Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by William View PostAbigail, but we have no extraordinary evidence, do we? what you have listed as the extraordinary evidence was no doubt extraordinarily convincing to those who might have seen it,Originally posted by Williambut we haven't seen it.
Originally posted by WilliamThe claim that man came back to life is just extraordinary as the claim that he was the son of god.
Originally posted by WilliamYou'd have to admit, that at the very least it is more common for people to either lie or be mistaken about something and to believe in a falsehood than it is for people to come back to life, right? And that is putting it lightly.
Comment
-
I believed that Nick had agreed to "Round Two" of our debate, accepting the premise that I would accept the empty tomb claim and he would accept the majority opinion on the authorship and the dating of the Gospels, based on this statement by Nick, comment #452:
"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 I misunderstood Nick, I apologize.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostI believed that Nick had agreed to "Round Two" of our debate, accepting the premise that I would accept the empty tomb claim and he would accept the majority opinion on the authorship and the dating of the Gospels, based on this statement by Nick, comment #452:
"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 I misunderstood Nick, I apologize.
Comment
-
Nick, thank you for your input.
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostA problem here is Jesus does not match a zealot at all in the Gospels. There have been a small handful of scholars who have tried to say Jesus as a zealot and I don't mean Reza Aslan, but it's never really caught on. This is something that reminds me that Schweitzer said that in the quest for the historical Jesus, it's amazing that so many people who studied had a Jesus that looked just like them. In Five Views on the Historical Jesus, for instance, Crossan argues a kind of Jesus that was peace and love and toned things down after John the Baptist's Death. Problem I see here is this is not a Jesus worth crucifying.
I'm concerned at this point because I really see no grounds for thinking the empty tomb is an invention. For one thing, it too was something shameful. People could make up false details, but not shameful ones. It passes then the criteria of embarrassment and of multiple attestation.
This kind of thing didn't happen. Jesus was seen as a blasphemer at this point. In fact, I've contested Gary Habermas on this point when we were talking and he said could we consider the disciples' undergoing grief as a certainty? I said no. They could have just as well been experiencing anger. They spent about three years of their lives undergoing shame and ridicule for this guy and he turned out to be a phony and they were laughingstocks.
And why would he do that?
This also assumes Jesus spoke about His return. It's very rare to see that happening. He spoke about His coming often, but not as much is said about His return. Also, these are people making a major major life change. They will want to make absolutely sure before they abandon Torah and go against Rome. Furthermore, what about James, the brother of Jesus?
The earliest followers may not have been abandoning the Torah and going against Rome. Perhaps they were an early version of the Ebionites. James may have decided to lead the Jerusalem church after his brother was out of the picture. Are you wondering why James was not one of the twelve? I suppose there could have been a personal matter between the two men.
Except this doesn't match the time frame. Consider Paul next. Paul could have been converted within one year of the event. Note also this all happens soon.
“The only thing that we can certainly say to be historical is that there were resurrection appearances in Galilee (and in Jerusalem) soon after Jesus’s death. These appearances cannot be denied” (Gerd Ludemann. .”What Really Happened To Jesus?” p. 81)
“We can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that . . . he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead.” (Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, pg 230).
“That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.” (E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, pg 280)
“That the experiences did occur, even if they are explained in purely natural terms, is a fact upon which both believer and unbeliever can agree.” (Reginald H. Fuller, Foundations of New Testament Christology, 142)
We have some autobiographical material from Paul. None of it matches this. In every case, it's about Jesus appearing to him and revealing Himself to Paul.
This also doesn't match. Galatians has the right hand of fellowship and if 2 Peter is from Peter, Peter accepted Paul entirely. Clement of Rome was Peter's loyal disciple and he spoke glowingly of Paul.
The problem is there were a lot of prophecies that were in no way Messianic and yet the Christians used them. Also, if these were written in such a timeframe, they amazingly speak regularly on subjects of no relevance to the church and are absolutely silent on matters that are relevant to the church. Nothing from Jesus on circumcision or meat offered to idols or other great controversies. There's a whole lot about Jesus as the Son of Man (not used in the epistles) and about the relationship of Jesus to the temple.
It could be, but this doesn't at all convince me.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dave View PostNick, thank you for your input.
I think you're right. There is probably a better explanation for the crucifixion. Perhaps there were a lot of accusations from jealous Jewish leaders or perhaps a lot of people were referring to him as the king of the Jews.
I think part of the deal that sealed it for them was what Jesus did in the Temple. You could say Jesus signed his death certificate when He did that one. I also think Bart Ehrman could be right when he says one of the things Judas might have done is gone to the leadership and said that when Jesus is with His followers, He talks about being the Messiah.
I think the empty tomb story being an invention is at least worth considering. I'm not sure how shameful it would be to invent this story. Being given a proper tomb seems like a step up from perhaps having no record of burial (hypothetically).
He was seen as a blasphemer by the Jewish authorities most likely, but perhaps not by his disciples. Yes, they could have been angry instead of grieving. That's a possibility too.
