Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[37818]

The bodily resurrection claim has pathetic evidence. Just pathetic.

Essentially you are saying the NT documents are pathetic, is that not correct?

[Gary]

Essentially you are saying the NT documents are pathetic, is that not correct?

I think trying to turn beautiful ancient hagiographies into history books is pathetic.

[37818]

I think trying to turn beautiful ancient hagiographies into history books is pathetic.

Where do you get the idea that the NT is some kind of hagiography?

[Gary]

Where do you get the idea that the NT is some kind of hagiography?

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first,[a] to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. ---the author of the Gospel of Luke

This is not the language of an unbiased historian. This author has an agenda, as did the authors of the other Gospels: to spread the Gospel of Jesus, the Christ. A hagiography is a flattering (embellished) biography of a famous ecclesiastical figure. The Gospels fit this definition to a tee.

And the author of the Gospel of John couldn't say it any more clearly:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.

[37818]

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first,[a] to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. ---the author of the Gospel of Luke

This is not the language of an unbiased historian. This author has an agenda, as did the authors of the other Gospels: to spread the Gospel of Jesus, the Christ. A hagiography is a flattering (embellished) biography of a famous ecclesiastical figure. The Gospels fit this definition to a tee.

And the author of the Gospel of John couldn't say it any more clearly:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.

That is an opinion. The Jews used the term to mean holy writings. Christians unlike the Jewish view, regard all the 39 books of the OT as holy writings, not just parts. Christians therefore regard the whole Bible, all its 66 books as holy writings. Therefor all them as being true by reason they are holy. Holy being God's word to man.

[Gary]

That is an opinion. The Jews used the term to mean holy writings. Christians unlike the Jewish view, regard all the 39 books of the OT as holy writings, not just parts. Christians therefore regard the whole Bible, all its 66 books as holy writings. Therefor all them as being true by reason they are holy. Holy being God's word to man.

So they are true because they are holy, not because they are really true??

[psstein]

The gospels are not meant to be apologetic works. They're written for believers, by believers.

There's also no real sense of "objective history" at this time either, which is as much of a pipe dream then as it is now.

[Gary]

The gospels are not meant to be apologetic works. They're written for believers, by believers.

There's also no real sense of "objective history" at this time either, which is as much of a pipe dream then as it is now.

I'm happy to hear you say that. The Gospels were not written as historical documents but as theological documents. Therefore some or all of the stories included in these documents may be theological fiction...such as the reanimation/resurrection of a dead body.

[Gary]

I am now reviewing Nick's post on his blog in which he responded to Matthew Ferguson's article from which I have been quoting in the last few comments. I must give Nick a compliment. He writes very well.

Let's look at a couple of Nick's criticisms of Ferguson's skepticism of the bodily Resurrection claim of traditional Christianity:before his death! How would anyone know the difference? Jesus walked on water; disappeared out of a crowd in Capernum; and "flew" to the top of the highest pinnacle of the temple!

If all of Judea and the Romans had seen Lazarus raised from the dead, why would it come as a complete and unheard of shock if Jesus were raised from the dead??? The Gospel of John says that the raising of Lazarus was brought to the attention of the Sanhedrin and that they were so furious about it that they wanted to kill Lazarus. The Gospel of John also says that it was Jesus' act of raising Lazarus from the dead that was the impetus for their plot to kill Jesus. So to say that no first century Jew or Roman would expect a dead body to come back to life is false unless one tries to fictionalize the story of Lazarus!

If we are to believe the Gospel of John, Jesus' resurrected body looked and behaved just like his pre-death body. How would ANYONE know that he was not the same Jesus from Nazareth whom they had known prior to his death...except..., as Lazarus, he had been raised from the dead by the power of God (Yahweh)???

I assert that Nick and NT Wright's argument on this issue falls flat. There WAS precedent in the Greco-Roman world for "resurrections": Lazarus. And the only means of proving that Jesus' "raising" was different than Lazarus "raising" was to invent yet another fantastical, supernatural tale: the story of Jesus' levitation into outer space from the top of a mountain...only told in one of the last Gospels written and repeated, with variations, in the same author's sequel, the Book of Acts.

[Adam]

Wow, Gary,
Your Post #909 sounds like you're "almost persuaded".

[Apologiaphoenix]

Ludemann's argument is incredibly problematic. You can't do accurate psychiatric analysis of someone who's been dead for the last 19 centuries.

It's hard enough to diagnose a patient sitting across from you that you can ask questions to and receive answers from. Even harder to do it based on bits and pieces.

But the real weakness of Ludemann's position is that it assumes a modern introspective conscience on an ancient Middle Eastern person. Paul would not have been wrestling with guilt. Shame would be a bigger problem and he would not have shame because the people who had the honor he would have been wanting were all applauding what he was doing.

Ancients did not experience guilt like that. There was of course guilt in the case of "Someone is guilty of a crime and did something wrong", but guilt as an internal feeling is not known in those cultures. It's not known then or now.

[37818]

So they are true because they are holy, not because they are really true??

What is not true is not holy nor should it be believed. What is true would also be true to any history that it may present or it would not be true, would it?

[One Bad Pig]

Sorry, Piggy. It is a pdf text. I can't copy it.

You'll have to look it up.

Are you incapable of typing out a sentence or two, or taking a screenshot? I'm beginning to think you goofed, and you don't want to admit it.

[Gary]

It's hard enough to diagnose a patient sitting across from you that you can ask questions to and receive answers from. Even harder to do it based on bits and pieces.

But the real weakness of Ludemann's position is that it assumes a modern introspective conscience on an ancient Middle Eastern person. Paul would not have been wrestling with guilt. Shame would be a bigger problem and he would not have shame because the people who had the honor he would have been wanting were all applauding what he was doing.

Ancients did not experience guilt like that. There was of course guilt in the case of "Someone is guilty of a crime and did something wrong", but guilt as an internal feeling is not known in those cultures. It's not known then or now.

It is amazing how skeptics are unqualified to analyze the minds of the ancients...but Nicky is an expert on the subject...

You have invented far too many inviolable generalizations about people who lived 20 centuries ago, my friend.

[Gary]

https://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2...minimal-facts/

Who does Nick believe gives the power to non-Christians to perform miracles? Other gods?? If other gods can perform miracles, then what does Jesus' resurrection prove? Answer: That some god wanted him raised from the dead. Maybe it was Allah! If so, we should all be Muslim, not Christian.

Satan? If Satan has the power to perform miracles, then maybe the resurrection of Jesus was an act of Satan. Maybe Satan raised Jesus to confuse people about the true teachings of Yahweh= Judaism. Christianity is a cult of Satan, leading people to follow a man as a god, contrary to the Torah and the prophets.

And where in the Bible does it say that other gods actually exist? Doesn't Elijah or Elisha tease the priests of Baal about the fact that their god wouldn't light the altar on fire. Why? Because Baal does not exist. He is just a statue.

Yahweh? Does God work miracles when the person "performing" the miracle is calling on a Hindu or Muslim god to perform the miracle???

I'm sure Nick has a ready made answer for all of this, but ask yourself this folks. Does the BIBLE give any indication that other gods exist and that they have miracle-performing powers; that Satan is capable of healing the sick and raising the dead; or that Yahweh answers prayers directed to false gods.

Nick is teaching heresy.