologiaphoenix]

Nick: "Jesus of Nazareth underwent Jewish and Roman trials, was flogged, and was sentenced to death by crucifixion. The scourging produced deep stripelike lacerations and appreciable blood loss, and it probably set the stage for hypovolemic shock, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus was too weakened to carry the crossbar (patibulum) to Golgotha. At the site of crucifixion, his wrists were nailed to the patibulum and, after the patibulum was lifted onto the upright post (stipes), his feet were nailed to the stipes. The major pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion was an interference with normal respirations. Accordingly, death resulted primarily from hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia. Jesus' death was ensured by the thrust of a soldier's spear into his side. Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross."

The assertion that Jesus was so hypovolemic that he could not carry his own cross, and, the claim that a soldier thrust a spear into his side is hearsay. We have no corroboration for these claims other than from the documents under scrutiny; the documents for which we are trying to prove their reliability and historical accuracy (the Gospels. Paul of Tarsus never mentions these details).

Do you want to really argue that Jesus did survive the cross somehow?

Also, do you know why hearsay is unusable in a court of law?

[Gary]

Do you want to really argue that Jesus did survive the cross somehow?

Also, do you know why hearsay is unusable in a court of law?

Nick, give me about a half an hour to reply to your entire post. I don't know how to intersperse my comments with yours. That is why I asked you to be brief.

[Cerebrum123]

"According to the traditional Islamic view, the Qur'an (Koran) began with revelations to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel in 610. The history of the Qur'an began when its verses were revealed to the Muhammad. The rise of Islam began around the time Muslims took flight in the Hijra, moving to Medina."

Please explain where I contradicted these accepted historical facts about Islam.

Wait, you're taking their word for it on Jibreel(the Arabic version of Gabriel) now? Which is it, are you going with the "traditional view", or that supported by history?

The first biographical material we have for Mohammed is written over 100 years after he died. Wasn't that one of your major problems with the Gospels, that they were written late? Even then all we have about him is the Quran and Hadith.

The Quran has some major textual problems. Unlike the Gospels it was not a written work. It was a huge collection of leaflets written by Mohammed's followers. According to the ahadith(plural hadith) some of the ayyah were lost. Then you have the time that Caliph Uthman had all copies and variants that existed burned with the exception of his official version. We don't have the kind of manuscript evidence for the Quran that we do the NT.

Then we have the Sahih(meaning authentic) Hadith. There are several collections. The most popular being Sahih al-Bukhari, and Sahih Muslim. The Hadith are basically narratives about Mohammed and his life. Many, many more than are "Sahih" are either apocryphal or totally bogus. Out of 600,000 traditions, only a little over 7,000 were even accepted into a category that wasn't totally false. Among those only 3,000 to 4,000 were accepted as "Sahih". The rest were considered "weak"(basically apocryphal).

So, basically you're comparing apples and oranges as far as textual transmission and reliability.

[Cerebrum123]

because one if christian and find more evidence for Jesus doesn't mean that said christain actually knows the evidence or has looked beyond their present faith.

I am no longer a christian, so I obviously found the evidence lacking at some point, and isn't this why we have the discussion?

You asked what OBP's stance was in that post. I answered. You're getting kind of nitpicky right now.

[Gary]

[Gary]

Nick: "I also want to add in that there were a number of shameful aspects about Christianity. These were so shameful that Christianity should have never got off the ground in an honor-shame culture.

For instance, Jesus was crucified. This would make Jesus someone you would not want to talk about over the dinner table any more than you talk about convicted pedophiles at the dinner table. In fact, to quote Bart Ehrman: Christians who wanted to proclaim Jesus as messiah would not have invented the notion that he was crucified because his crucifixion created such a scandal. Indeed, the apostle Paul calls it the chief "stumbling block" for Jews (1 Cor. 1:23). Where did the tradition come from? It must have actually happened. (Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Third Edition. pages 221-222)

Gary: I do not question the historicity of the crucifixion, only the bodily resurrection claim.

