Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Gary]

Like debating a child. Guy whines and balks when recommended books by New Testament scholars on a subject he's completely ignorant on, and when you spoon feed him the view of NT scholars he has the nerve to tell ya you got it all wrong.

Source: The Gospel and Letters of John: Interpreting Biblical Texts Series by R. Alan Culpepper

The differences are so great (between John and the Synoptics) that John can hardly have drawn on the Synoptics as a major source for his material. John clearly relies on an independent source of tradition for his Gospel, one that he attributes to the Beloved Disciple. The similarities, such as they are, are more easily explained on the assumption that John used early Christian tradition that had developed its own peculiar turns of thought and expression in relative isolation from the Synoptic traditions.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: The Gospel According to John by D. A. Carson

The thesis of Gardner-Smith has taken hold of much of Johannine scholarship. Gardner-Smith argued that John is quite independent of the Synoptics, i.e. that there is no evidence that the Fourth Gospel was written as a theological 'correction' or 'addendum' to one or more of the Synoptic Gospels...The majority of commentators hold that John is independent of the Synoptic Gospels...

© Copyright Original Source

Source: A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume V by John P. Meier

As indicated throughout the first four volumes of A Marginal Jew, I hold that John's Gospel represents a tradition similar to but independent of the Synoptics. The treatments of the Passion tradition by C.H. Dodd (Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1963] 21-151) and at much greater length by Raymond E. Brown (The Death of the Messiah [AYBRL; 2 vols; New York: Doubleday, 1994]) offer, in my view, convincing arguments in favor of this position, especially in regards to the Passion tradition. The view that John is basically independent of the Synoptics has been reexamined historically and defended exegetically by D. Moody Smith in the revised and updated version of his John among the Gospels (2d ed.; Columbia: University of South Carolina, 2001); see esp. pp. 195-241. More to the point, John's independence of the Synoptics has been examined and vindicated numerous times in the various volumes of A Marginal Jew, both in the sayings material (e.g., the Baptist's saying about baptism by water and by spirit [vol. 2, pp. 32-39]; Jesus' saying about saving or losing one's life [vol. 3, pp. 56-64]) and in narratives (e.g., the healing of the royal official's son/centurion's servant, the walking on the water, and the feeding of the five thousand [vol. 2, pp. 718-26, pp. 905-24, and pp. 950-67 respectively]).

© Copyright Original Source

Nick and Stein: Do you believe that it is probable, or at least possible, that the author of the Gospel of John had read or heard read the other three gospels which had been written decades prior to his gospel?

[Adrift]

Nick and Stein: Do you believe that it is probable, or at least possible, that the author of the Gospel of John had read or heard read the other three gospels written decades prior to his gospel?

Do you really think that others can't read these posts and see your goalpost moving? Your original claim which I replied to was "You have two and possibly three of the four borrowing heavily from the first." John does not heavily borrow from Mark. The general view in NT scholarship is that John is wholly independent of the Synoptics.

And stop with these "it's possible/probable/No one can be 100% certain" questions and pronouncements. No one is interested in playing your "what if" games. No one is buying that as a legit argument.

[One Bad Pig]

I know for a fact that Ehrman does not believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb. And here is a summary of the positions of New Testament scholars Ludemann and Crossan---from a world renowned scholarly source---Newsweek!


German New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann, a visiting professor at Vanderbilt Divinity School. To him, the Resurrection is "an empty formula" that must be rejected by anyone holding a "scientific world view." In his latest book, "What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection" (147 pages. Westminster John Knox Press), Ludemann argues that Jesus' body "rotted away" in the tomb. The Risen Christ that appeared to the Apostle Peter, according to Ludemann, whose book evoked a roar of protest from German Christians, was a subjective "vision" produced by Peter's overwhelming grief and "guilt" for having denied Jesus when he was arrested. For the Apostle Paul, who had previously persecuted Christians, his vision of the Risen Jesus was the resolution of an unconscious "Christ complex." And what the New Testament describes as Jesus' appearance to "more than 500" followers was a "mass ecstasy." In short, modern psychology reduces the Risen Christ to a series of interpsychic experiences that produced in the disciples a renewed sense of missionary zeal and spiritual self-confidence.

That's nice, but he's not someone you claimed held the view you were propounding.

