Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Gary]

So many inaccuracies in this post it's hard to know where to start.



This is not a view merely based on the word of Christian apologists, but determined from the secular academic work of NT scholars who find the belief of the early church inexplicable, and mysterious given the culture at large.



Nope, that is incorrect. The belief is based on the fact that there was concept of a general resurrection, but only at the end times, and that the Messiah was expected to usher in that end times through the re-establishment of Israel as a sovereign kingdom. It wasn't merely that Jesus' death and resurrection was unexpected, but that it seemed to go against what was expected.



That's correct. Just as we scoff and snicker at the idea of faked Moon Landings. It would have been as ludicrous then as it is today. Likely more-so in fact.



All of this is wrong. Jesus did teach such a concept. Mark 7:18-20 He said to them, "Are you so foolish? Don't you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer." (This means all foods are clean.) He said, "What comes out of a person defiles him.

More to the point, though, the sheet vision had to do with bringing Gentiles into the Christian fold, which is also the context of preceding passages with the introduction of Paul. Furthermore, this is all in line with the radicalism of Christianity in general, which just furthers the point that it was such a disconnect with the cultural sensibilities at large. Peter wouldn't have believed his vision, or even told others about the vision if it weren't for the fact that he bore witness to the incredible turn of events that was Christ's death and resurrection to begin with. If he were just your ordinary Jew running around telling people to stop eating kosher because he had a vision of a sheet, people would have thought he was freaking nuts.



As Nick has pointed out, this is just your typical pulpit slamming. As usual the only thing you've proven is that you embarrassingly have no clue what you're talking about.

"This is not a view merely based on the word of Christian apologists, but determined from the secular academic work of NT scholars who find the belief of the early church inexplicable, and mysterious given the culture at large."

Ridiculous.

Please provide a consensus statement by "secular academic NT scholars" that says it is IMPOSSIBLE that a small group of first century Jews came to believe in a executed-resurrected messiah without literally seeing a walking/talking dead body.

"The belief is based on the fact that there was concept of a general resurrection, but only at the end times, and that the Messiah was expected to usher in that end times through the re-establishment of Israel as a sovereign kingdom. It wasn't merely that Jesus' death and resurrection was unexpected, but that it seemed to go against what was expected."

Yea? So what. I agree. Jews were not expecting an executed-resurrected Messiah who would be resurrected alone, prior to the general resurrection, prior to the establishment of the New Kingdom. And guess what? The overwhelming majority of Jews did NOT believe the claim about Jesus. The overwhelming majority of first century Jews thought the claim of Jesus' resurrection was a bunch of heretical nonsense pandered by a group of "unlearned" Galilean peasants!

"All of this is wrong. Jesus did teach such a concept. Mark 7:18-20 He said to them, "Are you so foolish? Don't you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer." (This means all foods are clean.) He said, "What comes out of a person defiles him."

If you are right and Jesus and his disciples were eating roast pork and horse burgers during his ministry, then why was Peter so revulsed by what he saw in his "trance". I don't think that Jesus ever said any such thing.

"More to the point, though, the sheet vision had to do with bringing Gentiles into the Christian fold, which is also the context of preceding passages with the introduction of Paul. Furthermore, this is all in line with the radicalism of Christianity in general, which just furthers the point that it was such a disconnect with the cultural sensibilities at large. Peter wouldn't have believed his vision, or even told others about the vision if it weren't for the fact that he bore witness to the incredible turn of events that was Christ's death and resurrection to begin with. If he were just your ordinary Jew running around telling people to stop eating kosher because he had a vision of a sheet, people would have thought he was freaking nuts."

Assumptions, spin. Assumptions and spin.

Bottomline: First century Jews, if the Bible is true, were ripe for visions, vivid dreams, and trances, and, believing that God spoke to them in these events. Note with this example above, it was daytime, Peter was on the roof waiting for his lunch. He then went into a trance. Did he fall asleep and go into a dream? No. That is not what the Bible says. It simply says he fell into a trance. How do we know that after Jesus death, his disciples and other followers weren't seeing Jesus in dreams and trances, just like Peter's, which occurred in the middle of the DAY, and yet, like Peter, everyone took their visions and trances to be real communications from God!

If Peter can see multiple animals on a sheet floating in the sky and believe this is a communication from God, then Peter could see Jesus appearing to the Eleven and believe it was a literal communication from God. Adrift, Nick, Stein, and others can howl all day long that no first century Jew would ever believe such a claim unless they had seen a walking, talking dead body, but the passage above says otherwise!

Your ridiculous assumption/generalization has been proven false. Just accept it.

