Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[psstein]

Let's say that the Creed in I Corinthians was an early creed, written within a couple years of the death of Jesus. What does that prove?

Does it prove that there really were 500 people, in one place, seeing Jesus at the same time? No. It simply means that within a couple of years, early Christians believed that this event had happened. Again, the only evidence for this astounding claim is the statement by Paul, a non-participant in this event, in I Corinthians. None of the alleged eyewitnesses make this claim in their gospel accounts.

And the average life span in first century Palestine has been estimated to have been 45 years old. So if an "eyewitness" was 20 at the time of Jesus death, he would be fifty-five in 65 AD, the earliest date that most mainstream NT scholars would date the writing of Mark. And in the mid to late 60's, Palestine was ravaged by the Jewish-Roman wars. How many witnesses would still be alive to say, "Hey, that isn't what happened." And this is only true if the Gospels had reached Palestine by this time. If the first Gospel was written in Rome, how long before a copy made its way to Palestine? So even if "Mark" were written in 65 AD, it may not have reached Palestine, where most of the "eye-witnesses" would be living, until in the 70's, after which many more would be dead from the sacking of Jerusalem.

First, no, it doesn't prove 500 people were in one place. Some scholars believe Paul added that part in order to state that many eyewitnesses were still available for questioning with regard to the Resurrection. It does suggest that Jesus appeared to a fairly large number of people at one time. This is part of scholarship I haven't any idea about. What the ancient creed does prove is that the early Christians believed in a bodily resurrection of Jesus who appeared to a number of followers.

The vision hypothesis is the strongest naturalistic explanation, but fails to explain the data (like the empty tomb). Also, we're talking about a group of people who knew what visions were. This is especially shown in Acts with Peter's incarceration.

Secondly, and you should know this as a doctor, the lifespan was (after infancy) not that dissimilar from today's. If you survived infancy, which is a big if, you often would live 70+ years. The low average lifespan is because of high infant mortality rates. Seeing as how the eyewitnesses likely started dying in the mid-60s (with Peter's death possibly the first), it makes sense the Gospels were written down starting then.

Finally, most mainstream scholars will date Mark as 62-75, just because that's the date suggested by internal evidence. I'm convinced Mark is before 70, Matthew is after 70, and Luke shows signs of being after 70, but it's tough to tell. John is obviously in the 90s, though the author does show significant knowledge of pre-70 Jerusalem.

[psstein]

The general (Eastern) Orthodox belief is that Mary the mother of Jesus did so. We are all born with a propensity to sin, however, so living a sinless life is extremely unlikely.

Original sin (more accurately, inherited guilt) was a concept developed by Augustine to combat Pelagianism; neither concept ever gained much traction in the Christian east.

Original sin seems to be based on an Augustinian mistranslation of Romans.

[Apologiaphoenix]

First, no, it doesn't prove 500 people were in one place. Some scholars believe Paul added that part in order to state that many eyewitnesses were still available for questioning with regard to the Resurrection. It does suggest that Jesus appeared to a fairly large number of people at one time. This is part of scholarship I haven't any idea about. What the ancient creed does prove is that the early Christians believed in a bodily resurrection of Jesus who appeared to a number of followers.

The vision hypothesis is the strongest naturalistic explanation, but fails to explain the data (like the empty tomb). Also, we're talking about a group of people who knew what visions were. This is especially shown in Acts with Peter's incarceration.

Secondly, and you should know this as a doctor, the lifespan was (after infancy) not that dissimilar from today's. If you survived infancy, which is a big if, you often would live 70+ years. The low average lifespan is because of high infant mortality rates. Seeing as how the eyewitnesses likely started dying in the mid-60s (with Peter's death possibly the first), it makes sense the Gospels were written down starting then.

Finally, most mainstream scholars will date Mark as 62-75, just because that's the date suggested by internal evidence. I'm convinced Mark is before 70, Matthew is after 70, and Luke shows signs of being after 70, but it's tough to tell. John is obviously in the 90s, though the author does show significant knowledge of pre-70 Jerusalem.

Robert McIver has a section on lifespans at the end of Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels.

As for the vision view, Gary Habermas likes to call it "Jedi Jesus."

I think also one of the largest problems with it is that mass hallucinations really don't happen either.

