Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Adrift]

By the way, this demonstrates once again that Gary does not agree with the majority position on Biblical scholarship as he often likes to claim.

[Gary]

By the way, this demonstrates once again that Gary does not agree with the majority position on Biblical scholarship as he often likes to claim.

Wrong. As I have repeatedly stated, I am willing to accept the majority opinion of NT scholars on every claim related to the alleged Resurrection, including the Empty Tomb, for the simple reason that it makes no difference whatsoever to my assertion that there are many other possible, plausible, non-miracle explanations for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection.

[Gary]

Yeah, 51% is a majority. I'd say 75% makes up an overwhelming majority.

I don't think there is any hard and fast definition of "overwhelming majority" but I would bet that most people would consider it anything over 90%.

[Gary]

Seriously, folks, can anyone give me a good rebuttal to my hypothetical explanation that the family moved Jesus' body presented above, other than generalizations and assumptions? I don't think you can. And if you can't, we have established that one of the primary pieces of evidence for the Christian claim of a Resurrection has been shown to have other possible, plausible, non-miracle explanations.

But Nick claims that the Empty Tomb is only one of several pieces of evidence for the Resurrection; that when put together, these pieces of evidence leave only ONE plausible explanation: a miracle; the supernatural act of a Resurrection. But I challenge Nick to present these other pieces of evidence and let's evaluate each one, one at a time. I assert that we will be able to find alternative, non-miracle explanations for each and every piece of Nick's evidence, not withstanding his protests using broad generalizations and assumptions; generalizations and assumptions for which he has consistently failed to prove that that there have never been exceptions.

[psstein]

"It also seems as though Jesus' brothers were also involved in the early church, so there's another problem."

Really?? You have proof, Stein, that EVERY member of Jesus' family, every brother and every male cousin, was involved in the Church?? Source, please!

Mark 6:3 James, Judas (Jude), and Simon all become involved in the early Christian movement. James and Simon are bishops of Jerusalem, and Jude supposedly writes the Epistle of Jude. Joses, according to a 2nd century writer quoted by Eusebius, talks to Domitian.

The source is Eusebius, who quotes an earlier tradition.

[psstein]

By the way, this demonstrates once again that Gary does not agree with the majority position on Biblical scholarship as he often likes to claim.

Especially when the majority position is that naturalistic explanations for the Resurrection don't account for all the available data.

[Gary]

Mark 6:3

James, Judas (Jude), and Simon all become involved in the early Christian movement. James and Simon are bishops of Jerusalem, and Jude supposedly writes the Epistle of Jude. Joses, according to a 2nd century writer quoted by Eusebius, talks to Domitian.

The source is Eusebius, who quotes an earlier tradition.

Catholic tradition.

You have no proof that every single one of Jesus' brothers were involved in the Church. Do you even believe that Jesus had half-brothers, sons born of Mary? If you are a good Catholic, you don't. Maybe Joseph had other children that were not believers. Maybe there were cousins who wanted to protect the larger family name from the claims of the "nut branch" of the family. Maybe it was Joseph himself and some of his brothers! That is why he is never mentioned again: He had become a non-believer in the whole Messiah claim.

The list of possible "body snatchers" is endless, Stein.

Why don't you just admit that there are other plausible, non-miracle explanations for the Empty Tomb and for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection instead of trotting out claims you can't prove??

[psstein]

So are you really stating that the only area of early Christianity of which Bart Ehrman is considered a scholar is textual criticism? So no one would consider Ehrman a New Testament scholar regarding the beliefs and history of early Christianity? Source, please?

How about reading his peer-reviewed, published work for a scholarly audience?

All of the work he's done for a scholarly audience has involved textual criticism. He doesn't do life of Jesus research, he doesn't publish in the field, etc. The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus is essentially the journal for historical Jesus work. To my knowledge, he hasn't published anything in it.

He's a textual critic, and a good one at that. He's not a historical Jesus scholar. The field, believe it or not, is fairly specialized. You have scholars who spend their entire careers on the gospel of John. Maurice Casey spent most of his on the Son of Man problem and Aramaicisms behind Mark.

[Gary]

Especially when the majority position is that naturalistic explanations for the Resurrection don't account for all the available data.

Exactly what data do naturalistic explanations not account for? List them. Let's review each one, one at a time. I think you are blowing a lot of hot air: generalizations and assumptions.

[Gary]

How about reading his peer-reviewed, published work for a scholarly audience?

All of the work he's done for a scholarly audience has involved textual criticism. He doesn't do life of Jesus research, he doesn't publish in the field, etc. The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus is essentially the journal for historical Jesus work. To my knowledge, he hasn't published anything in it.

He's a textual critic, and a good one at that. He's not a historical Jesus scholar. The field, believe it or not, is fairly specialized. You have scholars who spend their entire careers on the gospel of John. Maurice Casey spent most of his on the Son of Man problem and Aramaicisms behind Mark.

Not the issue.

What I asked you is this: Are you saying that Bart Ehrman is not considered a scholar, an expert in the field, regarding the beliefs and history of early Christians?

I think you are full of baloney. You have repeatedly made this accusation against Ehrman. It is very disingenuous.

What you are saying is the equivalent of this: A general ophthalmologist is not an expert on the eyes because he is not a retina subspecialist.

[psstein]

Catholic tradition.