For John Dominic Crossan, a prolific Biblical scholar at DePaul University in Chicago and a former Roman Catholic priest, the tomb of Jesus was indeed empty. The reason: his body had already been devoured by wild dogs-a fate, claims Crossan, typical of crucified Roman criminals. There were no post-Resurrection appearances either, not even visions or ecstasies; Crossan does not believe that any of these stories from the New Testament have historical roots. In his most recent book, "Who Killed Jesus?".(238 pages. HarperCollins), Crossan argues that "the Easter faith... did not begin on Easter Sunday." Rather, it began during Jesus' lifetime in rural Galilee. According to Crossan's historical reconstruction, Jesus was a peasant philosopher preaching an inclusive kingdom of God among Israel's outcasts. Although Jesus' revolutionary agenda challenged the Jewish religious establishment of his day, Crossan insists that only the Romans were responsible for his death. Eventually, the original Jesus movement died, too, the victim of a developing Christian establishment that transformed the human Jesus into a divine son of God.

Which is rather unlike your speculation, since the heart of your fantasy was post-Resurrection "visions."

Source: http://www.newsweek.com/rethinking-resurrection-176618

And so, to rebut the charge that you only lift things from Google searches, you lift something from a Google search.

Gary: So my hypothesis is NOT out of left field. It shares common features held among most skeptics, including scholars.

Oh look, the goalposts shifted. Again.

I rest my case.

[Gary]

Like debating a child. Guy whines and balks when recommended books by New Testament scholars on a subject he's completely ignorant on, and when you spoon feed him the view of NT scholars he has the nerve to tell ya you got it all wrong.

Source: The Gospel and Letters of John: Interpreting Biblical Texts Series by R. Alan Culpepper

The differences are so great (between John and the Synoptics) that John can hardly have drawn on the Synoptics as a major source for his material. John clearly relies on an independent source of tradition for his Gospel, one that he attributes to the Beloved Disciple. The similarities, such as they are, are more easily explained on the assumption that John used early Christian tradition that had developed its own peculiar turns of thought and expression in relative isolation from the Synoptic traditions.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: The Gospel According to John by D. A. Carson

The thesis of Gardner-Smith has taken hold of much of Johannine scholarship. Gardner-Smith argued that John is quite independent of the Synoptics, i.e. that there is no evidence that the Fourth Gospel was written as a theological 'correction' or 'addendum' to one or more of the Synoptic Gospels...The majority of commentators hold that John is independent of the Synoptic Gospels...

© Copyright Original Source

Source: A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume V by John P. Meier

As indicated throughout the first four volumes of A Marginal Jew, I hold that John's Gospel represents a tradition similar to but independent of the Synoptics. The treatments of the Passion tradition by C.H. Dodd (Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1963] 21-151) and at much greater length by Raymond E. Brown (The Death of the Messiah [AYBRL; 2 vols; New York: Doubleday, 1994]) offer, in my view, convincing arguments in favor of this position, especially in regards to the Passion tradition. The view that John is basically independent of the Synoptics has been reexamined historically and defended exegetically by D. Moody Smith in the revised and updated version of his John among the Gospels (2d ed.; Columbia: University of South Carolina, 2001); see esp. pp. 195-241. More to the point, John's independence of the Synoptics has been examined and vindicated numerous times in the various volumes of A Marginal Jew, both in the sayings material (e.g., the Baptist's saying about baptism by water and by spirit [vol. 2, pp. 32-39]; Jesus' saying about saving or losing one's life [vol. 3, pp. 56-64]) and in narratives (e.g., the healing of the royal official's son/centurion's servant, the walking on the water, and the feeding of the five thousand [vol. 2, pp. 718-26, pp. 905-24, and pp. 950-67 respectively]).

© Copyright Original Source

The issue of whether or not the author of John was dependent or independent of the Synoptic Gospels is NOT settled, as you seem to suggest. Read here:

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PD...1-213-JETS.pdf

http://historicaljesusresearch.blogs...-composed.htmlhttps://readingacts.com/2010/11/24/d...optic-gospels/

https://books.google.com/books?id=aU...optics&f=false

[Gary]

That's nice, but he's not someone you claimed held the view you were propounding.

Which is rather unlike your speculation, since the heart of your fantasy was post-Resurrection "visions."

And so, to rebut the charge that you only lift things from Google searches, you lift something from a Google search.

Oh look, the goalposts shifted. Again.

I rest my case.

You
are
delusional.

