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

[DesertBerean]

"The majority of NT scholars are Christian believers. So what?"

A majority of Book of Mormon scholars believe that Joseph Smith's reception of Golden Plates from an angel is historical fact. A majority of Book of Mormon scholars are also Mormons.

A majority of Koran scholars believe that Muhammad's claim that he flew on a winged horse to heaven is an historical fact. A majority of Koran scholars are Muslim.

Just because the majority of scholars of a particular religion's holy text believes that a major claim in that holy text is historical fact is NOT good evidence that it is a fact, or, that non-experts should take the position of these experts on these religiously linked claims seriously. The potential for bias is just too great.

This is why Bart Ehrman does not believe that "scholarly consensus" on this issue is any form of evidence for the claim that the Empty Tomb is historical and most likely why Ehrman can't be bothered with reading Habermas' biased research on the subject.

Somehow I don't think as many scholars are involving themselves in Mormon or Islamic fields of study that aren't of those faiths. Non Christians might be more comfortable with NT scholarly works these days because they don't have to worry about threats of death or other dire consequences. Salem Rushdie might be a modern example of this risk.

[Gary]

I learn something new every day. However, given that, how is it you find it OK to mock Adrift as "Drifty" , "Driftless" etc?

When he gives his real first name, the mocking will end, just as it ended with "OBP" when he shared that his name is Luke.

I am not excusing my behavior, I am just pointing out that pseudonyms encourage nasty, trolling behavior and that if we all used each other's real first name, we would probably be a (little) more polite to one another.

[Gary]

Somehow I don't think as many scholars are involving themselves in Mormon or Islamic fields of study that aren't of those faiths. Non Christians might be more comfortable with NT scholarly works these days because they don't have to worry about threats of death or other dire consequences. Salem Rushdie might be a modern example of this risk.

I am not aware that anyone (in recent memory) has been threatened with death for questioning the historicity of Moroni's visit with Joseph Smith in a quiet cow pasture, one lovely day in upstate New York, circa 1830 AD.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

It is a resurrection passage and results in confusion if you try and interpret it in a singularly spiritual sense. You aren't even trying to interact with what other posters write and just restate your theory. Look at verse 22-23 "22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies."

You were trying to use Romans 8:1-17 as a reference to a physical bodily resurrection. It's not or at least I've produced another plausible interpretation which shows he's speaking of people that are still living. The "redemption of our bodies" makes sense when you read 1 Cor 15:35-54 and 2 Cor 5:1-4. We "redeem" our natural earthly body that's put in the ground (like a seed) and receive a "spiritual body" in heaven.

The problem is that it is definitely there and you are trying to read it out.

Oh really? I'm missing the part where it says "physical corpses will be raised from the dead." I think you're the one trying to read that in.

So your case basically is to insist that wherever Paul is writing about mortal bodies being given life or bodies being redeemed he is meaning it in a spiritual sense. Therefore whenever he is talking about Christ appearing to him it is non physical. Therefore any appearances of Christ to others were non physical too because since his own experiences were non-physical and he mentions theirs alongside his, theirs are non physical too. Your whole case rests on your own preassumptions . I am starting to think you are a troll

Paul says "He appeared (ophthe) to them and he appeared (ophthe) to me, too." The appearance to Paul was a vision and he does not indicate that the Risen Jesus was experienced in a physical way. He doesn't even say the Risen Jesus was on earth. Therefore, you have no grounds for claiming these were physical appearances that involved touching a resurrected corpse like the later embellished gospels tell us.

We went over this already. Paul saw Christ on the Damascus road and Christ told him he was going to appear to him things of which he wanted Paul to testify about. So it was not just Christ's initial appearance that he was to testify about but the sense seems to be that situations and events were going to arise which would afford Paul opportunities to tell of the initial appearance and more such as the situations when Christ was delivering him from his people and the Gentiles who Christ was sending him to. It is this 'vision' Christ entrusted him with, which Paul had obediently undertaken (Acts 26:19) and this is what he is telling Agrippa.

