Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Christianbookworm]

Insults? What happened to taking the high road, Gary?

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Donchaknow that Christians are to be doormats and never strike back? But it's okay for atheists to be insulting all they like. It's only wrong for Christians to use insults.

[tabibito]

According to Christians, a perfect God, a god who makes no mistakes, created the universe. Humans were the crown jewel of his creation, since they were created in his image and have the ability to make decisions using a free will. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.

How do you know that these Christians you refer to have correctly stated the facts right down to the least significant of details? You don't - you've never investigated the matter for yourself. The scriptural declaration - God pronounced the creation "good". The non scriptural declaration - God pronounced the creation "perfect".

What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. "bad fruit cannot come from a good tree", and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans, therefore the ultimate source of imperfection is God.

Imposing your (borrowed) concept of what constitutes a good fruit or good tree doesn't constitute an argument in favour of your case. When you take "good" away from its context and decide that it means all by your someone else's lonesome you're creating a straw man. People of the time when Jesus was trotting around the Palestine did not think Jesus was using "good" to denote "perfect". If they had, they would have found the statement laughable: a good tree can produce diseased fruit and a diseased tree can produce good fruit. The claims made here about the meaning of "bad" in this context are equally laughable.

What is perfect cannot become imperfect,

Can you cite an empirical demonstration of the validity of this claim?

so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

As noted previously, a "good" tree can produce "bad" fruit. And I don't really think you are qualified to decide what is impossible.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your extraordinary claim that you know what you are talking about is based on no discernible evidence whatever.

[tabibito]

The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word.

Borrowed argument that is not supported by the Bible itself at any point.

It contains instructions to mankind for avoiding God's "righteous" judgment in Hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! This all-powerful God could have appeared to each one of us to give each of us his "Good News" regarding how to escape his divine wrath and "just" punishment for our ancestors' horrific sin of having eaten from his forbidden fruit tree. Or, he could have written his "Word" across the night sky in bright, flashing lights. Or he could have even put a flashing sign on the moon: "Believe in Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior or I'll fry your ass in Hell forever!", but nope, he didn't do any of those things. Instead, in his infinite wisdom, he opted to offer us an indecipherable amalgam of ancient texts which we now call the Bible, as the means for us to avoid the place of torment which he knew he was preparing just for us, even before he decided to create us.

I'm fairly sure that it has already been explained: There is no scriptural support for the concept of infinite and unrelenting torture - save in places where poetical allusion and hyperbole can be rightfully inferred.

This perfect God decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect collection of books, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and preached by imperfect men.

Yes, and the people who did not agree with the vote rejected the findings of the men you refer to. The books included in the bibliography are not entirely the same for Protestant Churches, Church of Rome, or Greek Orthodox, and not all Orthodox churches use the same collection (in full) as the Greek Orthodox. The men you refer to as voting to make the selection also did not include books that are clearly indicated to be scripture (by being cited as authoritative) in the New Testament record.

No two people will ever agree what this perfect Word of God is supposed to mean,

Strangely, when people are sat down and encouraged to read scripture in a real Bible study, treating the texts under review to standard reading comprehension exercises, they DO agree. The more thoroughly they have been indoctrinated to erroneous doctrines, the more difficult it is for them to conduct the exercise successfully - they have to be continually brought back to the body of the text itself instead of filtering it through preconceptions. Conversely, people who have a reasonable competence in three or more languages DON'T suffer the same difficulties, regardless of how thoroughly they have been indoctrinated.

since much of it is either self- contradictory, riddled with riddles, or obscured by enigmatic symbolism.

Self contradiction is in the eye of the beholder: usually his ability to parse the text is contaminated by preconceptions.
To the extent that riddles and symbolism are employed, it would be fair to claim that meaning is obscured.

Where those riddles and symbolism are unexplained by scripture itself, it is also fair to assume that they were not meant to be clearly understood - at least at the time of writing. Nor do they address immediate and critical issues.

Where contradiction and error exist, enough information is usually provided to allow a correct evaluation of the record.

And yet the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us.

He has granted disciples the wherewithal to successfully seek out the facts. People who don't want to be disciples are free to make up their own minds without being unduly put upon by understanding that they don't want.

Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been far better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us,

I'm sure that he would not find it appropriate to impose his presence on people who want nothing to do with him.

rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of pompous Churchmen and wanna-be apologists.

Argument from intellectual and moral superiority - neither of which has been demonstrated to exist.

