Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[Adrift]

For the same reason Christians have formulated all the other creeds they have had over the past 2,000 years: to tell other Christians what they'd better believe if they want to be real Christians.

You think a creed that began within the first few years of Jesus' death, that lists the number of people that he was supposedly seen by after the fact, was compiled so that Christians could tell other Christians how to be real Christians? That's a really strange take.

[psstein]

It's just an important point that needs to be made in regards to transparency. It reminded me of the same dishonest tactic that WLC uses in his debates. "According to the esteemed German scholar and skeptic Gerd Ludemann, it can be taken as historically certain that the disciples had experiences of Jesus after his death."

Not so fast, Billy. Doesn't Ludemann think those "experiences" were based on bereavement hallucinations that didn't necessarily have anything to do with reality?

WLC: "Uh.....well....yes....but I didn't want the people that I'm pandering to to know that."

If Craig made Ludemann's actual view known to the audience then the argument loses its force. He's banking on most people not being familiar with critical scholarship and that's how I originally took your quote. Sorry if I was mistaken.

This is nonsensical. I have my own problems with Craig's arguments, but he's not citing Ludemann in support of his own conclusion, that the best explanation of the "minimal facts" are that Jesus is raised from the dead. He's citing Ludemann to say that virtually everybody believes that the disciples had some visionary experience of Jesus after his death.

I'm an academic historian in real life. When I write articles/reviews/whatever, I cite people I disagree with. Just because I'll cite Kloppenborg on Q doesn't mean I agree with him.

[psstein]

You think a creed that began within the first few years of Jesus' death, that lists the number of people that he was supposedly seen by after the fact, was compiled so that Christians could tell other Christians how to be real Christians? That's a really strange take.

It's kerygmatic and designed to provide a fairly easy way to remember an important message for the early church.

[Doug Shaver]

That's a really strange take.

It is unorthodox. Aside from that, I don't see why it is unreasonable.

[tabibito]

You have your epistemology, I have mine. When someone tells me I should believe something, I don't need evidence that it's false. Without evidence that it's true, I think I'm justified in withholding belief. And if it also seems prima facie unlikely, I think I'm justified in suspecting that it's false.

There are counter-claims, mostly from Messianic Christians, that the testimony of women was deemed unsatisfactory only in particular circumstances (evidence in a criminal trial, for example), and that the exclusion did not extend to matters such as the resurrection. On this matter I'm agnostic - there doesn't seem to be a wealth of supportive evidence either way.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

The creed also emphasizes the importance of revelation from the scriptures. So it seems "dying for everyone's sins" and "being raised on the third day" wasn't actually based on evidence. It was based on a certain understanding and interpretation of scripture. I actually think the belief in Jesus' resurrection started before the appearances.

[One Bad Pig]

The creed also emphasizes the importance of revelation from the scriptures. So it seems "dying for everyone's sins" and "being raised on the third day" wasn't actually based on evidence. It was based on a certain understanding and interpretation of scripture. I actually think the belief in Jesus' resurrection started before the appearances.

wow

[Kbertsche]

wow

Yes, RC clearly has a problem with reading comprehension.

[rogue06]

... I actually think the belief in Jesus' resurrection started before the appearances.

Many folks think odd things.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

It's not that odd. The concept of being "raised from the dead" was applied to other single prophet figures who had been recently executed in Jesus' day i.e. John the Baptist. So that establishes that the concept existed and was applied by followers of apocalyptic sects. It didn't necessarily rely on empirical evidence. The earliest Christians could have seen Jesus' death as a martyr like in 2 Macc and applied the concept of resurrection to him without having any such "appearances." They just believed he must have been vindicated in heaven. The tradition of appearances just came later and were added to the creed.

[Doug Shaver]

There are counter-claims, mostly from Messianic Christians, that the testimony of women was deemed unsatisfactory only in particular circumstances (evidence in a criminal trial, for example),

The quotations I have seen from the relevant literature of the period seem to support that. I have never seen a quotation supporting the claim that women's testimony had no credibility in any situation at all.

and that the exclusion did not extend to matters such as the resurrection. On this matter I'm agnostic - there doesn't seem to be a wealth of supportive evidence either way.

The standard apologetic claim that, in that time and place, women had no credibility period is inconsistent with human nature. The modern feminist notion that there is no limit to how sexist a society can be is not plausible.

[Adrift]

The standard apologetic claim that, in that time and place, women had no credibility period is inconsistent with human nature.

It isn't a standard apologetic claim. It's one accepted by a wide diversity of New Testament scholars, including more than a few non-Christians.

[Doug Shaver]

It isn't a standard apologetic claim. It's one accepted by a wide diversity of New Testament scholars, including more than a few non-Christians.

I've seen the kinds of arguments used by a wide diversity of New Testament scholars to defend their claims. With rare exceptions, I've not been impressed by the logical rigor of those arguments, especially when they're pretending to be like secular historians.

[Adrift]

I've seen the kinds of arguments used by a wide diversity of New Testament scholars to defend their claims. With rare exceptions, I've not been impressed by the logical rigor of those arguments, especially when they're pretending to be like secular historians.

No one's really that impressed with your brand of super-skepticism Doug. It certainly wasn't "logical rigor" that led to your current mythicist beliefs about Jesus and the early church that runs contrary to almost all New Testament scholarship.

[psstein]

No one's really that impressed with your brand of super-skepticism Doug. It certainly wasn't "logical rigor" that led to your current mythicist beliefs about Jesus and the early church that runs contrary to almost all New Testament scholarship.

The only scholar I actually know who challenged the idea that women weren't reliable witnesses was Maurice Casey, and his argumentation was strange. It boiled down to "well, women do heroic things in the OT, so it makes sense if they find the empty tomb!"

I think RC paraphrased him without attribution somewhere in the last 20 pages.