Ludemann believes that Jesus' body rotted in his "tomb", so even though he may believe that Jesus had a tomb, he obviously doesn't believe in the existence of an "empty" tomb. And Crossan believes that there was an empty tomb but not because of a miracle reanimation, but because dogs ate the body. And Ehrman believes that the body was never in a tomb, but most probably tossed into a unmarked hole in the ground and forgotten.

Any of these scenarios is more probable, in the real world, that the Christian sci-fi story.

[Gary]

Do you really think that others can't read these posts and see your goalpost moving? Your original claim which I replied to was "You have two and possibly three of the four borrowing heavily from the first." John does not heavily borrow from Mark. The general view in NT scholarship is that John is wholly independent of the Synoptics.

And stop with these "it's possible/probable/No one can be 100% certain" questions and pronouncements. No one is interested in playing your "what if" games. No one is buying that as a legit argument.

Well, fundamentalists such as you and Raphael may believe with 100% certainty that a natural explanation for the early resurrection belief is impossible, but moderate Christians such as Nick and Stein say you are wrong. Both Nick and Stein have stated that a natural explanation is possible, just not plausible/probable. They are at least rational and reasonable.

Your position is extreme and on the fringe, even among Christians. Your position lacks any rationality, the hallmark of a fundamentalist.

[Bisto]

Well, fundamentalists such as you and Raphael may believe with 100% certainty that a natural explanation for the early resurrection belief is impossible, but moderate Christians such as Nick and Stein say you are wrong. Both Nick and Stein have stated that a natural explanation is possible, just not plausible/probable. They are at least rational and reasonable.

Your position is extreme and on the fringe, even among Christians. Your position lacks any rationality, the hallmark of a fundamentalist.

I also amen'd that particular post for the reasons he stated. Your arguments have historical issues, only some of which I can see, but enough to think it's "Historically impossible". Maybe theoretically possible, to a limited extent (inasmuch as you're explaining a limited set of the evidence only), but all things considered, still to be dismissed.

You could make a hobby out of composing alternate Resurrection theses and publishing them somewhere. They'd make a fun read once in a while :P

[Rushing Jaws]

But if prayer is as effective as you believe, why don't Christians have significantly lower morbidity, mortality, infant mortality, and, longer life expectancies than non-Christians and even atheists in the same societies?

Isn't it much more likely that the rare "miracle" is nothing more than coincidence? Again, if no one prayed for healing in a country, but on one day, for one specific very sick person, a prayer to Jesus was said, and instantly that person recovered, that would be very good evidence for the power of prayer. But if Christians in that country have a habit of always praying for everyone to have a miracle healing, and most don't get better, only a very few get better, the odds that these rare events are simply coincidences goes way up.

Briefly:

1. Christian prayer - not all types of it, only prayers asking God for certain things - is not a "dodge" for getting what one wants. All Christian prayer - adoration, confession, thanksgiving, supplication - is a means of growing in knowledge and love of God, of appreciation of God.

2. "Yes" is one answer to prayer. There are others, including "No", "Not yet", "Not in the sense you ask for".

3. God is totally free to "answer" prayer as He wills.

4. What we may want, is nowhere near as important as what God wants from us, and for us.

5. Our requests should always be made through and for Our Lord Jesus Christ - not without reference to Him.

6. Christians do not belong to themselves - we are meant to be slaves of Christ, and dependent entirely on His Providence and Faithfulness.

7. All creation, without the least exception, is ruled by the Providence of God - Planck lengths to galaxies, angels to atoms, whatever exists and is not God is completely ruled by God. So there are no co-incidences. No entity, however insignificant or God-free it may seem, is outside the scope of Divine Providence.

8. If by being sick we can glorify God, more than by being well, so much the better. Health is good only in so far as it does not keep us from God. No evil is fit to be called evil, if it does not separate us from God. The only evil worthy of the name is sin, for that, and nothing else, separates us from God. Whatever brings us to God, keeps us with Him, and stops us straying from Him, is good - whatever draws us away from Him, keeps us from Him, and stops us returning to Him, is bad.

9. One of the difficulties of this debate, is that the Christian standard of what is valuable, is not the "good pagan" standard of values. A further problem: there is ground on which they co-incide. A third: this difference in standards is easily over-looked. A fourth: the "good pagan" is more Christian than he realises - and the Christian is more "good pagan" than he realises.