[tabibito]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Donchaknow that Christians are to be doormats and never strike back? But it's okay for atheists to be insulting all they like. It's only wrong for Christians to use insults.

Wannabe school yard bullies complaining that their intended victim didn't submit, and instead defended himself.

[Gary]

If God rescued us from every dangerous situation that we got ourselves or others into, we'd get in more trouble than a certain nosy reporter with her own "guardian angel" as her coworker.

Dear Readers,

Ask anyone who has ever escaped from a cult and this is what they will tell you:

1. When they first began to question the teachings of the cult they were told to just trust the leadership of the cult; the leadership is wiser and has many more years of training and experience in the teachings in question. "Trust us." (Appeal to authority)

2. When the "doubter" began to question further, and became persistent in his questioning, he was then told that he had a bad and rebellious (sinful) attitude, and that his sin was stirring up trouble in the group. Other members of the group are brought into the discussion to criticize the "doubter" for the trouble that he or she is causing. (Peer/group pressure)

3. If the "doubter" announces that he or she is thinking of leaving the group, he or she is immediately threatened with all manner of severe punishments and consequences in this life and the next. (Intimidation and Fear)

4. Once the person has left the cult, he is seen as the enemy. His reputation and intelligence are immediately attacked in order to blame his defection on something being wrong with him and not that something is wrong with the cult: "He didn't leave us because he found out our beliefs are false. He left because he has a secret sin he wants to indulge. Claiming our beliefs are false is just a cover for his sinful desires." "He didn't know enough about the (cult's) beliefs to know if they were correct or not." "He didn't study the sacred texts long enough." "Yes, to an untrained, inexperienced person who has not spent time studying our sacred texts they will appear to contain errors and discrepancies, but the wise, experienced leaders of our group can very easily explain why these alleged errors and discrepancies are perfectly harmonizable." "If he had studied this, this, and this book by trained experts in our belief system, he would have realized how silly his doubts and deconversion are." (Destroy the former member's reputation at all cost. Make him look like an idiot as the reason for his deconversion. This lessens the chance that other members will question the belief system, and, intimidates those who are secretly questioning to keep their mouths shut.)

Sound familiar?

Dear friends, whoever our Creator is, he/she/or it gave you a brain. Use it! Two plus two NEVER equals five. Never. And dead people who have been truly dead for three days cannot be reanimated back to life; to eat a broiled fish lunch with their former fishing buddies; to later levitate into outer space. Never.

Don't let the "experts" of this cult convince you otherwise. Don't let them convince you that YOU are stupid for questioning their irrational, illogical, nonsensical tall tale. Their philosophically complicated and verbose explanations are nothing but spin.

[tabibito]

Dear Readers,

Ask anyone who has ever escaped from a cult and this is what they will tell you:

1. When they first began to question the teachings of the cult they were told to just trust the leadership of the cult; the leadership is wiser and has many more years of training and experience in the teachings in question. "Trust us." (Appeal to authority)

at which point the person has every cause to doubt the cult.

2. When the "doubter" began to question further, and became persistent in his questioning, he was then told that he had a bad and rebellious (sinful) attitude, and that his sin was stirring up trouble in the group. Other members of the group are brought into the discussion to criticize the "doubter" for the trouble that he or she is causing. (Peer/group pressure)

instead of taking the doubts seriously, and opening the books for scrutiny.

3. If the "doubter" announces that he or she is thinking of leaving the group, he or she is immediately threatened with all manner of severe punishments and consequences in this life and the next. (Intimidation and Fear)

instead of allowing that the doubter's issues with the teachings have not been reconciled satisfactorily.

4. Once the person has left the cult, he is seen as the enemy. His reputation and intelligence are immediately attacked in order to blame his defection on something being wrong with him and not that something is wrong with the cult: "He didn't leave us because he found out our beliefs are false. He left because he has a secret sin he wants to indulge. Claiming our beliefs are false is just a cover for his sinful desires." "He didn't know enough about the (cult's) beliefs to know if they were correct or not." "He didn't study the sacred texts long enough." "Yes, to an untrained, inexperienced person who has not spent time studying our sacred texts they will appear to contain errors and discrepancies, but the wise, experienced leaders of our group can very easily explain why these alleged errors and discrepancies are perfectly harmonizable." "If he had studied this, this, and this book by trained experts in our belief system, he would have realized how silly his doubts and deconversion are." (Destroy the former member's reputation at all cost. Make him look like an idiot as the reason for his deconversion. This lessens the chance that other members will question the belief system, and, intimidates those who are secretly questioning to keep their mouths shut.)

instead of taking appropriate steps such as opening up the issues that the doubter raised and ensuring that the members of the group have opportunity to give them full and open discussion and examination.

