Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Apologiaphoenix]

The mind reading isn't going well. However, if you want to know, yes, the resurrection has far better evidence of it. Who says that? How about Antony Flew, the atheist turned deist, and he said this I believe in his atheist days. I would also agree with Cerebrum. A resuscitation? Perhaps. A resurrection to a life never to die like in the case of Christ? Not a chance.

[Gary]

The mind reading isn't going well. However, if you want to know, yes, the resurrection has far better evidence of it. Who says that? How about Antony Flew, the atheist turned deist, and he said this I believe in his atheist days. I would also agree with Cerebrum. A resuscitation? Perhaps. A resurrection to a life never to die like in the case of Christ? Not a chance.

How do you know that Jesus was resurrected and not just resuscitated like Lazarus and others?

[Gary]

Nick: As has been argued earlier, for Paul to have buried and then resurrection would mean that there was an empty tomb left behind. If that is the case, one could then say Mark downplayed what happened with Paul as he left out the appearances! Furthermore, a writer like Hurtado has written showing the earliest view of Jesus would have been him seen as the Lord. Hard to go up from that one!

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

Gary: Note the major assumption here. Just because someone has been buried does not mean that they were buried in a "tomb". One can be buried in an unmarked hole in the ground, and still meet the definition of "buried".

Nick:

Gary: Generalization. Just because all other would-be Messiah movements died out in "ancient history" does not mean that Jesus' movement would die out too if he were an imposter, and, that since his movement didn't die out, it MUST be true. We must also remember that the writers of the Gospels tell us that Jesus had repeatedly told his disciples that he would be killed and that he would rise again. Therefore, if the disciples did have vivid dreams of Jesus after his death, dreams in which he returns to visit them, it would be a risen Jesus, not a ghost. Nick can pontificate until he is blue in the face that first century Jews would never confuse a vivid dream with reality, but since we have evidence that people have confused vivid dreams for centuries and even today, the onus is on Nick to prove that first century Jews were so clear-minded and so non-superstitious as to not to have fallen victim to this mistaken perception.

Nick:

Gary: Why are Nick's options the foregone conclusion to be the more likely options? Just because four anonymous books, of which two and maybe three plazaiarize the first, say so? Why do we need an argument for Crossan's suggestiong that Jesus body was eaten by dogs. Crossan isn't suggesting this is what actually happened, he is just suggesting it as a possibility. Why would Paul and James go for this "placebo effect"? Many possible answers, but here are just a few:

James:
1. Saw an opportunity for prestige and power and took it. (Better than doing carpentry in Galilee all day!)
2. Shame for abandoning his brother and mother.
3. Gullible. He was caught up in the hysteria of the movement his dead brother had started; had a vivid dream in which his brother chooses him to be the head of the Church, etc., etc.

Paul:
1. Mental illness.
2. Shame.

We skeptics don't have to prove that any of these possibilities are the TRUE explanation, only that they are possible. And doctors look at people's writings all the time to shed light on their mental state. We can't say for certain that Paul had a mental illness, but the evidence in his writings strongly suggests it.

Nick: And of course, the apostles had nothing to gain from this! They received ostracism and were social pariahs. Paul describes what he had to gain from all of this in 2 Cor. 11. James we know was put to death for what he believed. If Keener is right, God is doing miracles today.

Source: https://adversusapologetica.wordpres...ts-apologetic/

[Adam]

....Did the author of John copy Mark word for word as did Matthew and Luke? No. But that doesn't mean that he didn't borrow the original core story. You are making yet another big assumption.

All this is wrong. The whole gospels are very similar for the Synoptics, but better scholars recognize that all three rest upon earlier, no longer extant texts. For the Passion Narrative, however, even the Gospel of John is quite similar and copies from the earlier Passion Narrative recognized by almost all critical scholars. For the Resurrection, therefore, we don't have four independent accounts. The empty tomb and the angel messenger discovered by the women underlies all four gospels. In my opinion it's a diary entry with the whole Passion Narrative and the start of the Resurrection accounts. Then this writer got too involved and excited (as was everyone else) to be the one person who related the more staggering events. For the first few hours after the Resurrection event there was no other story to write besides the women's discovery, this explaining the similarity to that point in the events.

[psstein]

Stein: Do the majority of scholars state that the author of John had never heard the Resurrection Story of Mark, or Luke's version of Mark's story, or Matthew's version of Mark's story?? Bottom line: Did the author of John write completely independent of any previous resurrection tradition?

Neither you nor your scholars can prove that and you know it.

So you don't always accept consensus positions. How typical. Especially when the consensus is unfavorable.

Yes, the majority position today is that John was generally unfamiliar with Mark/Luke/Matthew, though he may have known some of the traditions behind Mark and Luke.