[Gary]

I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you! Nick breaking the Sabbath to "amen" a comment by Adrift.

What is the world coming to??

[Apologiaphoenix]

So many inaccuracies in this post it's hard to know where to start.



This is not a view merely based on the word of Christian apologists, but determined from the secular academic work of NT scholars who find the belief of the early church inexplicable, and mysterious given the culture at large.



Nope, that is incorrect. The belief is based on the fact that there was concept of a general resurrection, but only at the end times, and that the Messiah was expected to usher in that end times through the re-establishment of Israel as a sovereign kingdom. It wasn't merely that Jesus' death and resurrection was unexpected, but that it seemed to go against what was expected.



That's correct. Just as we scoff and snicker at the idea of faked Moon Landings. It would have been as ludicrous then as it is today. Likely more-so in fact.



All of this is wrong. Jesus did teach such a concept. Mark 7:18-20 He said to them, "Are you so foolish? Don't you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer." (This means all foods are clean.) He said, "What comes out of a person defiles him.

More to the point, though, the sheet vision had to do with bringing Gentiles into the Christian fold, which is also the context of preceding passages with the introduction of Paul. Furthermore, this is all in line with the radicalism of Christianity in general, which just furthers the point that it was such a disconnect with the cultural sensibilities at large. Peter wouldn't have believed his vision, or even told others about the vision if it weren't for the fact that he bore witness to the incredible turn of events that was Christ's death and resurrection to begin with. If he were just your ordinary Jew running around telling people to stop eating kosher because he had a vision of a sheet, people would have thought he was freaking nuts.



As Nick has pointed out, this is just your typical pulpit slamming. As usual the only thing you've proven is that you embarrassingly have no clue what you're talking about.

You left out a whole lot Adrift. First off, Gary is assuming that this was something that was all in Peter's head. If it wasn't, then that would mean that God did do something, but Gary has already assumed God isn't interacting in the world so this has to fall into his account of a dreamlike event.

Second, Peter didn't even understand the vision then but went to see Cornelius and he then had the experience of watching Gentiles suddenly speak in other languages, which I think the tongues were, which was proof for him that they had received the Holy Spirit. That's what the vision was about. Not so much food as Gentiles.

Third, Peter himself still needed a reminder of this as we see in Galatians 2 when he went back to kosher food for a time.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I gave you TWO cases of non-Christians coming back from the dead. Look them up. The point is that no one prayed to Jesus to raise them from the dead and the people of their non-Christian cultures believed that they had died and come back to life. Now, how about you give me just ONE Christian raising from the dead in which the above NIH criteria were used to confirm death. You can't and you know it! You are just blowing smoke.

Sorry, but a non-Christian case is not the same as a case of a resurrection in another religion. Also, are they miracles? Not sure yet. I'd have to see the cases, but a miracle is an event happening of a unique nature in an environment somehow charged with religious significance.

As for an account of another Christian being raised from the dead.

See Keener.

[Gary]

You left out a whole lot Adrift. First off, Gary is assuming that this was something that was all in Peter's head. If it wasn't, then that would mean that God did do something, but Gary has already assumed God isn't interacting in the world so this has to fall into his account of a dreamlike event.

Second, Peter didn't even understand the vision then but went to see Cornelius and he then had the experience of watching Gentiles suddenly speak in other languages, which I think the tongues were, which was proof for him that they had received the Holy Spirit. That's what the vision was about. Not so much food as Gentiles.

Third, Peter himself still needed a reminder of this as we see in Galatians 2 when he went back to kosher food for a time.

Dear Readers: Is it possible that Peter literally saw a floating sheet full of lions, tigers, and bears? Sure. But that is not the issue, here. The issue is that Nick and friends have argued that the disciples would have known the difference between a dream and reality. But this story about Peter does not state that Peter was asleep. He was simply in a "trance". This story illustrates that for SOME first century Jews, the border between dreams and reality could be blurred even when one was awake.

Bottom line, if we believe the authors of the Gospels, practically everyone in first century Palestine was having visions, dreams, trances, and sightings of celestial beings:

Zachariah allegedly saw an divine being.
Mary allegedly saw a divine being.
Joseph had dreams of divine beings which he believed were literal messages from God.
Shepherds allegedly saw multitudes of divine beings.
The women coming to the tomb had conversations with divine beings.
Stephen saw God himself in a "vision".
Peter saw animals in a floating sheet in a "trance".
Paul saw a talking bright light in a "vision".