Sound familiar?

yup.

Dear friends, whoever our Creator is, he/she/or it gave you a brain. Use it! Two plus two NEVER equals five. Never. And dead people who have been truly dead for three days cannot be reanimated back to life; to eat a broiled fish lunch with their former fishing buddies; to later levitate into outer space. Never.

I refer to your attention to your point 4 and that you stop trying to implement it. You don't have the requisite skills.

Don't let the "experts" of this cult convince you otherwise. Don't let them convince you that YOU are stupid for questioning their irrational, illogical, nonsensical tall tale. Their philosophically complicated and verbose explanations are nothing but spin.

I refer your attention to your point four (etc.)

[psstein]

Gary, it's not apologetics. It's scholarship. You don't seem to understand the difference. You physically don't have the capacity to exegete the texts in the original languages or in their cultural context. You read the Bible like it was written in English for people of the late 20th/early 21st century. It wasn't. The Bible is actually a deceptively difficult text when you get down to it. You don't seem to understand that a lot of the guys Nick refers to (and many whom I'll refer to as well) are not orthodox or conservative Christians in any sense of the word. Many of them (Dunn, Bauckham, Meier, Brown, etc.) don't subscribe to inerrancy (and nor do I, by the way). Some of them, like P. Maurice Casey, Gerd Ludemann, and James Crossley, are non-theists. Others, like Geza Vermes or Jacob Neusner, are Jewish.

I have no interest in your arguments from emotion or outrage. If you want to actually discuss what we're talking about with reference to scholarly work and actual engagement with another position, I'm more than ready. Crying about God as a moral monster has no bearing on whether or not God exists. Just because you don't like something doesn't wink it from existence.

I'm more than willing to debate anyone here about the authorship and dating of the Gospels. If I do, I'm not going to shout about morality or apologetics or anything else like that. I'm going to focus on what the data actually is and what scholars have actually said about it.

And by the way, you're stuck with God if you now follow "reason and science." Reason itself shows the existence of God, who, as Aquinas convincingly argues, has the properties of the Christian God. So either shut up about the "irrationality" and "silliness" of religious faith and engage actual material, or continue to poorly attempt to shout down anyone who knows better than you.

[Gary]

Gary, it's not apologetics. It's scholarship. You don't seem to understand the difference. You physically don't have the capacity to exegete the texts in the original languages or in their cultural context. You read the Bible like it was written in English for people of the late 20th/early 21st century. It wasn't. The Bible is actually a deceptively difficult text when you get down to it. You don't seem to understand that a lot of the guys Nick refers to (and many whom I'll refer to as well) are not orthodox or conservative Christians in any sense of the word. Many of them (Dunn, Bauckham, Meier, Brown, etc.) don't subscribe to inerrancy (and nor do I, by the way). Some of them, like P. Maurice Casey, Gerd Ludemann, and James Crossley, are non-theists. Others, like Geza Vermes or Jacob Neusner, are Jewish.

I have no interest in your arguments from emotion or outrage. If you want to actually discuss what we're talking about with reference to scholarly work and actual engagement with another position, I'm more than ready. Crying about God as a moral monster has no bearing on whether or not God exists. Just because you don't like something doesn't wink it from existence.

I'm more than willing to debate anyone here about the authorship and dating of the Gospels. If I do, I'm not going to shout about morality or apologetics or anything else like that. I'm going to focus on what the data actually is and what scholars have actually said about it.

And by the way, you're stuck with God if you now follow "reason and science." Reason itself shows the existence of God, who, as Aquinas convincingly argues, has the properties of the Christian God. So either shut up about the "irrationality" and "silliness" of religious faith and engage actual material, or continue to poorly attempt to shout down anyone who knows better than you.

Once again I must remind you that I have never argued against the existence of a God, only against the existence of YOUR god, Yahweh. A god who claims he is perfect, but regrets making mistakes, is either a liar or the non-existent imaginary concept of ignorant nomads. A god who says he is prefect, loving, and merciful but orders the mass slaughters of infants is either a liar or a false construct. A god who says he is all-knowing but could not pass a six grade science quiz is either a liar or a non-existent construct.