Everytime this word όπτασία is used by Luke it is used in relating an experience/happening which is understood to be extra-ordinary and personal to the person/people who were eyewitness to it. It is making the point that something was witnessed by the see-er which is not directly available to the hearer. The word from what I see in these contexts, in no way makes a statement about the whether what was seen is concrete or not but rather it is the surrounding text which informs us if what was being eyewitnessed was concrete or not.

Thanks for admitting the appearance to Paul was some sort of visionary experience. Since no distinction is made by Paul and he gives no evidence of anything remotely "physical", you can't claim the other "appearances" were more physical than what happened to Paul.

[DesertBerean]

I am not aware that anyone (in recent memory) has been threatened with death for questioning the historicity of Moroni's visit with Joseph Smith in a quiet cow pasture, one lovely day in upstate New York, circa 1830 AD.

No...but the Mormons do excommunicate people for questioning their teachings. How often this happens, I'm not sure...I know of only one that happened in the last few years. I have seen people claim they are Christians and yet flout the most basic foundational teachings of the faith and nothing happens to them.

[DesertBerean]

When he gives his real first name, the mocking will end, just as it ended with "OBP" when he shared that his name is Luke.

I am not excusing my behavior, I am just pointing out that pseudonyms encourage nasty, trolling behavior and that if we all used each other's real first name, we would probably be a (little) more polite to one another.

In other words, you're not too serious about respecting the practice of first real names. Ok.

[Gary]

In other words, you're not too serious about respecting the practice of first real names. Ok.

???

Since Luke (OBP) shared his real name a few pages ago on this thread, I have not referred to him as "Pigster", "Piggy", or "the Pigged One" even once. From now on, I will refer to Luke by his real name since he has bravely chosen to come out from the shadows of his pseudonym. When "Adrift" demonstrates the same intestinal fortitude, I will happily extend to him the same courtesy.

Happy?

:)

Are you ready to shed your pseudonym, my Christian friend?

[DesertBerean]

Lol...really? I don't indulge in that kind of disrespect, so I'm not too motivated to humor you.

Even if I wanted to, I live in a small enough town that my real name is very easily identifiable so I really don't feel like exposing myself on TWEB. There ARE some troublemakers out there.

[psstein]

"The majority of NT scholars are Christian believers. So what?"

A majority of Book of Mormon scholars believe that Joseph Smith's reception of Golden Plates from an angel is historical fact. A majority of Book of Mormon scholars are also Mormons.

A majority of Koran scholars believe that Muhammad's claim that he flew on a winged horse to heaven is an historical fact. A majority of Koran scholars are Muslim.

Just because the majority of scholars of a particular religion's holy text believes that a major claim in that holy text is historical fact is NOT good evidence that it is a fact, or, that non-experts should take the position of these experts on these religiously linked claims seriously. The potential for bias is just too great.

This is why Bart Ehrman does not believe that "scholarly consensus" on this issue is any form of evidence for the claim that the Empty Tomb is historical and most likely why Ehrman can't be bothered with reading Habermas' biased research on the subject.

Genetic fallacy.

I told you why Ehrman hasn't read Habermas' work. I'm unable to keep up with scholarly work in my own area. I can't imagine that Ehrman is able to either, between writing, teaching, and researching.

[One Bad Pig]

???

Since Luke (OBP) shared his real name a few pages ago on this thread, I have not referred to him as "Pigster", "Piggy", or "the Pigged One" even once. From now on, I will refer to Luke by his real name since he has bravely chosen to come out from the shadows of his pseudonym. When "Adrift" demonstrates the same intestinal fortitude, I will happily extend to him the same courtesy.

Happy?

:)

Are you ready to shed your pseudonym, my Christian friend?

Don't give yourself too much credit. It's only been a few posts.

And if I were that sensitive, I would've changed my user name a long time ago. I had an uncle named Gary, and it's not stopped me from slamming you when I feel it's appropriate.

[Gary]

Lol...really? I don't indulge in that kind of disrespect, so I'm not too motivated to humor you.

Even if I wanted to, I live in a small enough town that my real name is very easily identifiable so I really don't feel like exposing myself on TWEB. There ARE some troublemakers out there.

Imagine how much more success Paul and Silas could have had spreading the Good News and converting the lost if they had only used pseudonyms. They could have really trashed talked the opponents of Jesus of their day and never have suffered any consequences for it.