Most of the Christians on this thread admit that the authors of the Gospels "invented" some of the stories they wrote in their Gospels. They did this for theological purposes. They were not writing history books, after all. The Slaughter of the Innocents of Bethlehem, the World Wide Census, the dead saints roaming the streets of Jerusalem, most likely did not happen. So isn't it possible that some of the events above also did not happen? Isn't it possible that these stories are for theological purposes only; not meant to be taken literally?

So if some of these stories are inventions isn't it possible that the post-resurrections accounts in the Gospels are simply theological embellishments? Isn't it possible that the original belief in a resurrection was based on vivid dreams and trances that were "fattened up" decades later by Gospel authors writing for edification of the believers and as a means of conversion instead of writing accurate history books??

Answer: Yes.

And one more point about Peter's trance: Based on this vision, the Church began to teach that is was no longer mandatory for Jews to keep the kosher dietary laws, a central teaching of Judaism for over a thousand years. This shows that some first century Jews, living in an Honor-Shame society, could change their core beliefs by having visions and trances.

[Gary]

Sorry, but a non-Christian case is not the same as a case of a resurrection in another religion. Also, are they miracles? Not sure yet. I'd have to see the cases, but a miracle is an event happening of a unique nature in an environment somehow charged with religious significance.

As for an account of another Christian being raised from the dead.

See Keener.

If you want to declare victory that I have not given you a case of Muslims or Hindus saying Muslim or Hindu prayers over someone who has been declared dead by a team doctors and then has come back to life, go ahead. However, what I have shown is that people who have "appeared" dead and have "come back to life" were not really dead but in a coma. Therefore the onus is on you to provide ONE case in which the NIH criteria for determining brain death has been used in one of your Christian miracle raisings from the dead.

You can't and you know it.

That is why you are such a coward and refuse to present ONE Christian case, instead trying to send me off on a wild goose chase reading hundreds of anecdotal case in a biased book by a biased author who in the preface of whose book states very clearly his agenda: to demonstrate that scholars should take miracle claims more seriously.

That is not scholarship. Scholars don't start out with any agenda other than to find the truth.

Stop peddling overtly biased "scholarship", Nick.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Dear Readers: Is it possible that Peter literally saw a floating sheet full of lions, tigers, and bears? Sure. But that is not the issue, here. The issue is that Nick and friends have argued that the disciples would have known the difference between a dream and reality. But this story about Peter does not state that Peter was asleep. He was simply in a "trance". This story illustrates that for SOME first century Jews, the border between dreams and reality could be blurred even when one was awake.

Which again is the assumption that nothing happened except a subjective experience which is again your assumption that God does not act, an assumption that you have never made a case for and that I have in fact provided data against both on the argument of metaphysics, per Earman, and on experience, per Keener.

Bottom line, if we believe the authors of the Gospels, practically everyone in first century Palestine was having visions, dreams, trances, and sightings of celestial beings:

Zachariah allegedly saw an divine being.
Mary allegedly saw a divine being.
Joseph had dreams of divine beings which he believed were literal messages from God.
Shepherds allegedly saw multitudes of divine beings.
The women coming to the tomb had conversations with divine beings.
Stephen saw God himself in a "vision".
Peter saw animals in a floating sheet in a "trance".
Paul saw a talking bright light in a "vision".

So we have eight different instances which shows that everyone was having these. No. The texts just report the unusual experiences and not the mundane. We might as well say no one in Palestine ever blew their nose because no one mentions it.

Most of the Christians on this thread admit that the authors of the Gospels "invented" some of the stories they wrote in their Gospels. They did this for theological purposes. They were not writing history books, after all. The Slaughter of the Innocents of Bethlehem, the World Wide Census, the dead saints roaming the streets of Jerusalem, most likely did not happen. So isn't it possible that some of the events above also did not happen? Isn't it possible that these stories are for theological purposes only; not meant to be taken literally?

Gotta love the all-or-nothing thinking.

So if some of these stories are inventions isn't it possible that the post-resurrections accounts in the Gospels are simply theological embellishments? Isn't it possible that the original belief in a resurrection was based on vivid dreams and trances that were "fattened up" decades later by Gospel authors writing for edification of the believers and as a means of conversion instead of writing accurate history books??

Answer: Yes.

Do you have a scholarly case for this or just an assertion?

And one more point about Peter's trance: Based on this vision, the Church began to teach that is was no longer mandatory for Jews to keep the kosher dietary laws, a central teaching of Judaism for over a thousand years. This shows that some first century Jews, living in an Honor-Shame society, could change their core beliefs by having visions and trances.

No. It shows they could change their minds by powerful data and the data was they saw what happened at Cornelius's house themselves. Note also that if Acts is accurate, there were numerous miracles taking place as well.