Again I must remind you that I do not question the scholarship regarding Jesus' existence. Neither do I question the scholarly consensus regarding the very early belief among Christians of a resurrected messiah. I question the existence of an empty tomb, but I am not the only person to do so. A significant number of NT scholars doubt the historicity of this claim. If we accept Gary Habermas' data, 30% of NT scholars deny the historicity of the empty tomb. Other than that issue, please show me ONE issue that the overwhelming majority of scholars agree upon that I have stated is false. I don't think you can.

My issues are not with the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. My issues are with the supernatural claims about Jesus of Nazareth. Just because the majority of Christian NT scholars believe that a resurrection is an historical fact, does not make it fact. The overwhelming majority of Jewish, Muslim, and agnostic/atheist scholars do not believe this event is an historical fact.

So you can appeal to Christian Bible scholars all you want, Stein, regarding the historicity of a first century reanimation of a dead body, but the facts are that only biased scholars, scholars who are already believers in this supernatural tale, believe in a bodily resurrection...and one dead Jewish scholar---Lapide.

I am arguing against unsubstantiated supernatural claims that your cult has asserted as facts; facts that every human being must accept as Truth or be punished in some fashion, forever, for rejecting.

[psstein]

As usual, you've missed the point.

You've denied the burial by Joseph of Arimathea. NT scholars (with few exceptions) hold to the reliability of the tradition.

[Gary]

As usual, you've missed the point.

You've denied the burial by Joseph of Arimathea. NT scholars (with few exceptions) hold to the reliability of the tradition.

Please give me a source which states that the overwhelming majority (greater than 90%) of NT scholars, historians, and scholars of the ancient near east believe that the story of Joseph A. is historical fact. Simply stating that the "majority" of NT scholars believes something is irrelevant. The majority of NT scholars are Christians, and high percentage of those are evangelicals.

[Gary]

Dear Reader:

Have you noticed something in this entire debate and post-debate discussion? Here is a hint: Have Christians presented ANY evidence for the supernatural claim in question: the reanimation of the dead body of Jesus of Nazareth sometime in the third decade of the first century AD?

Answer: No. They have presented ZERO evidence for this claim. Nada. Zip. Nichts.

So for which claim or claims have they presented evidence?

1. They have presented reasonably strong evidence that early Christians believed that Jesus had been bodily resurrected.

2. They have presented hearsay evidence that approximately 500 people, living 2,000 years ago, believed they had seen their dead loved one/friend alive again. But tens of thousands of grieving friends and relatives of the recently departed have made claims of seeing, talking with, and even touching their dead loved one. Just because Aunt Bessie sincerely believes that dead Uncle Bob appeared to her, touched her, and told her that he still loves her, should we believe that Aunt Bessie really and truly saw dead Uncle Bob??

3. They have presented good evidence that ONE outsider/non-relative of Jesus claimed to have seen this resurrected dead man. However, this "witness" has a known history of having multiple bizarre visions, such as being teleported into a "third heaven". And this witness even admits that his "appearance experience" was a vision, not reality.

Have the believers of this tall tale presented any evidence for the reanimation of the dead body itself? Have they given any evidence or testimony that a bloated, decomposing, stinking corpse suddenly returned to its normal size and shape, the stench dissipating, the internal organs functioning again, a pulse being restored, the chest moving up and down with rhythmic breathing, the eyes of the dead body opening, the dead but reanimated body sitting up, then standing up, then exiting, in some fashion, whether by pushing open the stone door or teleporting, out of the tomb? Did anyone give testimony of seeing with their own two eyes the dead-but-reanimated body leaving the tomb on its own two legs and not whisked out by a group of grave robbers, disciples, family members, Roman soldiers at Pilate's command, by dissenting members of the Sanhedrin...or by Joseph of Armethea himself???

No!

They have zero evidence for the actual claim!

All they have is hearsay, and, generalizations about what "most" people in first century Palestine would do and believe about the "shameful" claim of a crucified-then-resurrected man/god.

And that's all, folks. And they ask you to believe that this is "very strong" evidence???

Preposterous.

[psstein]

You're really beyond hope if you think the majority of NT scholars are Evangelical Christians.

Rather than spout off to your imaginary readers, maybe you should engage some scholarly material.

[Gary]

You're really beyond hope if you think the majority of NT scholars are Evangelical Christians.

Rather than spout off to your imaginary readers, maybe you should engage some scholarly material.

Excerpt from an article on NT scholars:

I need to start by talking about one huge difference between Biblical scholarship and most of academia. The difference is that Biblical scholarship is largely a religious endeavor. To quote Jacques Berlinerblau:“Show of hands: Who here’s an atheist?” If a keynote speaker were to pose that unlikely query to an audience of 1,000 scholars gathered at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature my guess is only about a couple of dozen or so would publicly confess to infidelity.Nonbelievers are few and far between in biblical scholarship. Not counting the theologians employed by seminaries who have yet to come out of the closet, the cohort is so small that we literally all know one another by name.

From another article by Berlinerblau:Assume for a moment that you are an atheist exegete. Now please follow my instructions. Peruse the listings in Openings. Understand that your unique skills and talents are of no interest to those institutions listed there with the words “Saint” and “Holy” and “Theological” and “Seminary” in their names. This leaves, per year, about two or three advertised posts in biblical studies at religiously un-chartered institutions of higher learning. Apply for those jobs. Get rejected. A few months later learn—preferably while consuming donuts with a colleague—that the position was filled by a graduate of a theological seminary. Realize that those on the search committee who made this choice all graduated from seminaries themselves. Curse the gods.

Not only are non-believing Biblical scholars rare, the few that are out there are mostly former believers with degrees in theology. That description fits Bart Ehrman, Gerd Lüdemann, and Robert M. Price. Hector Avalos deconverted before starting his Ph.D. program, though his interest in Biblical scholarship clearly stems from his days as a child evangelist. Berlinerblau himself is the ultra-rare exception to the rule, never having been a believer.For this reason, while I know of no reliable statistics on the views of Biblical scholars, I would not be surprised to find that the proportion willing to defend evangelical views of the Bible is quite large (at least in the United States). This is not a point in favor of evangelicalism. To quote Price:[William Lane Craig] may well be correct that New Testament scholarship is more conservative than it once was. This has more than he admits to do with which denominations can afford to train the most students, hire more faculty, and send more members to the Society of Biblical Literature. But basically, it should surprise no one that the great mainstream of biblical scholars hold views friendly to traditional Christianity, for the simple reason that most biblical scholars are and always have been believing Christians, even if not fundamentalists. It is only the pious arrogance of Craig’s evangelicalism (which denies the name “Christian” to anyone without a personal tete-a-tete with Jesus) that allows him to implicitly depict New Testament scholars as a bunch of newly-chastened skeptics with their tails between their legs. Even Bultmann, a devout Lutheran, was much less skeptical than Baur and Strauss.

In spite of this, and while I have no idea of the exact percentage, there is certainly a plentiful supply of Biblical scholars who recognize the problems with the historical reliability of the New Testament. Some scholars, many of whom I’ve already listed, are non-believers. Others, like John Dominic Crossan and Patheos’ own James McGrath, are Christians of a quite liberal theological bent.And a fair number are Christians who, while still fairly orthodox in their theology, having no problems with miracles and such, still realize that the claims about the historical reliability of the New Testament made in evangelical circles are problematic.The Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown (who died in 1998), for example, railed against scholars who were skeptical of the Virgin Birth just because it was a miracle, but also admitted he had doubts about that on strictly historical grounds. Brown, in fact, realized that most of the gospels were not written by the men Christian tradition claimed, though he remained agnostic about Luke. -

See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2....Zs9p6U9C.dpuf

Put that in your "pipe" and smoke it, Stein.

Can you imagine a NT scholar working at Liberty University or Dallas Theological Seminary coming out and saying that he didn't believe that there is any good evidence for the traditional authorship of the four Gospels?? He would be stripped of his position within a heartbeat. So even if an evangelical Christian NT scholar denied the historicity of Aramathea's tomb you can be damn sure he would keep his mouth shut about his opinion. NT scholarship is not an academic pursuit as is any other field of history, archeology, or sociology. No historian will lose his job for his announcement that he has discovered new evidence that questions whether or not Columbus was the first European to "discover" America, but god forbid that an evangelical NT scholar should present new evidence that strongly suggests that Jesus' dead body was stolen by grave robbers!

The proverbial feces would hit the proverbial evangelical fan!

That's not scholarship folks, that is the behavior of a religious cult!

[One Bad Pig]

Gary, many biblical scholars work at secular universities. Try looking up "Department of Religious Studies."

And I'm utterly unsurprised that you would buy into Hallquist hook, line, and sinker.

[KingsGambit]

At my university, one religious studies professor told the media that he believed not a single professor in the department was a theist.