Well, I am just theorizing, but perhaps Peter thought Jesus was the messiah because Jesus thought this of himself. It may have been suggested by some followers and was entertained as a possibility and eventually believed.
If Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher as some have called him then there would definitely be some expectation that something big was going to happen. Peter might expect Jesus to be a part of that. Or perhaps the dream Peter had was enough to convince him Jesus was still alive and things were still in motion.
The earliest followers may not have been abandoning the Torah and going against Rome. Perhaps they were an early version of the Ebionites. James may have decided to lead the Jerusalem church after his brother was out of the picture. Are you wondering why James was not one of the twelve? I suppose there could have been a personal matter between the two men.
Thank you, that's a good point. Is it possible that Paul only received the creed when he visited Jerusalem? If we believe Galations 1:15-19 then this was 3 years after his conversion. I suppose this will come down to how much we trust the accounts given in Acts.
Yes, this is another excellent point. I would say it's possible (in my hypothetical scenario) that Paul thinks his revelation (great idea) has been given to him directly from God. I also think there could have been several disciples who lied and claimed to have seen Jesus just because they wanted to be considered important or because nothing they said would be taken seriously otherwise and this may have been the case with Paul.
I think if they end up agreeing with each other it could be that Peter and the others realize Paul is pretty much unstoppable and it's better to be with him then against him. They still may have disagreed on details like what burdens should be placed on gentiles and such, but ultimately stayed on good terms.
So I guess you would push for earlier dates on the gospels? That certainly would change things up. Yes, there are some non-messianic prophecies included by the gospel writers and this could also signify that the authors were looking for quantity over quality. I'm not sure. Perhaps they were not experts in this field and figured all of the Jewish scriptures were fair game.
I'm just wondering if a scenario absent of an actual empty tomb is possible or not. Would you say it's not possible?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abigail View PostI think Gary is saying these things now in order to try save face for himself.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostI do not doubt that Jesus referred to Himself as the king of the Jews. I think Wright makes an excellent point that no one would have thought Jesus was raised and then said "Oh my! He's risen! He must be the Messiah!" As he points out, if one of the thieves next to him had risen the Jews would say "God is doing strange things." They would not say He was the Messiah. The only reason they said it afterwards was because Jesus had to be saying such things beforehand.
I think part of the deal that sealed it for them was what Jesus did in the Temple. You could say Jesus signed his death certificate when He did that one. I also think Bart Ehrman could be right when he says one of the things Judas might have done is gone to the leadership and said that when Jesus is with His followers, He talks about being the Messiah.
What would make more sense is to not even mention it at all, but the accounts do mention it and they agree on a great number of points. Most notably is that the family is not allowed to bury Jesus and there is no record of any of them mourning for him. I do not know if it has happened, but I know the Greer-Heard forum at NOBTS was hosting a debate between Michael Bird and Bart Ehrman on this topic. Greg Monette has written on this as well and he'll be on my show talking about the topic on August 22nd. http://gregmonette.com/blog/post/how...l-wrong-part-1
Before the crucifixion, He would not have been seen as a blasphemer by the disciples. Afterwards, He could have been. After all, your identity was not something you came to inherently, but it was bestowed on you by society. If the society says Jesus is a blasphemer and a traitor to Rome, well.....
I think Jesus did think He was the Messiah, but He was not of the habit of going around announcing it. That would hurt his status in His society actually by arousing envy especially. Note that up until the end, the disciples still think Messiah means "deliverance from Rome." I think even in Acts 1 they still think this.
I do not doubt that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. He was saying the Kingdom of God was going to come. Unfortunately, like today, too many understand that to mean that He meant He would return in the lifetime of the disciples. You can see that idea in my critique of Bart Ehrman's work on the topic here: http://deeperwaters.ddns.net/?p=7077
Except, the earliest ones did. Hurtado, Bauckham, Hengl, and others have formed what Bird calls the Early High Christology Club. The earliest Christology is the highest one. We have several aramaic tidbits in the writing of Paul that indicate JEsus is seen as included in the divine identity. If not true, that would be a violation of the Shema, which would be like going to a Muslim and committing the sin of Shirk. As for why James wasn't one of the twelve, I think the Gospels make it plain. He and his brothers and even mother thought Jesus was mad. This is something quite likely to be true since it's embarrassing.
That is the contention. Paul got it in Jerusalem which is why it's dated to within 2-5 years normally at the latest. It could have been something he received even after his "conversion" before he went into the wilderness. James Dunn even places it to within a few months.
If they wanted to be considered important, affirming Jesus was not the way to do it. Paul had everything going for him. What did he get in return? Read about his sufferings in 2 Corinthians 11. You're really still thinking about this from a Western Mindset. The Eastern mindset sees deviancy from the group as a shameful thing. We see it as marching to the beat of your own drummer.
