One of the Earliest Witnesses
Apologist writers and speakers like William Lane Craig, NT Wright and Richard Bauckham attempt to make the argument that the evidence of Jesus' resurrection was overwhelming to the apostles and that multiple eyewitnesses to the events of the resurrection were the core set of believers whose stories were transferred to the Greek gospel writers. Yet this fails to explain the data we have within just the New Testament itself. One man, Saul of Tarsus, was most definitely not convinced of the resurrection by the evidence that was available to him in Palestine shortly after the events took place.
Richard Carrier, refuting a similar argument from JP Holding, puts it best when he writes the following:
Why would he have persecuted them so vehemently if the evidence for the Resurrection was already as extraordinarily good as Holding's argument requires? Why does Paul only believe after he himself sees a vision of the Christ telling him he is wrong? Why does Paul never mention any other reason for converting? Even in Acts, he never cites any evidence as having convinced him, except his own personal vision (besides the scriptures, of course). He never makes any references to checking the facts of the empty tomb story, or being persuaded by the testimony of other witnesses--not even in Galatians. In fact, in Galatians Paul goes out of his way to deny having done any such thing until, at best, many years after he was already converted. So why did it take a personal visit from God to convince Paul? We cannot say he was loony or stupid--from his letters we can see Paul clearly was neither. There can be no plausible explanation for his not believing the Christians except the fact that he had no reason to believe them. Which entails there was no evidence that could be checked at all, or what could be checked was inconclusive to any reasonable man like Paul.
So contra Craig, Wright and Bauckham, we have multiple people who lived in Palestine around the time of the supposed resurrection and empty tomb, some of whom were referred to as Christians, who simply were not convinced by the evidence for the resurrection. The largest group who weren't convinced were the Jews, who simply saw no reason to believe this supposedly miraculous event took place even though they could also interview anyone involved. Paul was a member of this group before his vision on the road to Damascus and he was definitely not convinced by the evidence.
Therefore, the evidence wasn't convincing enough for Paul, who was alive and able to interview the supposed Christian eyewitnesses whose stories supposedly later became the Greek gospels. The only evidence that convinced Paul was a vision. If Paul had not had the vision, he would have continued to remain unconvinced, meaning there simply was not adequate physical or testimonial support for the belief in the resurrection prior to the time Paul had his vision.
This is a large problem for arguments such as William Lane Craig makes with his claims that the resurrection is the best explanation for the historical facts presented by the Greek gospels. Craig puts it this way in "The Historicity of the Empty Tomb":
Therefore, the Christian community also, of which Peter was the leader, must have believed in the empty tomb. But that can only mean that the tomb was empty. For not only would the disciples not believe in a resurrection if the corpse were still in the grave, but they could never have proclaimed the resurrection either under such circumstances. But if the tomb was empty, then it is unthinkable that Paul, being in the city for two weeks six years later and after that often in contact with the Christian community there, should never hear a thing about the empty tomb. Indeed, is it too much to imagine that during his two week stay Paul would want to visit the place where the Lord lay? Ordinary human feelings would suggest such a thing. So I think that it is highly probable that Paul not only accepted the empty tomb, but that he also knew that the actual grave of Jesus was empty.
However all Craig really has here is speculation and he fails to address the primary question of Paul's rejection of the evidence prior to his conversion. In addition, he simply glosses over the existence of the Ebionite community who considered themselves Christians yet rejected the bodily resurrection. For of course all of the chances to investigate the claims of Christianity were just as available to the Ebionites, Jews and Paul prior to his conversion. Furthermore, prior to that time Paul would have been approaching those claims with the doubts of a skeptic, rather than the beliefs of someone who had the fervor of a new convert.
To phrase the argument briefly then I would say this:
1. Prior to Paul's conversion, any evidence for the resurrection was just as strong as it was after his conversion.
2. The evidence for the resurrection failed to convince Paul of the truth of Christianity.
3. Therefore, the evidence for the resurrection alone, without specific interventions by God to make someone believe, must be inadequate to convince a skeptic who has not had a vision from God of its truth.
Richard Carrier, refuting a similar argument from JP Holding, puts it best when he writes the following:
Why would he have persecuted them so vehemently if the evidence for the Resurrection was already as extraordinarily good as Holding's argument requires? Why does Paul only believe after he himself sees a vision of the Christ telling him he is wrong? Why does Paul never mention any other reason for converting? Even in Acts, he never cites any evidence as having convinced him, except his own personal vision (besides the scriptures, of course). He never makes any references to checking the facts of the empty tomb story, or being persuaded by the testimony of other witnesses--not even in Galatians. In fact, in Galatians Paul goes out of his way to deny having done any such thing until, at best, many years after he was already converted. So why did it take a personal visit from God to convince Paul? We cannot say he was loony or stupid--from his letters we can see Paul clearly was neither. There can be no plausible explanation for his not believing the Christians except the fact that he had no reason to believe them. Which entails there was no evidence that could be checked at all, or what could be checked was inconclusive to any reasonable man like Paul.