[tabibito]

First, no, it doesn't prove 500 people were in one place. Some scholars believe Paul added that part in order to state that many eyewitnesses were still available for questioning with regard to the Resurrection. It does suggest that Jesus appeared to a fairly large number of people at one time. This is part of scholarship I haven't any idea about. What the ancient creed does prove is that the early Christians believed in a bodily resurrection of Jesus who appeared to a number of followers.

The vision hypothesis is the strongest naturalistic explanation, but fails to explain the data (like the empty tomb). Also, we're talking about a group of people who knew what visions were. This is especially shown in Acts with Peter's incarceration.

Secondly, and you should know this as a doctor, the lifespan was (after infancy) not that dissimilar from today's. If you survived infancy, which is a big if, you often would live 70+ years. The low average lifespan is because of high infant mortality rates. Seeing as how the eyewitnesses likely started dying in the mid-60s (with Peter's death possibly the first), it makes sense the Gospels were written down starting then.

Finally, most mainstream scholars will date Mark as 62-75, just because that's the date suggested by internal evidence. I'm convinced Mark is before 70, Matthew is after 70, and Luke shows signs of being after 70, but it's tough to tell. John is obviously in the 90s, though the author does show significant knowledge of pre-70 Jerusalem.

I am confused by this claim regarding the date of Luke's gospel. It doesn't seem logical that the gospel and the Acts of the Apostles would have been written after Paul's death - which if I believe is satisfactorily dated to between 65 and 68AD.

[Gary]

First, no, it doesn't prove 500 people were in one place. Some scholars believe Paul added that part in order to state that many eyewitnesses were still available for questioning with regard to the Resurrection. It does suggest that Jesus appeared to a fairly large number of people at one time. This is part of scholarship I haven't any idea about. What the ancient creed does prove is that the early Christians believed in a bodily resurrection of Jesus who appeared to a number of followers.

The vision hypothesis is the strongest naturalistic explanation, but fails to explain the data (like the empty tomb). Also, we're talking about a group of people who knew what visions were. This is especially shown in Acts with Peter's incarceration.

Secondly, and you should know this as a doctor, the lifespan was (after infancy) not that dissimilar from today's. If you survived infancy, which is a big if, you often would live 70+ years. The low average lifespan is because of high infant mortality rates. Seeing as how the eyewitnesses likely started dying in the mid-60s (with Peter's death possibly the first), it makes sense the Gospels were written down starting then.

Finally, most mainstream scholars will date Mark as 62-75, just because that's the date suggested by internal evidence. I'm convinced Mark is before 70, Matthew is after 70, and Luke shows signs of being after 70, but it's tough to tell. John is obviously in the 90s, though the author does show significant knowledge of pre-70 Jerusalem.

Most people today know the difference between a vision and reality, but still many thousands of people each year claim to have "seen" a dead loved one. I don't see how knowing the difference makes any difference if your vision is so vivid and real that you come to believe it was real. This is the position of most skeptics today regarding this supernatural claim: the alleged Resurrection appearances were most probably visions or false sightings by superstitious, mostly uneducated people in a vulnerable emotional state after the sudden, unexpected, violent death of a loved one.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Most people today know the difference between a vision and reality, but still many thousands of people each year claim to have "seen" a dead loved one. I don't see who knowing the difference makes any difference if your vision is so vivid and real that you come to believe it was real.

People back then knew the same. That's what makes it even more unusual. For most people, if you saw a dead person again, even if you were a Jew, that assured you the person was dead. See the idea that Peter's angel had appeared in Acts 12.

[Gary]

First, no, it doesn't prove 500 people were in one place. Some scholars believe Paul added that part in order to state that many eyewitnesses were still available for questioning with regard to the Resurrection. It does suggest that Jesus appeared to a fairly large number of people at one time. This is part of scholarship I haven't any idea about. What the ancient creed does prove is that the early Christians believed in a bodily resurrection of Jesus who appeared to a number of followers.

The vision hypothesis is the strongest naturalistic explanation, but fails to explain the data (like the empty tomb). Also, we're talking about a group of people who knew what visions were. This is especially shown in Acts with Peter's incarceration.

Secondly, and you should know this as a doctor, the lifespan was (after infancy) not that dissimilar from today's. If you survived infancy, which is a big if, you often would live 70+ years. The low average lifespan is because of high infant mortality rates. Seeing as how the eyewitnesses likely started dying in the mid-60s (with Peter's death possibly the first), it makes sense the Gospels were written down starting then.

Finally, most mainstream scholars will date Mark as 62-75, just because that's the date suggested by internal evidence. I'm convinced Mark is before 70, Matthew is after 70, and Luke shows signs of being after 70, but it's tough to tell. John is obviously in the 90s, though the author does show significant knowledge of pre-70 Jerusalem.

Just to reiterate, I and most skeptics I know do NOT believe that the early Christians lied about the alleged appearances, nor do we believe that everyone was hallucinating. Most skeptics I talk to believe that the resurrection appearances were either visions or false sightings. Here are some definitions:

Hallucination: a perception of something (as a visual image or a sound) with no external cause usually arising from a disorder of the nervous system (as in delirium tremens or in functional psychosis without known neurological disease) or in response to drugs (as LSD).

Vision: an experience of seeing someone or something in a dream or trance, or as a supernatural apparition.

An hallucination is due to some physical abnormality. Hallucinations occur in people with (mental) illnesses of the brain, but can also occur in people with other medical conditions such as liver abnormalities, kidney failure, and blood sugar abnormalities, just to name a few. A vision occurs in someone who is healthy and not mentally ill.

Most skeptics do not believe that the early Christians were all mentally ill or suffering from chronic liver disease. We believe that they were very superstitious people who had been told by their leader, for three years, that he would die and rise again, so when people starting having false sightings of Jesus or visions of Jesus after his death, these experiences were seen as a fulfillment of what they had been taught would occur. They may not have believed it would occur at the time, but when people started claiming that they had seen a resurrected Jesus, an emotional frenzy of joy and shock ensued in these very emotionally vulnerable, grieving people, that swept like wild fire through the small Christian community.

[Gary]

First, no, it doesn't prove 500 people were in one place. Some scholars believe Paul added that part in order to state that many eyewitnesses were still available for questioning with regard to the Resurrection. It does suggest that Jesus appeared to a fairly large number of people at one time. This is part of scholarship I haven't any idea about. What the ancient creed does prove is that the early Christians believed in a bodily resurrection of Jesus who appeared to a number of followers.

The vision hypothesis is the strongest naturalistic explanation, but fails to explain the data (like the empty tomb). Also, we're talking about a group of people who knew what visions were. This is especially shown in Acts with Peter's incarceration.

Secondly, and you should know this as a doctor, the lifespan was (after infancy) not that dissimilar from today's. If you survived infancy, which is a big if, you often would live 70+ years. The low average lifespan is because of high infant mortality rates. Seeing as how the eyewitnesses likely started dying in the mid-60s (with Peter's death possibly the first), it makes sense the Gospels were written down starting then.

Finally, most mainstream scholars will date Mark as 62-75, just because that's the date suggested by internal evidence. I'm convinced Mark is before 70, Matthew is after 70, and Luke shows signs of being after 70, but it's tough to tell. John is obviously in the 90s, though the author does show significant knowledge of pre-70 Jerusalem.

Let's assume you are right about the lifetime of people (who made it past infancy) in first century Palestine. Still, someone who was twenty in 30 AD would be fifty-five in 65 AD and sixty-five in 75 AD. If all the apostles (except John) were martyred as the Church claims, then most of them died before reaching the age of 70, and probably much younger than that. So it is POSSIBLE that all of the original disciples were DEAD by the time the first gospel was written, and if that gospel was written in Rome, and none of these eyewitnesses had access to this book because they were living in far away lands, and a copy of the first gospel did not arrive to their city until a few years later, it is very possible that the first gospel appeared in Palestine AFTER all the alleged witnesses there were dead. Add to this all the deaths due to the Roman-Jewish wars in the mid to late 60's and the slaughter of the population of Jerusalem in 70 and to say that the Gospels must be true because there were eyewitnesses alive to verify their accuracy when they were first circulated is a false assumption.

This is why conservative Christians are always trying to move the date of the writing of Mark to as early as possible: They know that with each year, more potential eyewitnesses are dying off. That is why you will rarely ever see a conservative Christian admit that it is quite possible that Mark was written after 70 AD. To admit this date is quite possible, is disastrous for their belief system.

The overwhelming majority of scholars date the Gospel of Mark to 65 -75 AD.

[psstein]

I am confused by this claim regarding the date of Luke's gospel. It doesn't seem logical that the gospel and the Acts of the Apostles would have been written after Paul's death - which if I believe is satisfactorily dated to between 65 and 68AD.

Well, the vast majority of scholars (probably 90%+) disagree. I think Acts is really designed to show Paul's process towards preaching the gospel in Rome. Once Paul gets to Rome, there's no reason for it to continue. The narrative has been completed.

[tabibito]

I've just found Marcion and Luke-Acts. Reading it through to see what the argument is for a late date for the writing. So far it is raising more questions than it is answering.

[Mikeenders]

Secondly, and you should know this as a doctor,

Oh Ye of great faith. I know of no active physician with the time Gary has and I know of none that think so poorly. I am just amazed given his many flops and flounders you guys are still reading his posts. Collective boredom?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Oh Ye of great faith. I know of no active physician with the time Gary has and I know of none that think so poorly. I am just amazed given his many flops and flounders you guys are still reading his posts. Collective boredom?

I don't read most of them. Just a wall of text. Sound and Fury. yadda yadda yadda.

[tabibito]

Oh Ye of great faith. I know of no active physician with the time Gary has and I know of none that think so poorly. I am just amazed given his many flops and flounders you guys are still reading his posts. Collective boredom?

deh. It is a good way to keep up with what passes for Biblical criticism among the atheist community - never know when it will come in handy.

[One Bad Pig]

Let's assume you are right about the lifetime of people (who made it past infancy) in first century Palestine. Still, someone who was twenty in 30 AD would be fifty-five in 65 AD and sixty-five in 75 AD. If all the apostles (except John) were martyred as the Church claims, then most of them died before reaching the age of 70, and probably much younger than that. So it is POSSIBLE that all of the original disciples were DEAD by the time the first gospel was written, and if that gospel was written in Rome, and none of these eyewitnesses had access to this book because they were living in far away lands, and a copy of the first gospel did not arrive to their city until a few years later, it is very possible that the first gospel appeared in Palestine AFTER all the alleged witnesses there were dead. Add to this all the deaths due to the Roman-Jewish wars in the mid to late 60's and the slaughter of the population of Jerusalem in 70 and to say that the Gospels must be true because there were eyewitnesses alive to verify their accuracy when they were first circulated is a false assumption.

This is why conservative Christians are always trying to move the date of the writing of Mark to as early as possible: They know that with each year, more potential eyewitnesses are dying off. That is why you will rarely ever see a conservative Christian admit that it is quite possible that Mark was written after 70 AD. To admit this date is quite possible, is disastrous for their belief system.

The overwhelming majority of scholars date the Gospel of Mark to 65 -75 AD.

It's also possible that the written gospel is largely identical to that which had been preached in the intervening years, and that the confirmation of that would be elementary. Paul, at any rate, was a stickler for that (well before AD 65-75). To admit that this is quite possible is disastrous for Gary's skepicism.

[Gary]

Here is another point regarding the "Five Hundred Witnesses": We have zero details of this appearance. Zero.

Where did it happen?
When did it happen?
How did it happen
To whom did it happen?

Did Jesus appear in the flesh to the 500 or did he just appear as a bright light as he did to Paul? Did the bright light talk as it did to Paul or was there only a bright light? We have many accounts in history where large groups of believers (in particular, Roman Catholic believers), all in one place and at the same time, have seen the Virgin Mary, angels, saints, etc. So just because 500 believers in the first century saw a bright light or other image that they believed to be Jesus should we believe as historical fact that they really did SEE a reanimated dead body??

Do we have ANY testimony from these five hundred people? No.
Do we have ANY description of what Jesus said, did, or looked like in this appearance? No.

If someone told you today, that someone had told them, that several years ago, a green Martian with antennaes on his little head had appeared to 500 un-named people, all at once, and in the same place, and that if you wanted to verify this, you could take a trip to the Middle East to verify it because most of these witnesses are still alive (but some are dead), would you believe this story based on this very, very flimsy evidence???

I don't think so. So why do you believe the 2,000 year old Five Hundred Witnesses story??

Answer: Because you so very much want to.