[One Bad Pig]

Well, fundamentalists such as you and Raphael may believe with 100% certainty that a natural explanation for the early resurrection belief is impossible, but moderate Christians such as Nick and Stein say you are wrong. Both Nick and Stein have stated that a natural explanation is possible, just not plausible/probable. They are at least rational and reasonable.

Your position is extreme and on the fringe, even among Christians. Your position lacks any rationality, the hallmark of a fundamentalist.

I am skeptical that even you think we are "fundamentalists", "extreme", or "on the fringe" among Christians. You've got nothing of substance to say in response, so you're attempting to provoke an angry response in return. It's about as transparent as your other ploys.

[Raphael]

Well, fundamentalists such as you and Raphael may believe with 100% certainty that a natural explanation for the early resurrection belief is impossible, but moderate Christians such as Nick and Stein say you are wrong. Both Nick and Stein have stated that a natural explanation is possible, just not plausible/probable. They are at least rational and reasonable.

Your position is extreme and on the fringe, even among Christians. Your position lacks any rationality, the hallmark of a fundamentalist.

I don't recall giving my opinion either which way as to whether or not there is a possibility of natural explanation for the resurrection.

I did state why I believe miracles can and do occur (my sister being healed), and I pointed out that your "just so" story had a rather large assumption in it that doesn't line up with the historical information we have.


For the record, I do agree mostly with Adrift, but with a slight difference: under the heading of "anything is possible" I agree there could be a naturalistic explanation. However, based on the historical information we do have, the naturalistic explanation is so incredibly unlikely I would term it an absurdity. Based on the evidence, the only logical, rational conclusion is that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead.

And to say that this conclusion is extreme and on the fringe of Christianity means you don't have a clue about Christianity.
The only fundamentalist thing about it is that it is a foundational belief to being a Christian.

[lilpixieofterror]

Well, fundamentalists such as you and Raphael may believe with 100% certainty that a natural explanation for the early resurrection belief is impossible, but moderate Christians such as Nick and Stein say you are wrong. Both Nick and Stein have stated that a natural explanation is possible, just not plausible/probable. They are at least rational and reasonable.

Your position is extreme and on the fringe, even among Christians. Your position lacks any rationality, the hallmark of a fundamentalist.

Adrift and Raphael are fundamentalist? That's a real laugh. I don't think that word means what you think it means dear.

[lilpixieofterror]

I am skeptical that even you think we are "fundamentalists", "extreme", or "on the fringe" among Christians. You've got nothing of substance to say in response, so you're attempting to provoke an angry response in return. It's about as transparent as your other ploys.

Didn't some apostle guy say that if Christ had not risen, our faith is in vain? This should be more proof that our friend here isn't as smart as he claims since the historical claim that Jesus died and rose from the dead is kind of the event that all of Christianity rises or falls on.

[Raphael]

Didn't some apostle guy say that if Christ had not risen, our faith is in vain? This should be more proof that our friend here isn't as smart as he claims since the historical claim that Jesus died and rose from the dead is kind of the event that all of Christianity rises or falls on.

[14] And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. [15] We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. [16] For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. [17] And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. [18] Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. [19] If in Christ we have hope(1) in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Footnotes

(1) 15:19 Or *None*we have hoped


(1 Corinthians 15:14-19 ESV)

[lilpixieofterror]

[14] And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. [15] We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. [16] For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. [17] And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. [18] Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. [19] If in Christ we have hope(1) in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Footnotes

(1) 15:19 Or *None*we have hoped


(1 Corinthians 15:14-19 ESV)

You shouldn't of told him where it was at. It would have been amusing watching him trying to find out what I was talking about. Yet, we're suppose to trust that this guy knows what he's talking about.

[Adrift]

For the record, I do agree mostly with Adrift, but with a slight difference: under the heading of "anything is possible" I agree there could be a naturalistic explanation. However, based on the historical information we do have, the naturalistic explanation is so incredibly unlikely I would term it an absurdity.

Yeah, this doesn't really disagree with my view. I'm simply not willing to give an inch to Gary's irrational skepticism which involves goofy silly things like 100% certainties, "anything is possible" what-ifs, and the oh-so-obvious "we all agree" statements where he doesn't exactly get the other posters views right, but where he desperately seeks some sort of crack to widen as if we didn't realize that was his game.

Based on the evidence, the only logical, rational conclusion is that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead.

And to say that this conclusion is extreme and on the fringe of Christianity means you don't have a clue about Christianity.
The only fundamentalist thing about it is that it is a foundational belief to being a Christian.