So contra Craig, Wright and Bauckham, we have multiple people who lived in Palestine around the time of the supposed resurrection and empty tomb, some of whom were referred to as Christians, who simply were not convinced by the evidence for the resurrection. The largest group who weren't convinced were the Jews, who simply saw no reason to believe this supposedly miraculous event took place even though they could also interview anyone involved. Paul was a member of this group before his vision on the road to Damascus and he was definitely not convinced by the evidence.
Therefore, the evidence wasn't convincing enough for Paul, who was alive and able to interview the supposed Christian eyewitnesses whose stories supposedly later became the Greek gospels. The only evidence that convinced Paul was a vision. If Paul had not had the vision, he would have continued to remain unconvinced, meaning there simply was not adequate physical or testimonial support for the belief in the resurrection prior to the time Paul had his vision.
This is a large problem for arguments such as William Lane Craig makes with his claims that the resurrection is the best explanation for the historical facts presented by the Greek gospels. Craig puts it this way in "The Historicity of the Empty Tomb":
Therefore, the Christian community also, of which Peter was the leader, must have believed in the empty tomb. But that can only mean that the tomb was empty. For not only would the disciples not believe in a resurrection if the corpse were still in the grave, but they could never have proclaimed the resurrection either under such circumstances. But if the tomb was empty, then it is unthinkable that Paul, being in the city for two weeks six years later and after that often in contact with the Christian community there, should never hear a thing about the empty tomb. Indeed, is it too much to imagine that during his two week stay Paul would want to visit the place where the Lord lay? Ordinary human feelings would suggest such a thing. So I think that it is highly probable that Paul not only accepted the empty tomb, but that he also knew that the actual grave of Jesus was empty.
However all Craig really has here is speculation and he fails to address the primary question of Paul's rejection of the evidence prior to his conversion. In addition, he simply glosses over the existence of the Ebionite community who considered themselves Christians yet rejected the bodily resurrection. For of course all of the chances to investigate the claims of Christianity were just as available to the Ebionites, Jews and Paul prior to his conversion. Furthermore, prior to that time Paul would have been approaching those claims with the doubts of a skeptic, rather than the beliefs of someone who had the fervor of a new convert.
To phrase the argument briefly then I would say this:
1. Prior to Paul's conversion, any evidence for the resurrection was just as strong as it was after his conversion.
2. The evidence for the resurrection failed to convince Paul of the truth of Christianity.
3. Therefore, the evidence for the resurrection alone, without specific interventions by God to make someone believe, must be inadequate to convince a skeptic who has not had a vision from God of its truth.
99 comments:
Paul lived in Palestine at the time of the so-called resurrection and it was he who was so sure Christians were wrong that he persecuted them. So we can revise #2 as follows:
2'. The evidence for the resurrection to people like Paul living in that day who could examine it personally, failed to convince them of the truth of Christianity.
And as a result we can revise #3 as follows:
3'. Therefore, the evidence for the resurrection alone to people like Paul living in that day who could examine it personally, without specific interventions by God to make someone believe, must be inadequate to convince a skeptic of that day who had not had a vision from God of its truth.
And we can add that if this is so with people living in that day, how much less is the evidence to believe in today's world.
Good post!
Evan,
Where has NT Wright argued "that the evidence of Jesus' resurrection was overwhelming to the apostles" in exclusion of the post-resurrection appearances?
Specifically Wright argues that the empty tomb and the post-resurrection appearances are jointly sufficient and individually necessary for explaining the origin of early resurrection belief.
NT Wright says this:
To cut a long story very short: to explain why the early Christians really did believe that Jesus really had been raised from the dead, we must postulate three things: Jesus really had been dead; the tomb really was empty, and it really was his tomb; they really did see, meet and talk with a figure who was not only demonstrably the crucified Jesus but who seemed to be in some ways different — though not in the ways one would have imagined from reading Isaiah, Ezekiel or Daniel.
Seems pretty clear cut that he thinks this evidence would be overwhelming to the apostles. Can you imagine that this evidence wouldn't be overwhelming were it true?
I agree that he includes the post-resurrection appearances as part of the evidence, but this does nothing to change the case. Paul was not convinced by the persecuted Christians' testimony and evidence prior to his Damascus conversion and his Damascus conversion did not rest on the prior weight of evidence or testimony but was an epiphany.
Therefore, the evidence of the resurrection was inadequate to convince Paul. It's really quite a basic argument and it's one that I have never even seen addressed by most apologists.
Thanks for clarifying Evan.
Right, but if Wright is addressing those who experienced both then why would you want to use his argument contra some theory about Paul's belief prior to his experience at Damascus?
After the appearances, the "fact that people had appearances" became part of the corpus of evidence to consider regarding the resurrection. Should we assume Paul knew both of the empty tomb and appearances to others before his conversion? On what grounds?
All I'm saying is that NT Wright's point seems irrelevant unless you wish to argue Paul knew of both the empty tomb and the post-resurrection appearances to others.
At any rate, Wright is trying to best explain the early belief in resurrection.
Wright's argument can be roughly outlined as follow:
1. Early Christian believed in Jesus' (physical, bodily) resurrection.
2. The best explanation of that belief is the hypothesis of the disciple's discovery of Jesus' empty tomb and their experience of postmortem appearances of Jesus.
2.1 The hypothesis of the disciple's discovery of Jesus' empty tomb and their experience of postmortem appearances of Jesus has the explanatory power to account for that belief.
2.2 Rival hypotheses lack the explanatory power to account for that belief.
3. The best explanation for the facts of Jesus' empty tomb and postmortem appearances is the hypothesis that Jesus roses from the dead.
3.1 The resurrection hypothesis has the explanatory power to account for the empty tomb and postmortem appearances of Jesus.
3.2 Rival hypotheses lack the explanatory power to account for the empty tomb and postmortem appearances of Jesus.
WRIGHT
Early Christian believed in Jesus' (physical, bodily) resurrection.
CARR
SO why was Paul writing to early Christian converts who scoffed at the whole idea of their god choosing to raise corpses?
Should we assume Paul knew both of the empty tomb and appearances to others before his conversion? On what grounds?
Yes. We should definitely assume it if the NT is true. The NT states that Paul was persecuting Christians. Was he doing this without talking to them and hearing their explanations? To imagine this is to prove the point. Of course Paul had heard what passed for apologetics at the time, as did the Ebionites and the Jews. All of these were unconvinced by the evidence of a bodily resurrection.
My argument is that the very best evidence for the existence of a story of Jesus's resurrection is that it is a legend. It explains all the data perfectly.
Obviously prior to his conversion Paul had encounters with Christians and heard of both the testimonial and physical evidences available to someone in Palestine around the supposed time of the resurrection. These failed to convince him. Therefore something about the testimony and evidence was not convincing to anyone initially disposed to be skeptical.
Evan said:
Was he doing this without talking to them and hearing their explanations?
I really don't think he would have been very inclined to listen to them. How many Christians "persecute" you for not believing in God without hearing your reasons?
David no Christians "persecute" me without talking to me about about my beliefs. Pretty much nobody persecutes me at all at the moment. I suppose it would be possible that I could be persecuted at some point in the future. But that's hardly germane to the point, because if the NT is accurate, Paul most definitely did persecute the early Christians.
Are you suggesting that somehow Paul didn't interrogate the people he was "persecuting"? Are you suggesting he would find out someone was a Christian and persecute him without finding out whether he was one and what his reasons were?
Again, if the evidence were convincing to Paul prior to his conversion, it's hard to imagine he had no opportunity to interact with this evidence.
Even today, criminals are interrogated before punishment. I doubt much has changed.
I think this is about right. Matthew's Gospel says even about those who had the resurrection experiences that "they worshipped him; but some doubted". It does not seem to be the evidence for the empty tomb that persuaded the early Christians (their initial reaction according to the Gospels was to assume someone had moved the body), nor apparently simply the earliest sorts of experiences of "Jesus appearing", but the life-transforming spiritual experience Acts associated with Pentecost, which emboldens them.
Such experiences we can still have today, but we must be honest and admit that such experiences, now as then, do not prove anything about the historicity of details in texts or what happened to a body in a tomb.
I might add that this is a subject I explore in my latest book, The Burial of Jesus: History and Faith. I have a video (my first ever) on YouTube where I talk about discrepancies between Mark and John about whether Jesus was honorably buried.
Evan,
Hearing and listening are two different things my friend.
James, thanks for the input. I will take a look at the video.
David, evidence is evidence. If you are saying that the evidence for the resurrection was not overwhelming, you're in my camp. If you're saying that Paul was not convinced by the evidence because he was unable to hear it ... how do you explain his later conversion when Jesus appeared to him? Why was he suddenly able to listen to this?
Are you suggesting that somehow Paul didn't interrogate the people he was "persecuting"?
If Paul persecuted Christians, how did he know the difference between Christians and non-Christians without finding out what Christians believe?
A deeply flawed argument by Evan that is not improved by John’s contribution. Both rely on #2; that Paul persecuted the Christians because he did not believe their evidence.
This is simply their assumption and they present no evidence to support it; but still hang their entire case on it!
There are two obvious reasons why this is a flawed assumption.
i) Paul may have believed that the resurrection had taken place but considered the resurrection to be further more work of the “blasphemer” - therefore its proponents had to stopped from spreading their evil rather than lies.
This would accord with John 12:9-10 were there is talk of a plot to kill Lazarus due to the attention his being raised (not, we note, for falsely claiming to have been raised) was attracting.
Also the attitude of the Jewish hierarchy towards Jesus himself as evidenced at his trial where they did not question his miracles but rather his providence.
The above is enough to dismiss Evan’s argument out of hand, but out of generosity I will offer one more rebuttal.
ii) While Paul was persecuting the Christians there is no evidence that he ‘interviewed’ any of the actual witnesses to the resurrection. “to people like Paul living in that day who could examine it personally, failed to convince them of the truth of Christianity” .
Hence Paul had only “hearsay” evidence, which he could claim to ignore on those grounds or, since it conflicted with his beliefs he could choose to ignore it in the same way that some atheists ignore the evidence that God exists.
Without #2 Evan, your argument is ...
Sala kahle - peace
Dr. McGrath, welcome to YouTube! I hope you do more videos, and I'm pretty sure I would like what you have to say in your book. More Christians need to understand what I think you say in it.
Hence Paul had only “hearsay” evidence, which he could claim to ignore on those grounds or, since it conflicted with his beliefs he could choose to ignore it in the same way that some atheists ignore the evidence that God exists.
Right. And "hearsay" evidence isn't convincing.
It wasn't convincing then, and it isn't convincing now.
As to your first point, do you suggest that Paul believed Jesus had been raised from the dead before his conversion? What evidence do you have for this assertion?
The Jews certainly did not, and do not believe Jesus was raised from the dead. The Ebionites did not believe Jesus was resurrected bodily and they were Christians. So it posits something very unusual to imagine that Paul was a unique Jew who accepted the resurrection but thought it was a trick.
In addition you say:
Paul may have believed that the resurrection had taken place but considered the resurrection to be further more work of the “blasphemer” - therefore its proponents had to stopped from spreading their evil rather than lies.
So what evidence do you have now that the resurrection (assuming for a moment that it happened), wasn't the work of a blasphemer?
The evidence is all hearsay anyway according to you. What technique will you use to assert that Paul's original position (according to you) is wrong?
Evan “As to your first point … What evidence do you have for this assertion?” As I said it aligns with the reference I gave and many similar from the accounts of the trial.
Of course I had evidence, you have still have presented none to support your assertion!
Evidence aside, the positions I propose are either/both at least as likely as that which you hang your case on.
You ask So what evidence do you have now that the resurrection (assuming for a moment that it happened), wasn't the work of a blasphemer? and you ask What technique will you use to assert that Paul's original position (according to you) is wrong? …
… your point is what? So if I agree with you that it was the work of the blasphemer then, that as the reason for Paul’s persecuting Christians (rather than your reason) is even stronger … is it not?
Nice try to deflect the discussion though.
However, what I believe is not that point – I challenged your argument by showing that your assertion #2 was a best questionable – a defence of your position would be more appropriate.
Sala kahle - peace
I really fail to see how you have defended your position at all. As I have shown, a majority of the theists (Jews and Christians) who examined the claim of a bodily resurrection around the time it is claimed to have taken place did not accept it as a historical fact.
The hearsay evidence along with whatever physical proofs were adduced were not convincing to them.
Thus, we can assume that a rational skeptic would not be convinced of the truth of the resurrection, or failing that, the truth of Christianity.
If Christians retreat to fideism, there really is no argument and that is all that can be said. However most evangelicals believe they have evidence for their beliefs.
That one of the founders of the religion found this evidence wanting until he had a personal visit from the deity calls this evidence, in the absence of such an epiphany into question. That's quite a bit of evidence from my point of view and I don't see how you have addressed that point except with a bunch of "what ifs".
Evan, let me try a different approach, perhaps this will be clearer for you. (Aplogies to rest of you if you got the first time)
I think John expressed your position quite clearly with Paul lived in Palestine at the time of the so-called resurrection and it was he who was so sure Christians were wrong that he persecuted them
Now we agree he persecuted Christians – the question is why.
John says he was sure they were wrong – I agree, but in what way were they wrong?
You say because he did not accept the resurrection – I say you should back that up or accept that there are other likely explanations
Jesus was persecuted – crucified – at the behest of the Jews because they thought he was wrong, not because they thought he did not exist or because he had not performed the miracles (e.g. raising Lazarus) his followers claimed, but because they thought his religious teaching was wrong. OK so far?
So Christ was crucified, next logical step for the Jews, continue to persecute his followers since they did not vanish into the background but kept on with what the Jews saw as false teachings – OK so far?
Now these same followers were also proclaiming the resurrection. The Jews thought they were worth persecuting before that, so why should the resurrection change anything – raising Lazarus did not change the Jews position on persecuting Jesus, the healings and other miracles did not change their position. The Christians were wrong hence they were being persecuted, they did not go away, they were still to be persecuted. – OK so far?
Given the above it is quite reasonable to expect Paul to continue the task (post crucifixion) of persecuting the Christians, irrespective of his acceptance(or otherwise) of the resurrection. He was persecuting Christians because he thought they were wrong about their religious beliefs – the same reason Christ was crucified. – OK so far?
Now your argument hangs on the assumption that the reason Paul was persecuting Christians was because he did not believe the evidence of the resurrection – I ask you to back up your claim or accept the above as at least as likely.
Sala kahle - peace
Evan,
What's up my man?
I will agree with the intent of the article in saying that the empty tomb alone convinced few at least initially. In every biblical refrence there was an explaination that had to go along with it. An empty tomb by itself is what it is, an empty tomb.
Mary, Martha and the ladies needed and explaination and the disciples did too and even after that some of them didn't believe until Jesus appeared to them himself.
One thing that's missed by both you and Carrier is that Paul was a religious preservationist and a zealous Phariseaic(sp) fundamentalist by his own testimony. He acted just as he described himself before his ENCOUNTER. This meets a criterion of coherence in that Paul was acting just as he should having the objective of preserving Judaism as he claimed. Contrasting to Paul, Pliny was aware of the testimony from the Christians he had interviewed but didn't convert either. Why not? He could have but it wasn't important to him to do so.
Further, the disciples actions meets the criterion of embarassment which in this case is a strong indicator and evidence of the literary truth of the complete narrative. Myth creation would have taken on a larger, more impecable and grandiose accounting than we see in the Gospels and in the NT in general.
As stated, Paul's experience was an ENCOUNTER partially based on the fact that the men with him HEARD a voice but saw noone.(Acts 9:7) You don't hear the "visions" of others. That's a specific point in time that God interviened which you and other MN'rs deny and devalue.
The other disciples including the women had encounters also. Not visions and certainly NOTHING that the Ebionites would have or did later espoused and or believed. Now we’ve been through that before about the Ebionites and you’re all but too convinced that they were there when there is NOT ONE SHERD of evidence to support your assertion. Ebionites were late first century to a second century product. You wanting then to be there first half of first century doesn’t make it so.
But anyway, you do make a valid point that one can't expect to simply say..."look the tomb is empty, you gotta believe now." But at the same time a heart assenting to God, accepting the testimony of individuals as credible (even pending further investigation) and yielding to the work of the Holy Ghost, will assent to the belief and be undergirded by what I consider to be solid evidence that has lasted and endured the test of time and historical critical skepticism such as yours and a host of others.
Thanks, I'll check back tomorrow night for obvious reasons, I'll be rejoicing in the Lord of my salvation tomorrow morning and most of the Day.
Peace.
Bear,
I await any evidence that any Jews accepted the resurrection of Jesus in the first century of Palestine beyond your bare assertion.
Certainly the Jews of today do not accept this as a fact, the Ebionite Christians around the time of the supposed resurrection did not accept a bodily resurrection, and you again have presented no evidence from within Paul's corpus or outside of his corpus that he accepted the resurrection prior to his conversion on the road to Damascus.
So what you are proposing is a big what-if. Matthew even invents his own unique story to explain why the Jews didn't believe in the resurrection.
I am saying that it is likely that the Jews didn't accept the resurrection at any point. There is evidence for this from within the New Testament. More importantly, there's simply no contemporaneous account regarding the resurrection from any Jews until Paul begins to write his epistles.
So what evidence do you have that any Jews accepted the historicity of the resurrection.
Beyond that ... you seem quite sure there is a historically accurate core to the Greek gospels. If Jesus was agreed to have been resurrected by the Jews, why did not one of them write this fact down at the time? Isn't this silence rather remarkable?
Harvey my man, how have you been?
You say:
One thing that's missed by both you and Carrier is that Paul was a religious preservationist and a zealous Phariseaic(sp) fundamentalist by his own testimony.
Yes I believe the record seems to imply Paul was a Pharisee. There isn't much extrabiblical material about Paul at all, so we have to accept this from the internal evidence of the NT, but it may be assumed for the sake of argument.
He acted just as he described himself before his ENCOUNTER. This meets a criterion of coherence in that Paul was acting just as he should having the objective of preserving Judaism as he claimed.
Agreed. So you accept my primary premise that the evidence and testimony of Christians at the time around the supposed resurrection was inadequate to convince Paul or Pliny. Excellent.
Instead of saying that it wasn't important to Pliny to do so, I would simply make him another data point among many of individuals who did not find the information early Christians presented in any way compelling.
Then you say:
As stated, Paul's experience was an ENCOUNTER partially based on the fact that the men with him HEARD a voice but saw noone.(Acts 9:7) You don't hear the "visions" of others. That's a specific point in time that God interviened which you and other MN'rs deny and devalue.
We always end with Acts don't we.
Suffice it to say this for the sake of argument again, Acts is the only source for this story, and thus is not to be taken at face value. But taking the story in Acts to be true -- it is still the case that without a personal revelation from God, each believer is simply accepting hearsay that Paul, prior to his Damascus encounter, did not find convincing.
Hi Evan,
Interesting. Your first two points are wrong but your last is right, but not consequently due to your logic.
You said,
1. Prior to Paul's conversion, any evidence for the resurrection was just as strong as it was after his conversion.
2. The evidence for the resurrection failed to convince Paul of the truth of Christianity.
3. Therefore, the evidence for the resurrection alone, without specific interventions by God to make someone believe, must be inadequate to convince a skeptic who has not had a vision from God of its truth.
Interesting point? However, it fails in four areas.
(1) Firstly this is not correct. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul recounts how he received a creedal statement from Christians at the time concerning the death and resurrection of Christ. The sheer speed of establishment of such a creedal statement suggests verifiable accounts for an empty tomb. Whilst this does not prove the resurrection it is incorrect to assume that he looked at this evidence before? Subsequently when he received this creedal statement after his conversion it only strengthened his position. Paul did not look at the evidence otherwise there would have been no reason to receive the initial creed he mentions in 1 Corinthians 15. Point is he did not look at the evidence!
2. Whilst the evidence of an empty tomb may not have convinced Paul, his meeting with Jesus did? We must see this in its context, Paul claims Jesus met him... [1 Corinthians 15] There is no greater evidence for the resurrection than that. Paul's change in lifestyle, religion, philosophy attests to this.
3. The Jews at the time were faced with the problem of explaining the "Empty Tomb" some attesting to it being stolen by the disciples. But even the non Christian historian Josephus assets to his death and appearance alive to others. Clearly the evidence was sufficient for him to make claims like this as history for the Jewish people.
4. The last piece of external historical evidence for the validity is the sheer presence of the term resurrection. This term suddenly appears in history originally asserted to by women. Not only were womens testimony invalid in those days but the sheer magnitude of rapid acceptance to such a foreign philosophical concept goes against any other religious/philosophical concept at that time or even now. Paul's of course being a prime example.
So it is fairly certain to argue Paul did not consider the evidence of a resurrection prior to his conversion, but there was sufficient evidence for believers and non believers alike.
However, non of these will prove a resurrection to a skeptic. Whilst it cannot be proved it is interesting to note how many professional historians in sacred and secular universities take the resurrection of Christ extremely seriously.
For more see the centre for public Christianity.
Regards, Re. Phil.
P.S. Thanks for you post about the Canopy theory however I do not hold the position, you assumed wrong.
A very interesting original post and comments, but aren't you all barking up the wrong tree here?
Instead of Paul hearing the empty-tomb story but then doubting or rejecting it, isn't it more likely that Paul - who harped on and on about the resurrection of Jesus but never once mentioned the tomb in his letters - left the story out because he had never even heard of it, because it hadn't been invented yet?
If Paul was willing to believe that a man could rise from the dead, why wouldn't he believe an empty-tomb story as well, and mention it at least a couple of times in his letters?
Let's not forget that Paul was writing before the gospel accounts appeared, and before Jerusalem and probably very many original Jewish Christians were destroyed by the Romans, leaving the field clear for Christians elsewhere to invent anything they wanted without contradiction.
1. Tom Cruise believes the "creedal" statements (sales pitch, if you will) of Scientology, which had it's foundations roughly 40 years before Cruise "converted."
The sheer speed of establishment of such creedal statements suggests verifiable accounts for Scientology, so surely Scientology must have some validity for why would so many people believe a made up story to be truth. And while Cruise was not a witness to the actions that led to these creedal statements, he no doubt had access to "witnesses" who were.
2. I don't know if Cruise has ever claimed to have talked to any of the "thetans" or "Xenu" or whatever, but his conversion has put him on a Paul-like path and similarly changed his philosophy and presumably his lifestyle since he has become a worldwide proponent of Scientology and spreads the message everywhere.
3. I guess us non-Scientologists are forced to explain away the supposed healing ability of Scientology since there are so many Scietologists who believe they have been helped by the religion (such as Cruise and his dyslexia). And so much has been written about it by so many people that it certainly attests to the validity of Scientology, even moreso then Josephus' almost throwaway mentions of Jesus (which may or may not have been actually Josephus' original words to begin with. Josephus writes more about Jesus, son of Nun successor to Moses, than he does about God's only begotten son).
4. The word Scientology, while not actually invented by L. Ron Hubbard, suddenly popped up in the 20th century. While science fiction writers are not generally considered to be resources for teaching us things that actually happened, the fact that this word has been rapidly accepted into people's belief systems all over the world must indicate there is some validity to it, I suppose. Again, why would anybody base their life on a flat out lie or half-truth, even?
If I may include myself here, I would like to add something relative the theme of this topic. In regards to the question apologists often ask, why would the apostles and followers die for something they knew wasn't true? Isn't it odd that a persecutor like Paul didn't ask themselves that very same question? I would think any normal person would do this, and therefore should assume Paul and anyone else did this. We must then assume, (and it should be safe to assume) that Paul and his gang, may have look at their considered martyrdom as just one of those irrational (and sometimes instinctive) beliefs we humans can develope. But, obviously Jesus knew this, so he added Paul to his list of people who wouldn't need to have faith in his resurrection, by appearing to him in a vision, so that even Paul himself would say that if he didn't see what he thought he saw, christians may have been given false hope.
Phillip Brown writes
In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul recounts how he received a creedal statement from Christians at the time concerning the death and resurrection of Christ. The sheer speed of establishment of such a creedal statement suggests verifiable accounts for an empty tomb.
Actually the view that is passage is a pre-Pauline creedal statement is not universally agreed upon. See the article by Robert Price Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation
The same can be said of his reference to Josephus. Most, if not all, of the references to Jesus and the resurrection are most likely later Christian interpolations. Especially considering the fact that none of the earlier apologists used this material when it would have suited their case very well.
Rev thanks for the comments. You say:
(1) (sic) Firstly this is not correct. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul recounts how he received a creedal statement from Christians at the time concerning the death and resurrection of Christ.
Let's read it:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
Let's stop there for a second. What scriptures is Paul talking about? Are you suggesting that more than one Greek gospel existed at the time 1 Cor was written? Or is Paul using OT archetypes as evidence and NOT the evidence of his own eyes and testimony. For the first response, there is simply no evidence for and lots of evidence against the idea that the Greek gospels antedate the epistle of 1 Cor. For the second response, my point is buttressed.
Paul goes on:
that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
Again, what Scriptures? Why not say on the basis of evidence?
and that he appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve.
Funny, the Greek gospels never mention this sequence.
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
This is the only mention of this appearance in the NT. Why is that?
Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
What apostles were there besides "The twelve"?
and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
If the other appearances were the same as the appearance to Paul, then they were all visions and hardly evidence of a bodily resurrection to start with.
For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
Yes. And he persecuted exactly up until he had a vision. The testimony of the people he was persecuting did not convince him.
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.
The author of the "creedal statement" who may or may not have been Paul (the argument works with either assumption) simply confirms my point. Paul is assumed to have been unconvinced by evidence. He was convinced by grace. Those who are not graced cannot be convinced. This is fideism writ large.
Back to your statement Rev:
The sheer speed of establishment of such a creedal statement suggests verifiable accounts for an empty tomb.
Or legendary development. I happen to agree with Dr. Price that 1 Cor's "creed" is a later interpolation. If you haven't read him on this, he's extremely compelling. But even if we accept it as Pauline, my argument is untouched by 1 Cor.
You then say:
Whilst this does not prove the resurrection it is incorrect to assume that he looked at this evidence before?
Why?
Subsequently when he received this creedal statement after his conversion it only strengthened his position.
Sorry but no. There's simply nothing in the creedal statement that suggests he investigated any testimony or physical evidence. He cites the SCRIPTURES as authority. Are you saying that you can derive all the evidence necessary for the resurrection from the Tanakh?
Paul did not look at the evidence otherwise there would have been no reason to receive the initial creed he mentions in 1 Corinthians 15.
Unless the only evidence was the scriptures, and then he did look at it and was unconvinced until Jesus appeared to him in a vision.
Point is he did not look at the evidence!
Asserted without evidence. Dismissed in the same way.
2. Whilst the evidence of an empty tomb may not have convinced Paul, his meeting with Jesus did? We must see this in its context, Paul claims Jesus met him... [1 Corinthians 15] There is no greater evidence for the resurrection than that.
Rev, Jesus appears to people in visions to this day. Do you accept the validity of each of these appearances? If a member of your flock came to you and told you that Jesus had appeared to him in a vision and told him that all people on earth must become vegans and run marathons each day, would you start doing this? If not, why not? If the reason is that you doubt this is actually Jesus talking to this person, what reason do you have for accepting the validity of Paul's vision over that of someone you know?
Paul's change in lifestyle, religion, philosophy attests to this.
If a gangster becomes a member of the Nation of Islam and stops doing drugs and changes his religion, lifestyle and philosophy, is this evidence for the truth of the teachings of the NoI?
3. The Jews at the time were faced with the problem of explaining the "Empty Tomb" some attesting to it being stolen by the disciples.