If you want to declare victory that I have not given you a case of Muslims or Hindus saying Muslim or Hindu prayers over someone who has been declared dead by a team doctors and then has come back to life, go ahead. However, what I have shown is that people who have "appeared" dead and have "come back to life" were not really dead but in a coma. Therefore the onus is on you to provide ONE case in which the NIH criteria for determining brain death has been used in one of your Christian miracle raisings from the dead.

No. Your claim was there were resurrections in other religions with medical evidence. You did not provide that. You just said "Well here's what happened to some non-Christians." Sorry. Doesn't work that way. You made a claim and you couldn't back it because all you have is Google. Now if you want to say that what happened to Jesus is that he was in a coma and came back, then you're going to have to make a defense of the swoon theory and that one was abandoned centuries ago and it was liberal non-Christians who killed it. Do you want to do that?

You can't and you know it.

See Keener.

That is why you are such a coward and refuse to present ONE Christian case, instead trying to send me off on a wild goose chase reading hundreds of anecdotal case in a biased book by a biased author who in the preface of whose book states very clearly his agenda: to demonstrate that scholars should take miracle claims more seriously.

Yes. He has an agenda. So what? That means all the data is false? Oh no! People who have an objective can't be trusted with data! So when you say your objective is to release us from this cult, then everything you say must be false! Deal with the data. People who point to agendas are cowards who are scared of the data.

That is not scholarship. Scholars don't start out with any agenda other than to find the truth.

Oh good grief. Every scholar has an agenda.

Stop peddling overtly biased "scholarship", Nick.

Stop being a coward avoiding all scholarship.

[Gary]

As I have demonstrated above, it seems like everyone and his uncle in first century Palestine was receiving messages from God in dreams, visions, trances, or by angelic appearances. And it is very clear that first century Jews took these dreams, visions, trances, and appearances very seriously. Joseph, the husband of Mary, for instance, has a dream in which an angel tells him to marry a woman who is pregnant by someone else. So he marries her! A couple years later, in another dream, an angel tells Joseph to move to a foreign country, in the middle of the night. And he does it!

And we just saw in my recent comment regarding Peter "seeing" a floating sheet full of non-kosher animals; unclean animals which God told him to kill and eat, that first century Jews were willing to abandon traditions that the Jewish people had observed for over a millennia, based on nothing more than a dream, vision, or trance. So the idea that all first century Jews needed hard evidence to accept a radically new teaching is contradicted by Peter's "trance". And the idea that first century Jews could distinguish a dream from reality is also called into question by Peter's confusion over this "trance". Was it a trance? Or was it a real experience, a "miracle", performed by God? Peter wasn't sure.

But there's more.

Let's look at another alleged "miracle" involving first century Jews confusing reality with visions, dreams, and trances: The Stoning of Stephen.





There is zero indication in this passage that Stephen was asleep, dreaming, or in a trance. However, how do we know that this passage cannot be a statement of reality? Answer: Stephen claims to see Jesus standing at the right hand of God! This directly contradicts other passages of the Bible that specifically state that "no man has ever seen God".

Even many Christians assume that this statement by Stephen was a vision. But no where in the passage does it state that this was a vision. This passage shows that first century Jews (at least a small group of them) could assume that a vision was reality, or, it demonstrates that the writers of the Gospels (the author of Acts was also the author of Luke) were willing to retell a vision without mentioning that it was a vision. They wrote the story of a vision using language as if it were reality.

All this demonstrates that it very possible that the early Christian belief in the Resurrection of Jesus was originally based on visions, vivid dreams, trances, or hallucinations. It also demonstrates that just because the Gospel author does not expressly state that the "appearance of Jesus" occurred in a vision or trance, that doesn't mean it didn't. Thirdly, it demonstrates that some first century Jews could be convinced simply by a vision, dream, or trance to believe radically new teachings that directly contradicted a millennia of Jewish teaching: such as eating non-Kosher foods and believing that a human being could see God.

What does all this evidence tell us, folks? It tells us that the early Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus was most probably based on dreams, visions, trances, or hallucinations. And the evidence for this probability can be found in the Bible itself. Stop listening to the spin of Nick and other apologists who try make the obvious seem so much more complicated than it really is. You don't need scholars to see the simple truth, folks. Use your brain and good ol' common sense: This is a tall tale by ancient, gullible, superstitious people.

[Gary]

Which again is the assumption that nothing happened except a subjective experience which is again your assumption that God does not act, an assumption that you have never made a case for and that I have in fact provided data against both on the argument of metaphysics, per Earman, and on experience, per Keener.



So we have eight different instances which shows that everyone was having these. No. The texts just report the unusual experiences and not the mundane. We might as well say no one in Palestine ever blew their nose because no one mentions it.