Nick: "Christianity was also a new belief system. In a modern individualistic society, new is good. We like novelty. We like people thinking outside the box. Not so back then. Again, Ehrman on page 312 of the above work says to recall that in the ancient world, if something was old, it was venerable. Robert Louis Wilken points out the same in The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. Older was better because the older people were closer to the gods and their wisdom survived the test of time so surely we should allow it.

In fact, this is why the Roman Empire granted toleration to the Jews and allowed them to not sacrifice to or worship the emperor, provided they did both of those things for him. When the early church began doing its evangelism, they tried to show that their belief was neither new nor strange and often wanted to argue that they were teaching the religion of Moses. After all, the new was viewed with suspicion.

Gary: I do not contest that it would be very odd for any first century Jew to believe in a dying/rising Messiah, especially a crucified one.

Nick: "Christianity also taught a bodily resurrection. This sounds really nice to a lot of us today, but not so back then. Crossan and Reed in In Search of Paul point out that resurrection would be like returning to the shackles of prison again. At the end of Phaedo, Socrates asks that a cock be sent to the god of healing at his death. Why? Because he is being released from the prison of the body. Were Christianity changing the story to be more legendary as it went out into the pagan world, it would have dropped this belief and gone with more of a spiritual resurrection, which would have been just fine with Gnosticism."

Gary: Neither me nor most skeptics believe that the Christians made this stuff up. We believe that the early Christians sincerely believed that there had been a bodily resurrection, and, that this belief gave them great courage to boldly preach the message of Jesus. However, we contend that it is more probable that first century Jews came to this conclusion based on a mistake or several mistakes (false sightings, visions, rumors based on the supernatural---"I saw a figure in the fog last night. I think it was Jesus."), than that an actual dead body was reanimated by an ancient middle-eastern deity. Let me re-emphasize this point: MOST SKEPTICS DO NOT BELEIVE THAT EARLY CHRISTIANS MADE THIS STUFF UP TO DECEIVE.

Nick: Christianity had a high ethical system as well. Question. Before examining the evidences for the belief system, which one sounds better to you? Is it one that calls you to die to yourself, to not be attached to worldly wealth, to forgive those who wrong you and to not seek to do harm by your own means and to keep sexual activity only between husband and wife in a marital union, or one that allows you to live life as you see fit provided you follow a through rituals from time to time?

Gary: If the Gospel stories are historically accurate, the disciples of Jesus had already accepted poverty, pacifism, and sexual morality, and for some, chastity, as a way of life. Therefore, if one is convinced by false sightings, visions, and supernatural claims that Jesus has risen, and is the Messiah (and/or God in some sense), it would only seem natural to adopt the lifestyle of the disciples. Once again, I do not think the Christians were lying. They genuinely (but incorrectly, in my opinion) believed a dead man had been reanimated by an ancient deity and this was a dramatic, life-altering event for them. I agree, I do not believe that first century Jews would do all this for something they believed was a lie.

(More later tonight)

[Apologiaphoenix]

Gary: It is noteworthy that we have several ALLEGED group appearances. Let's leave out the Gospels, as per Nick's request, and only concentrate on Paul. Paul states that the appearance of Jesus to him was personal, not as a group. His alleged traveling companions may have heard a sound or seen a light (depending which version, in which chapter of Acts you read) but Paul does not allege that his companions saw Jesus or heard him speak. Paul recounts a list of witnesses in I Corinthians, but he recounts it not as if he is listing people he has interviewed to confirm their story, but as if he is reciting a Creed. How do we know Paul verified this information? The list of witnesses is oddly out of order and even incorrect. Cephas is not listed as the first witness in the four Gospels or in Acts.

You know why it sounds like he's reciting a creed?

Because....he....is....

I have stated numerous times that this is a creed that Paul received and existed prior to him. How do we know he verified this information? Because he tells us. He spent two weeks with Peter and the Greek word used is historeo. It's the word of a historical inquiry. As for order, if the list is supposedly incorrect and goes against the GOspels, we go with the list first.

And when Paul recites (as part of a Creed which he has received second, third, or fourth hand) that five hundred witnesses saw the resurrected Jesus at the same time and the same place, how do we know that Paul has interviewed a single one of these people? Maybe Paul is just reciting a list of witnesses that he was TOLD was true, but Paul never verified it. And when Paul says that some or most are still alive, again, is this first hand knowledge or second/third/fourth hand information? Bottom line: we don't know.

Also, there is more than one group appearance in the text.

How do we know? Because he knows them. He knows them well enough that he knows some of them have fallen asleep. Also, all of these people would be known to the Christian community. An investigator would come to Jerusalem and be told "Oh. You want to speak to a witness? Well here's one of them." This is seen as apostolic tradition that Paul got directly from the source. Again, I don't know any scholar that denies that the disciples had experiences of appearances and that group appearances took place. Even Ludemann tries to explain it and the explanation he used he has since abandoned.

Really, you're only showing you don't know how to do history.

Neither me nor most skeptics believe that the Christians made this stuff up. We believe that the early Christians sincerely believed that there had been a bodily resurrection, and, that this belief gave them great courage to boldly preach the message of Jesus. However, we contend that it is more probable that first century Jews came to this conclusion based on a mistake or several mistakes (false sightings, visions, rumors based on the supernatural---"I saw a figure in the fog last night. I think it was Jesus."), than that an actual dead body was reanimated by an ancient middle-eastern deity. Let me re-emphasize this point: MOST SKEPTICS DO NOT BELEIVE THAT EARLY CHRISTIANS MADE THIS STUFF UP TO DECEIVE.

Actually, this isn't so. Most skeptics I know of think the early church taught a spiritual resurrection and then it became a bodily one later on. Were they changing the story, they would have the resurrection become more and more spiritual. THat never happened. Now why did the Christians not change the story? Because they couldn't. You can say they were mistaken, but you've never given a plausible scenario. (And again, I do not hold to this supernatural/natural dichotomy so for the life of me I don't know why you keep speaking about supernatural things over and over.)

If the Gospel stories are historically accurate, the disciples of Jesus had already accepted poverty, pacifism, and sexual morality, and for some, chastity, as a way of life. Therefore, if one is convinced by false sightings, visions, and supernatural claims that Jesus has risen, and is the Messiah (and/or God in some sense), it would only seem natural to adopt the lifestyle of the disciples. Once again, I do not think the Christians were lying. They genuinely (but incorrectly, in my opinion) believed a dead man had been reanimated by an ancient deity and this was a dramatic, life-altering event for them. I agree, I do not believe that first century Jews would do all this for something they believed was a lie.

Except my argument is about the movement getting on past the disciples. Why would Gentiles take this on willingly when there were numerous other mystery religions around?

[Gary]

You know why it sounds like he's reciting a creed?

Because....he....is....

I have stated numerous times that this is a creed that Paul received and existed prior to him. How do we know he verified this information? Because he tells us. He spent two weeks with Peter and the Greek word used is historeo. It's the word of a historical inquiry. As for order, if the list is supposedly incorrect and goes against the GOspels, we go with the list first.



Also, there is more than one group appearance in the text.

How do we know? Because he knows them. He knows them well enough that he knows some of them have fallen asleep. Also, all of these people would be known to the Christian community. An investigator would come to Jerusalem and be told "Oh. You want to speak to a witness? Well here's one of them." This is seen as apostolic tradition that Paul got directly from the source. Again, I don't know any scholar that denies that the disciples had experiences of appearances and that group appearances took place. Even Ludemann tries to explain it and the explanation he used he has since abandoned.

Really, you're only showing you don't know how to do history.



Actually, this isn't so. Most skeptics I know of think the early church taught a spiritual resurrection and then it became a bodily one later on. Were they changing the story, they would have the resurrection become more and more spiritual. THat never happened. Now why did the Christians not change the story? Because they couldn't. You can say they were mistaken, but you've never given a plausible scenario. (And again, I do not hold to this supernatural/natural dichotomy so for the life of me I don't know why you keep speaking about supernatural things over and over.)



Except my argument is about the movement getting on past the disciples. Why would Gentiles take this on willingly when there were numerous other mystery religions around?

Nick: "You know why it sounds like he's reciting a creed?

Because....he....is....

I have stated numerous times that this is a creed that Paul received and existed prior to him. How do we know he verified this information? Because he tells us. He spent two weeks with Peter and the Greek word used is historeo.

Gary: Keep your pants on Nick, I stated above that I agree with you that the witness list in I Corinthians is a Creed. I'm not pretending to make a shocking announcement to you about this.

Now, your claim that "Paul tells us that he had verified the Creed in I Corinthians because he spent two weeks with Peter and James" is a very, very important claim, in my humble opinion. It is this very claim to which I clung for almost four months before deconverting from Christianity. "SURELY Paul was given the list of witnesses when he met with Peter and James. SURELY Paul discussed the "Jesus" that he had seen on the Damascus Road with Peter and James. SURELY Peter and James quizzed Paul about his claim of apostleship and his claim of seeing Jesus. And, SURELY Paul received the Creed in I Corinthians from Peter and James, two eyewitnesses."

"It is just impossible that any of these "SURELY'S" are false assumptions," I smugly thought to myself as I fended off the atheists with whom I was debating the veracity of the Resurrection claims.

But, Nick, "surely" and "probably" are not the same as fact. I know that this point is very hard for Christians to contemplate, but what are other possibilities here:

1. Paul, James, and Peter had too many other issues to discuss during those two weeks regarding pressing issues in the Church, especially the issue of Gentiles keeping the Law. Maybe they didn't discuss the witness list.
2. Paul's descriptions of his interactions with the Eleven are usually marked with controversy and outright dispute. Maybe Peter, Paul, and James spent the entire two weeks arguing, not discussing witnesses to an event that all three already believed to be fact.
3. Paul lied. Paul never spent two weeks with Peter and James. He fabricated this story to reinforce his claim of being the thirteenth apostle. No one but Paul refers to Paul as an apostle. Why would Jesus need a THIRTEENTH apostle, when he already had 12 apostles whom he had already commissioned to go out into the entire world and preach his message. why would Jesus need a "missionary to the Gentiles" when he had already sent 12 apostles to the gentiles (the world)?? Maybe Paul was mentally ill and invented this story.

"Preposterous!" Christians will say.

Yes, but preposterous is not impossible, is it?

Prior to David Petraeus, I assumed, and never thought possible, that the top general of the US military and the head of the CIA would give national secrets to his mistress. But he did, didn't he?

Nick: "Also, there is more than one group appearance in the text. How do we know? Because he knows them. He knows them well enough that he knows some of them have fallen asleep."

Gary: Let's look at the Creed from I Corinthians 15:

"For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[d] 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.' --Paul of Tarsus

So let's list the appearances:

1. Cephas
2. The Twelve (I thought Judas was dead and the new apostle wasn't chosen until after the Ascension?? Oh well, they were probably using a euphemism....)
3. The Five Hundred
4. James
5. All the apostles
6. Paul

"All the apostles"??? Weren't the Twelve/Eleven the apostles?? Did Paul mean that Jesus appeared to the Twelve again?

Weird!

Sounds more to me that Paul was just rattling off a Creed, a Creed which he had never verified. But that is just my humble opinion.

"Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[d]" This is still part of the Creed! The same Creed that has Paul referring to the Eleven as "the Twelve" and calling the original eleven disciples both the "Twelve" and the "Apostles". Believe what you want, but I don't believe that Paul verified any of this information. If he had of, the Creed wouldn't be so awkward, and down right bizarre.

I can't prove Paul didn't verify the facts in this Creed, but Nick cannot prove that he did. We must resort to probabilities, once again.

Nick: "Actually, this isn't so. Most skeptics I know of think the early church taught a spiritual resurrection and then it became a bodily one later on. Were they changing the story, they would have the resurrection become more and more spiritual. THat never happened. Now why did the Christians not change the story? Because they couldn't. You can say they were mistaken, but you've never given a plausible scenario. (And again, I do not hold to this supernatural/natural dichotomy so for the life of me I don't know why you keep speaking about supernatural things over and over.)"