Ben Witherington wrote in "What Have They Done With Jesus?" that if you got Paul and James in a room together and had them discuss Christian doctrine, there would have been some disagreement, but there would be far more nodding of heads. Witherington gives a great argument as to why James took the route he did and why Paul did. Paul is wanting to reach Gentiles and he needs to stress that being a Christian is not becoming a Jew. James needs to show that being a Christian is not becoming a Gentile.
If they were writers, we should take them quite seriously. They were not fools. They were using the same kind of exegetical procedures that were used by Qumran and others. Richard Longenecker's "Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period" is a great read here. Also, I do hold to earlier dates because I think the arguments for late dating depend on presuppositions I do not see backed, such as that predictive prophecy is impossible.
[I agree with Wright. If Christianity only had appearances, it would not be enough. If it only had an empty tomb, it would not be enough. You need both together.
I understand that you believe that based on an empty tomb, and the alleged eyewitness claims of appearances by Jesus to multiple people, sometimes multiple people at the same time, and possibly, adding in the "Honor-Shame" argument, that this is sufficient evidence for you to believe, and that you believe that this combined evidence is very good evidence. But I am curious to know how strong you believe your evidence is for other educated people who are as yet non-Christians. For example, let's say that "0" is extremely poor evidence that no one should believe and "10" is extremely good evidence that warrants that a reasonable, open-minded person should believe it, where on this range would you rate the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostAnd frankly, I enjoyed the conversation that we had earlier in this thread and I do appreciate that I saw you called Tassy out on my anniversary thread. Kudos to you.
There are some atheists here I have no doubt I could go out and share a pizza with and have a good discussion with.
There are too many (And in fact too many Christians as well) that that doesn't seem possible to conceive of.
True. We're all people. And even you and Gary would likely get along in another setting. Sometimes in discussions we simply reach am impasse. It's when we try to barge through those dead ends that resentment is hard to avoid. in this discussion, barring semantics, we're all pretty aware of the issues and info, and we just come to different conclusions on it.
"you can only lead a horse to water...," as they say. The trick is finding the value in all men, including your enemies (or internet arguing buddies).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abigail View PostYes , they seem to have been well convinced. But we have seen the great evidence that the original witnesses were convinced. That they were prepared to put their lives on the line, that they continued to focus upon Jesus etc etc
Originally posted by Abigail View PostThough we have a cascade of claims and evidence here which function like links in a chain IMO. Jesus made a claim to be the Son of God. The evidence that supported this (besides his works and miracles) was that God raised Him from the dead. The disciples claimed to have witnessed the risen Jesus. The evidence that supported this claim was their transformed lives and their continual focus on a living Jesus and also apparent miracles they were doing in His name and that they were able to convince others in a position to examine their case. Remember these events were located in space and time and those nearer and closer would have been able to investigate things.
Originally posted by Abigail View PostYes, though the Jesus story appears in context of a whole line-up of things which affect our expectations of what might be possible to believe, that is why the analogy Gary made of the person with sinus having a vision of the virgin Mary was poor because it was a single mover. With the Jesus story, some kind of a Jewish Messiah was expected (the historical evidence attests to this) and the Jews and their religious story had quite some momentum in itself (there is ample evidence for the pride they had in their physical claim to being children of Abraham, they had acquired special religious dispensation from Caesar because they believed worshipping other gods was abomination), and Jesus had been preaching and doing miracles etc (enough to get him noticed and ultimately crucified). So all these things affect our expectations of what might be possible to believe - unless of course we rule out miracles before we start.
Out of curiosity, do you believe in any miracles from any other religion, or just the ones mentioned within your own religion?
But with large and grandiose claims, I expect matching evidence, as we discussed before - I just don't find the "there's claim that there was great evidence and we can believe that since we see that many found the evidence convincing..." for one, it seemed most people in the area were not convinced by it, and two, evidence works for those who actually see it - and since I havent seen it, i am forced to take their word on it... and with some of their claims not panning out and others wrong, then I am doubly hard pressed to find their claims of the supernatural believable - but again, that's me.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostI have a question for you, Nick.
I understand that you believe that based on an empty tomb, and the alleged eyewitness claims of appearances by Jesus to multiple people, sometimes multiple people at the same time, and possibly, adding in the "Honor-Shame" argument, that this is sufficient evidence for you to believe, and that you believe that this combined evidence is very good evidence. But I am curious to know how strong you believe your evidence is for other educated people who are as yet non-Christians. For example, let's say that "0" is extremely poor evidence that no one should believe and "10" is extremely good evidence that warrants that a reasonable, open-minded person should believe it, where on this range would you rate the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostGary, most of us in the Christian community believe it's not just about "facts", but also about the power and influence of the Holy Spirit.
and without the Holy Spirit, is the evidence less convincing in your mind?
Comment
-
Originally posted by William View PostThis is something that always seemed nebulous to me, the whole holy spirit thing.
Not mush is written about it.
It helps us in prayer and is a comforter, etc.
But does the Holy Spirit influence some and not others?
Gary was once a believer, so did the spirit once guide him but them stop?
and without the Holy Spirit, is the evidence less convincing in your mind?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment