Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Mikeenders]

If I claimed that my grandfather died forty years ago, but that three days later his grave was found open and empty, and several hours later he appeared to me in a superhero, immortal body, spoke to me, let me touch him and then flew off into the clouds to never be seen again, would you accept my testimony as evidence for a resurrection or simply evidence for my BELIEF in a resurrection? Unless I can describe my grandfather pushing his way out of his grave, would any rational person accept my statement of a post-death appearance of my grandfather as evidence that he had been truly resurrected and that he had truly flown without any mechanical assistance into outer space, simply based on my good word and the fact that my grandfather's tomb was found empty??

Thats just idiotic. If I were not inclined to believe in your grandfather's resurrection your telling me how the body first moved, how it pushed its way out of the grave, how the earth moved an the grave stone cracked as his hand shot up would do nothing for me. I'd want to the best of the ability available to confirm he was was really dead and I would want several sources to say they saw him after that death date very much alive again. The more the better and I would take that any day over one or two people being in the tomb with him when he "woke up"

This new criteria of yours makes ZERO sense.

[Gary]

Thats just idiotic. If I were not inclined to believe in your grandfather's resurrection your telling me how the body first moved, how it pushed its way out of the grave, how the earth moved an the grave stone cracked as his hand shot up would do nothing for me. I'd want to the best of the ability available to confirm he was was really dead and I would want several sources to say they saw him after that death date very much alive again. The more the better and I would take that any day over one or two people being in the tomb with him when he "woke up"

This new criteria of yours makes ZERO sense.

So are you saying that if "several sources" confirm seeing any dead person alive again that you will accept this as evidence that the deceased person really has been resurrected into a superhuman/immortal body?

[Mikeenders]

If the Creed's list of witnesses to the Resurrection is no longer of any importance, then why do apologists rely so heavily upon it?

For me at least NIck's assertion you are not a child will hold no weight without more evidence. I already answered you. As a historical narrative theres nothing wrong with it. Creed's however tend to state what is believed so why would a church continue to state that any were alive who were all already dead? You make no sense whatsoever

[Mikeenders]

So are you saying that if "several sources" confirm seeing any dead person alive again that you will accept this as evidence that the deceased person really has been resurrected into a superhuman/immortal body?

No I am saying you can't follow your own argument to save your life. You have been claiming that it would be a requirement of a witness that he sees the actual moment of resurrection rather than knowing someone was dead and is now alive which would be the only real issue . Now your trying to switch off the idiocy of that statement to talk about several sources because you can't present a good response to why claiming to see the moment of resurrection would make the claim of a resurrection any more credible.

[Gary]

No I am saying you can't follow your own argument to save your life. You have been claiming that it would be a requirement of a witness that he sees the actual moment of resurrection rather than knowing someone was dead and is now alive which would be the only real issue . Now your trying to switch off the idiocy of that statement to talk about several sources because you can't present a good response to why claiming to see the moment of resurrection would make the claim of a resurrection any more credible.

You are failing to understand, Mike.

I am differentiating between evidence for a reanimation/resurrection and evidence for a post-death appearance.

Describing what my allegedly resurrected grandfather said and looked like when he appeared to me one night after his death is very different from me describing watching his dead, bloated body transform in front of my eyes into a superhero/immortal body and watching it push its way out of a tomb, and levitate into the sky. Thousands of people each year claim to see dead relatives, very few claim to have seen the reanimation of a dead body or to have witnessed a body crawling out of its grave.

If I and ten other people give eyewitness testimony to authorities detailing how my dead grandfather's bloated body suddenly shrank down to normal size, his chest started moving, he opened his eyes, sat up, and then exited his mausoleum tomb, that would be much stronger evidence than if four anonymous authors, writing at least 35 years after the event, claim that I and ten of my friends had seen my dead grandfather "appear" to us in a second floor room to eat a broiled fish sandwich with us.

Stein, do you see the difference?

[Christianbookworm]

Nope. If the Resurrection were made up, why not make up the disciples witnessing the very act themselves? Instead of mentioning that some women saw the empty tomb after the fact. To everyone else, superhero is better than zombie, right? Though, Jesus is way better than any mere superhero!

[One Bad Pig]

Because your experts are only experts in early Christian beliefs. They are not experts as to the possibility or likelihood of first century resurrections/reanimations. NO ONE witnessed the reanimation of a dead body. Even if 70,000 first century Christians wrote down that Jesus had appeared to all of them at the same time and in the same place this would not be proof he really did. Seventy thousand Roman Catholics believe that the 2,000-years-dead Virgin Mary appeared to them in Fatima, Portugal, all at the same time, and in the same place, but for some strange reason this "appearance" to tens of thousands of eyewitnesses has yet to make it's way into any public university history textbook as an "historical fact".

Your final point might have some relevance if the appearance at Fatima were considered historically significant (IOW, had a noticeable impact on the subject of the book).

[psstein]

That happens for many people. When life is bleak and depressing we are the most vulnerable to any offer of deliverance from that situation, and the idea that there is an all-powerful God who loves you personally and wants to help you and protect you is very, very powerful.

Except I already believed in an all-powerful God. I was Jewish at the time.

The genetic fallacy is apparent.

[Mikeenders]

You are failing to understand, Mike.