[psstein]

All this is wrong. The whole gospels are very similar for the Synoptics, but better scholars recognize that all three rest upon earlier, no longer extant texts. For the Passion Narrative, however, even the Gospel of John is quite similar and copies from the earlier Passion Narrative recognized by almost all critical scholars. For the Resurrection, therefore, we don't have four independent accounts. The empty tomb and the angel messenger discovered by the women underlies all four gospels. In my opinion it's a diary entry with the whole Passion Narrative and the start of the Resurrection accounts. Then this writer got too involved and excited (as was everyone else) to be the one person who related the more staggering events. For the first few hours after the Resurrection event there was no other story to write besides the women's discovery, this explaining the similarity to that point in the events.

Well, sort of. I am highly skeptical of any "ur-Mark/Matthew/Luke" as it were. There are certainly some Aramaic sources behind Mark's gospel, but I think it's very tough to jump from "Aramaic roots" to "no longer extant texts." Plus I don't think Q exists.

Are you arguing for some sort of "Cross Gospel," as per J.D. Crossan?

[Adam]

Not at all.
I argue that there are seven written eyewitness accounts included within the four gospels. These include the Passion Narrative by John Mark, the Signs Gospel by Andrew and the Discourses by Nicodemus in John, Aramaic Q (Twelve-Source) by Matthew, Ur-Marcus by Peter, L by Simon the future Bishop of Jerusalem, and topped off by the Beloved Disciple element in John as edited by John the Apostle.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Jesus was crucified. That would have left his body badly mutilated. Heck. Even the scourging could have ripped a lot of his skin off.

Yet when He's resurrected, no one is calling Him a doctor. The body is new and glorified. It's strong enough to convince the most ardent skeptics that He's alive.

The charges of heresy are just cute. Now where are those resurrections in other religions that have medical verification?

[One Bad Pig]

Jesus was crucified. That would have left his body badly mutilated. Heck. Even the scourging could have ripped a lot of his skin off.

Yet when He's resurrected, no one is calling Him a doctor. The body is new and glorified. It's strong enough to convince the most ardent skeptics that He's alive.

The charges of heresy are just cute. Now where are those resurrections in other religions that have medical verification?

I don't recall hearing of other religions claiming resurrections, regardless of medical verification. Presumably Gary will find us some examples.

[Apologiaphoenix]

He said he would.

Now if he were consistent, he'd admit he isn't providing the claims because he's embarrassed for some reason and such.

Yes. I know. Being consistent. Try to stop laughing.

[Cerebrum123]

Could you clarify, "resuscitation"?

Are you saying that it is possible that when someone's heart has stopped that Satan can order one of his demons, invisibly, to do chest compressions and mouth to mouth on the guy to bring him back, or, are you saying that Satan has the power to raise someone from the dead, like Lazarus, who has been brain dead for four days and whose body has started to decompose?

Definitely not the latter, but the way you worded the former is obviously intended to be silly.

[Gary]

All this is wrong. The whole gospels are very similar for the Synoptics, but better scholars recognize that all three rest upon earlier, no longer extant texts. For the Passion Narrative, however, even the Gospel of John is quite similar and copies from the earlier Passion Narrative recognized by almost all critical scholars. For the Resurrection, therefore, we don't have four independent accounts. The empty tomb and the angel messenger discovered by the women underlies all four gospels. In my opinion it's a diary entry with the whole Passion Narrative and the start of the Resurrection accounts. Then this writer got too involved and excited (as was everyone else) to be the one person who related the more staggering events. For the first few hours after the Resurrection event there was no other story to write besides the women's discovery, this explaining the similarity to that point in the events.

Mark rests upon earlier texts??

[Gary]

So you don't always accept consensus positions. How typical. Especially when the consensus is unfavorable.

Yes, the majority position today is that John was generally unfamiliar with Mark/Luke/Matthew, though he may have known some of the traditions behind Mark and Luke.

Traditions behind Mark? How do you know that Mark didn't start the tradition of the Empty Tomb?

[Gary]

Jesus was crucified. That would have left his body badly mutilated. Heck. Even the scourging could have ripped a lot of his skin off.

Yet when He's resurrected, no one is calling Him a doctor. The body is new and glorified. It's strong enough to convince the most ardent skeptics that He's alive.

The charges of heresy are just cute. Now where are those resurrections in other religions that have medical verification?

Bottom line, Nick:

1. Other than the alleged event involving Jesus, God (Yahweh) has never before or since resurrected a single human being.
2. There have been thousands of empty tombs in human history due to someone moving the body or stealing it.
3. There have been thousands of vivid dreams mistaken for reality in human history.

Therefore, by simple mathematics, the probability that Jesus' empty tomb and the alleged post-death appearances of him were due to natural causes are much higher than a once in history resurrection. Your inviolable generalizations and assumptions that no body was ever moved or robbed from a tomb in first century Jerusalem are unprovable. Your inviolable generalizations and assumptions that no first century Jew ever mistook a vivid dream for reality are unprovable.

Your argument fails.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Gary isn't providing the resurrections in other religions he says exist.

Now let the mind-reading commence everyone! Using Gary's argumentation style, why has he not done so?

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Well, it's obvious that he knows there are no such miracles and nothing can really compare to the resurrection and he doesn't want to begin to compare because he knows that the resurrection has to be true.