You have no proof that every single one of Jesus' brothers were involved in the Church. Do you even believe that Jesus had half-brothers, sons born of Mary? If you are a good Catholic, you don't. Maybe Joseph had other children that were not believers. Maybe there were cousins who wanted to protect the larger family name from the claims of the "nut branch" of the family. Maybe it was Joseph himself and some of his brothers! That is why he is never mentioned again: He had become a non-believer in the whole Messiah claim.

The list of possible "body snatchers" is endless, Stein.

Why don't you just admit that there are other plausible, non-miracle explanations for the Empty Tomb and for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection instead of trotting out claims you can't prove??

No, because something can be theologically true without being literally true, and the Catholic Church's tradition on the perpetual virginity of Mary comes from the 3rd/4th century.

Joseph is almost assuredly dead by the start of the ministry, hence his complete absence. If you actually read commentaries rather than making nonsense up, you'd know that. Your theory requires additional assumptions/actors/etc. Then it requires that nobody tell the early Christians, when Jesus' family itself believed he was insane!

Gary, it's rich that you are saying that I'm making claims I can't prove. You're desperately scrambling to come up with something that you like as an explanation. As I've said over and over, there is one possible naturalistic explanation, and I really don't think that explanation particularly good.

[psstein]

Not the issue.

What I asked you is this: Are you saying that Bart Ehrman is not considered a scholar, an expert in the field, regarding the beliefs and history of early Christians?

He's not considered a specialist in life of Jesus/historical Jesus, so no, he's not a scholar of that field. He has produced no scholarly work about anything outside textual criticism. He's a scholar of textual criticism.

[psstein]

Exactly what data do naturalistic explanations not account for? List them. Let's review each one, one at a time. I think you are blowing a lot of hot air: generalizations and assumptions.

The fact that the disciples were, despite being familiar with visions, convinced that Jesus himself had risen bodily from the dead and now reigned with God. You also have to explain the appearance to Paul, and the attempt to explain it away as a vision/hallucination doesn't really answer why he had such an experience.

You also have to explain why the appearances had transformative power, which visions do not.

[Gary]

No, because something can be theologically true without being literally true, and the Catholic Church's tradition on the perpetual virginity of Mary comes from the 3rd/4th century.

Joseph is almost assuredly dead by the start of the ministry, hence his complete absence. If you actually read commentaries rather than making nonsense up, you'd know that. Your theory requires additional assumptions/actors/etc. Then it requires that nobody tell the early Christians, when Jesus' family itself believed he was insane!

Gary, it's rich that you are saying that I'm making claims I can't prove. You're desperately scrambling to come up with something that you like as an explanation. As I've said over and over, there is one possible naturalistic explanation, and I really don't think that explanation particularly good.

How brainwashed are you, Stein??

I am not pretending to give you the ONE true, historical account of how Jesus' body got out of his sealed tomb. I am simply giving PLAUSIBLE alternatives. I am not trying to prove what DID happen, only presenting many possible alternatives that could have happened.

You cannot prove that Joseph was already dead and you know it. Yet another of your many, many assumptions.

"...something can be theologically true without being literally true."

Our mutual friend, MikeEnders, will love that statement! It's a doozy! Why don't you just say the same thing about the empty tomb?? "The tomb was empty theologically, even if it wasn't literally." Love it, Baby! (My Austin Powers impersonation)

[Gary]

The fact that the disciples were, despite being familiar with visions, convinced that Jesus himself had risen bodily from the dead and now reigned with God. You also have to explain the appearance to Paul, and the attempt to explain it away as a vision/hallucination doesn't really answer why he had such an experience.

You also have to explain why the appearances had transformative power, which visions do not.

Alright, we are finally getting somewhere.

"The fact that the disciples were, despite being familiar with visions, convinced that Jesus himself had risen bodily from the dead and now reigned with God."

Please give me a quote from any of the Eleven Disciples or any other alleged witness to seeing a bodily resurrected Jesus during the forty (or eight, depending on which Gospel) days prior to the Ascension which states what you have just said.

"You also have to explain the appearance to Paul, and the attempt to explain it away as a vision/hallucination doesn't really answer why he had such an experience."

I don't have to explain it away as a vision. Paul himself SAYS it was a vision in Acts chapter 26. Visions are not reality. Christians can howl all day long that Paul himself said he "saw" Jesus in the flesh...but he didn't ever say that...exactly, did he? Paul said he "saw" Jesus and the author of Acts explains what Paul meant by this statement: Paul "saw" Jesus in a vivid dream/vision. Tens of thousands of people have "seen" dead people in their vivid dreams. We don't believe any of them, so why should we believe one man from twenty centuries ago??

So why would a Pharisee convert to the religion he is persecuting? Well, let's see. How about this option: He felt guilty about killing fellow Jews. One night the guilt overwhelmed him, he had a vivid dream (people often "see" what they want to see when they have a vivid dream), and in his vivid dream he "atones" for his sins of persecuting and killing fellow Jews by becoming a missionary for the very movement he was persecuting. From that day forward, every time he is beaten or stoned, he believes he is in some small way atoning for beating and killing Jewish Christians.

I can just hear Adrift et al. screaming, "You have no proof of this!!" And my response will be...yet again...I don't have to prove what actually happened, only that something other than a miracle can explain the few pieces of evidence that we do have. Bizarre conversions happen folks. There is a man living in Israel today who was once an orthodox Jew, studying to be a rabbi. He is now a fundamentalist Islamic cleric. And if we look we will find many other bizarre conversions from one belief system to another, very different, belief system. Humans can be very unpredictable creatures.