Gotta love the all-or-nothing thinking.



Do you have a scholarly case for this or just an assertion?



No. It shows they could change their minds by powerful data and the data was they saw what happened at Cornelius's house themselves. Note also that if Acts is accurate, there were numerous miracles taking place as well.



No. Your claim was there were resurrections in other religions with medical evidence. You did not provide that. You just said "Well here's what happened to some non-Christians." Sorry. Doesn't work that way. You made a claim and you couldn't back it because all you have is Google. Now if you want to say that what happened to Jesus is that he was in a coma and came back, then you're going to have to make a defense of the swoon theory and that one was abandoned centuries ago and it was liberal non-Christians who killed it. Do you want to do that?



See Keener.



Yes. He has an agenda. So what? That means all the data is false? Oh no! People who have an objective can't be trusted with data! So when you say your objective is to release us from this cult, then everything you say must be false! Deal with the data. People who point to agendas are cowards who are scared of the data.



Oh good grief. Every scholar has an agenda.



Stop being a coward avoiding all scholarship.

"Which again is the assumption that nothing happened except a subjective experience which is again your assumption that God does not act, an assumption that you have never made a case for and that I have in fact provided data against both on the argument of metaphysics, per Earman, and on experience, per Keener."

Strawman!

No where in my argument do I state that it is impossible that Peter saw a floating sheet full of lions, tigers, and bears.

None of your scholars can say with 100% certainty that any event attributed to Jesus actually happened. They can only express degrees of probability. That is one critical point that Christian apologists always seem to forget.

You have NO CLUE if the story about Cornelius is historical fact!

[psstein]

I couldn't really care less about the current discussion (largely because it's a rehash of 50 pages ago), but it seems as though Mark 7:18-20 could be authentic. I'm busy with other work right now, so I can't really expand at length, unfortunately.

[Gary]

I couldn't really care less about the current discussion (largely because it's a rehash of 50 pages ago), but it seems as though Mark 7:18-20 could be authentic. I'm busy with other work right now, so I can't really expand at length, unfortunately.

I'm sorry? We discussed, "fifty pages ago", the fact that the Bible passage that discusses Stephen's "seeing" Jesus and God the Father was written as if this event was an historical reality (just like the alleged resurrection appearances of Jesus) but yet we know it was a vision???

[Gary]

[Gary]

Peter's trance.gif

Reality or an altered state of mind...while awake...during the day?



Why couldn't Peter and the other disciples have had similar "trances" in which the risen Jesus "appeared" to them? If Peter can see a multitude of animals in a trance, isn't it possible that he could also "see" Jesus appear to a multitude of people in a trance?

[Gary]

Sorry, but a non-Christian case is not the same as a case of a resurrection in another religion. Also, are they miracles? Not sure yet. I'd have to see the cases, but a miracle is an event happening of a unique nature in an environment somehow charged with religious significance.

As for an account of another Christian being raised from the dead.

See Keener.

Ok, Nick, just to put an end to your continued use of Keener's alleged miracles as a dodge so that you are not forced to provide evidence of the reality of Christian miracles, I have just purchased Keener's two volume book, "Miracles", on Amazon. I will receive it on Wednesday.

Here is the Amazon preview statement for this book. I am going to bold claims in the statement that I will be looking for during my reading of the two books:

Most modern prejudice against biblical miracle reports depends on David Hume's argument that uniform human experience precluded miracles. Yet current research shows that human experience is far from uniform. In fact, hundreds of millions of people today claim to have experienced miracles. New Testament scholar Craig Keener argues that it is time to rethink Hume's argument in light of the contemporary evidence available to us. This wide-ranging and meticulously researched two-volume study presents the most thorough current defense of the credibility of the miracle reports in the Gospels and Acts. Drawing on claims from a range of global cultures and taking a multidisciplinary approach to the topic, Keener suggests that many miracle accounts throughout history and from contemporary times are best explained as genuine divine acts, lending credence to the biblical miracle reports.

Let me make a prediction: After I have read the entire two volume work of Keener regarding miracles, Nick will tell me its not enough. Nick will tell me that I am still uninformed. Nick will tell me to keep reading Christian scholars' books until one of two events happen: I'm dead or I convert.

[Bisto]

Today I heard on the radio that some guy wrote a book with a word study showing that the real meaning of "Messiah" from the OT onwards was related to cannabis, and that visions from the OT and NT, and NT miracle stories, all come from use of marijuana oil!! (I'm serious. Look this theory up and laugh it off.) Visions everywhere!! This theory must be true! (smile)