:)

[DesertBerean]

Imagine how much more success Paul and Silas could have had spreading the Good News and converting the lost if they had only used pseudonyms. They could have really trashed talked the opponents of Jesus of their day and never have suffered any consequences for it.

:)

[Adrift]

No...but the Mormons do excommunicate people for questioning their teachings. How often this happens, I'm not sure...I know of only one that happened in the last few years. I have seen people claim they are Christians and yet flout the most basic foundational teachings of the faith and nothing happens to them.

Of course, Mormons and Muslims have yet to go through a post-Enlightenment and post-modern Koranic or Book of Mormon Criticism phase. There have in recent decades been some moves towards a more critical scholarly look at Islam, but mostly among Western scholars (some of whom are Muslim). We did have a Mormon scholar on this forum who specialized on the Old Testament though, and he made no bones about his acceptance of the Documentary Hypothesis and other extremely critical takes on the OT.

Genetic fallacy.

I told you why Ehrman hasn't read Habermas' work. I'm unable to keep up with scholarly work in my own area. I can't imagine that Ehrman is able to either, between writing, teaching, and researching.

Anyways, Ehrman relies heavily on the same sort of point when dealing with Mythicists, that the majority of NT scholars accept the historicity of Jesus. He doesn't seem to balk about Christians making up the majority of NT scholars then, nor any other time he ever points out majority opinion (which isn't uncommon in his work).

Don't give yourself too much credit. It's only been a few posts.

And if I were that sensitive, I would've changed my user name a long time ago. I had an uncle named Gary, and it's not stopped me from slamming you when I feel it's appropriate.

The whole username/profile pic freak out thing that some of these guys do is so silly. It's almost always guys over the age of 50 who, I'm guessing, never did much with Ham Radios and CBs back in the day. It's an obviously desperate and pathetic attempt at well poisoning when they've run out of anything else to yammer on about. Gary's not my pal, not someone I want to get to know, and far from anyone I respect. Rather I find him to be a disgraceful, and despicable mess. And if he don't like that he can suck an egg for all I care.

[Gary]

Of course, Mormons and Muslims have yet to go through a post-Enlightenment and post-modern Koranic or Book of Mormon Criticism phase. There have in recent decades been some moves towards a more critical scholarly look at Islam, but mostly among Western scholars (some of whom are Muslim). We did have a Mormon scholar on this forum who specialized on the Old Testament though, and he made no bones about his acceptance of the Documentary Hypothesis and other extremely critical takes on the OT.



Anyways, Ehrman relies heavily on the same sort of point when dealing with Mythicists, that the majority of NT scholars accept the historicity of Jesus. He doesn't seem to balk about Christians making up the majority of NT scholars then, nor any other time he ever points out majority opinion (which isn't uncommon in his work).



The whole username/profile pic freak out thing that some of these guys do is so silly. It's almost always guys over the age of 50 who, I'm guessing, never did much with Ham Radios and CBs back in the day. It's an obviously desperate and pathetic attempt at well poisoning when they've run out of anything else to yammer on about. Gary's not my pal, not someone I want to get to know, and far from anyone I respect. Rather I find him to be a disgraceful, and despicable mess. And if he don't like that he can suck an egg for all I care.

Coward.

[psstein]

Of course, Mormons and Muslims have yet to go through a post-Enlightenment and post-modern Koranic or Book of Mormon Criticism phase. There have in recent decades been some moves towards a more critical scholarly look at Islam, but mostly among Western scholars (some of whom are Muslim). We did have a Mormon scholar on this forum who specialized on the Old Testament though, and he made no bones about his acceptance of the Documentary Hypothesis and other extremely critical takes on the OT.

I don't know about Mormonism, but I think there is a slowly growing field of critical Quranic studies. There is (or was) a journal being published in the field.

Anyways, Ehrman relies heavily on the same sort of point when dealing with Mythicists, that the majority of NT scholars accept the historicity of Jesus. He doesn't seem to balk about Christians making up the majority of NT scholars then, nor any other time he ever points out majority opinion (which isn't uncommon in his work).

Ehrman has a very irritating habit of pointing out majority opinion when it's convenient, but ignoring it when it's not. He also doesn't always get the majority opinion correct, either.