I am differentiating between evidence for a reanimation/resurrection and evidence for a post-death appearance.

Describing what my allegedly resurrected grandfather said and looked like when he appeared to me one night after his death is very different from me describing watching his dead, bloated body transform in front of my eyes into a superhero/immortal body and watching it push its way out of a tomb, and levitate into the sky. Thousands of people each year claim to see dead relatives, very few claim to have seen the reanimation of a dead body or to have witnessed a body crawling out of its grave.

sigh.....Gary I am not failing to understand anything. I am saying the criteria is idiotic and I stand by it. if you put something in the water and people started having visions about their dead ones coming up out of the grave before they saw them it would make ZERO difference. You would still say they are hallucinating. Now if these people didn't just see their loved ones but the guy next to them did too and then passengers from a passing tour bus saw the same guy that fit the description and then some police officers did also then you would have a much more credible story than the single person claiming they saw when he came up out of the ground. You are making no sense plus you are fibbing by analogy. Thousands of people each year do NOT claim to see their loved ones with people next to them seeing the same thing and a whole group of people with them. What the NT records even outside of 1 cor 15 is collective appearances where more than one person was witness to the same event.

Further your 40 year after the fact claim is nonsense. When you wrote down the story does not limit the fact that you told it before. That people wrote down finally what the church had believed for years does not mean thats when the witness was first given. It would be awfully strange if the writer of Corinthians decided to invent the story by telling a church (if it even would have existed) they had already heard something they had never heard before. All anyone would have to do is go visit Corinth and the game would be up.

[Mikeenders]

Your grandfather never claimed to be the Messiah.

This is the whole canard with how skeptics address the issue. Almost all of them wish to pretend that the christian narrative begins with the birth, ministry death and resurrection of Jesus. They are OBLIVIOUS to the fact that every time they say Christian or Christ they are referring to the "anointed one" and the context of the messiah of the old testament. No matter how you try and educate them they cannot seem to get into their noggin That Christ and Christian are not common or surnames. They ARE A PROPHETIC REFERENCE from the Old testament

YOU DO NOT START WITH THE NEW TESTAMENT TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE EARLY CHURCH BELIEVED IN JESUS YOU START WITH THE OLD.

This is why Paul does not say the death and resurrection of Jesus is the big deal or the gospel but that it happened "according to the scriptures" (Old testament) that makes it noteworthy. Miracles and even resurrections by themselves would not make any Jewish believer of the first century follow Jesus. It was that they identified him as the prophesied Messiah.

This is why none of Gary's analogies or comparisons work and are strawmen. If you have a man appearing out of nowhere with no reference before him and even raising from the dead and no prophetical context heralding his coming then the early church would not have bought it either and it would not have been CHRISTianity.

[tabibito]

You lost me.

Do you believe that the appearance to James and the Five Hundred happened after the Ascension?? Is there any Church body or apologist that supports that idea?

The destruction of the Temple IS mentioned in the Gospels. And if the Gospels were written when the majority of NT scholars believe they were written, the "prophecy" of the Temple's destruction was not a prophecy, but simply recording as prophecy a known historical event. Even if the Gospel of Mark was written in 65 AD, for the author of Mark to have Jesus saying that the Temple would be destroyed is not much different than someone in early September, 1939, predicting that most of Warsaw would be destroyed.

Don't try to convince anyone that you do not claim the authors of the Bible were not lying. This shows beyond doubt that you do believe they were.

Had the writer of the gospel known of the destruction of the temple, it would have been written up as a fulfilled prophecy. Such a landmark event would have been a powerful vindication of the prophecy and would not have been missed.

There is a strongly logical explanation for why the gospels, having been written early, might seemingly written have been written at late dates, and indirect evidence to support the possibility.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Hmmm. Gary hasn't said much new. Still doesn't understand a high context society. Still doesn't understand that we're not convinced by Google when we read books. I find it laughable when Gary says he spent four months investigating eleven different issues and thought he had enough information. Doesn't work that way. The objections sounded strong to Gary because he never studied what he believed to begin with and never had the humility to study works he needed to study.

[Gary]

Hmmm. Gary hasn't said much new. Still doesn't understand a high context society. Still doesn't understand that we're not convinced by Google when we read books. I find it laughable when Gary says he spent four months investigating eleven different issues and thought he had enough information. Doesn't work that way. The objections sounded strong to Gary because he never studied what he believed to begin with and never had the humility to study works he needed to study.

Just as one does not need to study the books of leprechaun scholars to know that leprechauns do not exist, one does not need to study the books of reanimated-ancient-dead-Jewish-prophet scholars to know that such an entity does not exist.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Drink!

[Mikeenders]

Just as one does not need to study the books of leprechaun scholars to know that leprechauns do not exist, one does not need to study the books of reanimated-ancient-dead-Jewish-prophet scholars to know that such an entity does not exist.

That proves it to me

You are a fraud and a troll

A) anyone claiming to have been a christian claiming they didnt need to study before they gave up their faith was never a true Christian

B) anyone getting into specific questions about the text and claiming to be discussing issues and making challenges that begs off having to do research to answer counter points is an intellectually dishonest lightweight.


My recommendation at page 308 is a lock of the thread. It is quite obvious this is just someone looking for attention and not someone wishing to engage any issues. Its ran its course.