Gary: Well, I guess I should not try to speak for all skeptics, but the ones I read, in particular Bart Ehrman, believe that early Christians believed in a bodily resurrection. Do you dispute Ehrman's position on this issue?

Nick: "Except my argument is about the movement getting on past the disciples. Why would Gentiles take this on willingly when there were numerous other mystery religions around?"

Gary: My contention is that most (not all) of the converts to Christianity were poor and uneducated in the first century. What did Christianity offer that might be appealing to people of this class:

1. Equality
Masters, Freemen, Slaves, Men, Women, Gentiles, and Jews were all equal in this belief system.

2. Justice
One may not receive justice in this life, but one would receive justice in the next. The righteous will be rewarded and the "wicked" oppressors, punished. This must have appealed to a lot of people living under the boot of the Roman Empire.

3. Riches
You might not get rich in this life by joining the Christian movement, but you were promised, by the leader himself, a mansion of gold, a crown of jewels, and streets lined with gold.

For people living in poverty, misery, and oppression under the Romans, this must have been very appealing.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Nick: "You know why it sounds like he's reciting a creed?

Because....he....is....

I have stated numerous times that this is a creed that Paul received and existed prior to him. How do we know he verified this information? Because he tells us. He spent two weeks with Peter and the Greek word used is historeo.

Gary: Keep your pants on Nick, I stated above that I agree with you that the witness list in I Corinthians is a Creed. I'm not pretending to make a shocking announcement to you about this.

Now, your claim that "Paul tells us that he had verified the Creed in I Corinthians because he spent two weeks with Peter and James" is a very, very important claim, in my humble opinion. It is this very claim to which I clung for almost four months before deconverting from Christianity. "SURELY Paul was given the list of witnesses when he met with Peter and James. SURELY Paul discussed the "Jesus" that he had seen on the Damascus Road with Peter and James. SURELY Peter and James quizzed Paul about his claim of apostleship and his claim of seeing Jesus. And, SURELY Paul received the Creed in I Corinthians from Peter and James, two eyewitnesses."

"It is just impossible that any of these "SURELY'S" are false assumptions," I smugly thought to myself as I fended off the atheists with whom I was debating the veracity of the Resurrection claims.

But, Nick, "surely" and "probably" are not the same as fact. I know that this point is very hard for Christians to contemplate, but what are other possibilities here:

1. Paul, James, and Peter had too many other issues to discuss during those two weeks regarding pressing issues in the Church, especially the issue of Gentiles keeping the Law. Maybe they didn't discuss the witness list.

Yep. Too many issues so Paul never once bothered to get the facts of Jesus's life. Considering we have also a Lord's Supper tradition from them, I think we can safely say Paul verified the claims that he was preaching and since he received this testimony from the apostles, they would have discussed it to make sure he understood the creed and agreed with it.

2. Paul's descriptions of his interactions with the Eleven are usually marked with controversy and outright dispute. Maybe Peter, Paul, and James spent the entire two weeks arguing, not discussing witnesses to an event that all three already believed to be fact.

Maybe they spent the two weeks going fishing and never discussing anything. Why should I believe any of this?

3. Paul lied. Paul never spent two weeks with Peter and James. He fabricated this story to reinforce his claim of being the thirteenth apostle. No one but Paul refers to Paul as an apostle. Why would Jesus need a THIRTEENTH apostle, when he already had 12 apostles whom he had already commissioned to go out into the entire world and preach his message. why would Jesus need a "missionary to the Gentiles" when he had already sent 12 apostles to the gentiles (the world)?? Maybe Paul was mentally ill and invented this story.

Paul's reputation is on the line with the Galatian church. He's not going to share a story that anybody can say is wrong.

"Preposterous!" Christians will say.

No. That's your line.

Yes, but preposterous is not impossible, is it?

Prior to David Petraeus, I assumed, and never thought possible, that the top general of the US military and the head of the CIA would give national secrets to his mistress. But he did, didn't he?

A seed of doubt is not enough. You need a theory that is in fact plausible and let's also say, let's suppose Paul didn't check the claims. The creed exists and is accurate whether or not Paul verified it.