There's no evidence for this outside of Matthew. No other writer discusses this. Does this mean you also believe Matthew's story about thousands of walking zombies hanging out in Jerusalem?
But even the non Christian historian Josephus (who thought that Vespasian was the Messiah, Ev) assets (sic) to his death and appearance alive to others.
Sorry but the evidence for the testimonium being an interpolation is compelling to all scholars who have investigated it without an apologetic bent and it's not present in the copies of Josephus used by 2nd century apologists, or they would have quoted it. We will eliminate the testimonium from consideration for this reason and with that Josephus at best refers to James as the brother of someone named Joshua ... one of MANY such people in 1st century Palestine.
Clearly the evidence was sufficient for him to make claims like this as history for the Jewish people.
See above. Look here for further argumentation regarding Josephus.
4. The last piece of external historical evidence for the validity is the sheer presence of the term resurrection. This term suddenly appears in history originally asserted to by women.
Huh?
Does the OT not say that Elisha raised people from the dead? This is news to me.
Not only were womens (sic) testimony invalid in those days but the sheer magnitude of rapid acceptance to such a foreign philosophical concept goes against any other religious/philosophical concept at that time or even now. Paul's of course being a prime example.
Actually, Tammuz, Osiris and Adonis were all known prior to the development of Christianity. Or do you accept the 2nd century statement of Justin Martyr that "Habet Diabolus Christos sous?"
I believe your argument has been well articulated and well supported Evan. You are right. According to Acts and his own writing, Paul was seemingly unconvinced by the hearsay evidence and had to be confronted by a visionary Jesus. He took great pride in the fact "His Gospel had been received though no man"
Price's essay entitled "Apocryphal Apparitions" in the book "Empty Tomb" makes a very compelling case for 1 Cor 15 3:11 to be a later interpolation.
Where is the external evidence for a vigorous Christian movement disrupting Jewish life in Jerusalem & the surrounding region around the time of when Jesus is supposed to have been resurrected? To read Acts, one would have thought that Christianity was the talk of the town after Pentecost; setting the Jewish Authorities into a real fury and a vigorous anti-Christian pogrom. Why doesn't Josephus make more mention of this when according to Acts, the rise of early Christianity was clearly causing widespread disruption, forced emigrations and public mob executions (eg Stephen's martyrdom)?
Could it be that all this widespread persecution of the Christians by the Jews was a later fictional embellishment?
If one takes the book of Acts out of the picture, we have very little from Paul himself to work out how much or what his persecution actually involved.
Why should we be skeptical of the book of Acts?
It may be that the book was written no earlier than 115 CE and was already crafted with the intention of reconciling the Petrine & Pauline factions of the Church with their differing histories & loyalties. (See: "Dating Acts" by Richard Pervo http://www.amazon.ca/Dating-Acts-Between-Evangelists-Apologists/dp/0944344739/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222012788&sr=8-1 )
Ultimately, to consider the NT canonical books as reliable history is a non-supportable leap of faith. Paul himself gives us very little "Gospel" material to suggest his conversion had any connection to this bodily resurrection idea put forth by the much later Gospels.
- (another) evan
Evan, thanks. When I was growing up I never met other Evans, but now we seem to be sprouting all over the place like weeds.
Perhaps other Welsh first names will also have a renaissance.
And I am not convinced that Saul of Tarsus, or Paul ever existed. He was without father or mother and end of days. His character was created to solve the problem of creating an early mission to Gentiles in what were originally prophetic documents written entirely in a Jewish context. The original prophetic documents made no mention of Jesus. All text related to Jesus is later, mostly obvious, interpolation, or is expansion for the fictitious mission to Gentiles. I have no doubt that 'Saul', as distinct from Paul, was based of a real historical character who opposed the prophets, namely Ananus the high priest and destroyer of the real James.
Geoff, yes the historical data for Paul is limited to the Epistles and Acts. However, this argument works even assuming a literal Paul and even accepts the likely interpolation in 1 Cor 15 as Pauline, even though I think it is of dubious provenance.
Evan, you cannot squirm out of what must be a late Pauline entry about the resurrection of Christ Jesus at 1 Cor.15.
So what we should be saying is that the Pauline editor of the original documents (before they were made Pauline) had done most of his editing work before the editor of Mark's gospel conjured-up the beginnings of the resurrection story of Jesus. We are simply talking about a time lapse between the work of the Pauline editor and the Markan editor. But they were in agreement about the resurrection.
Original Mark was another prophetic document, as was original Acts (a complete reversal of actual events). There was nothing to do with Gentiles in any of the prophetic documents. Visits to Gentile Galilee by the prophet, Paul, and the mission to Gentiles are all pure fiction.
What I meant to say was that Extant Acts is a complete reversal of original events, most of which occured in Rome, not Jerusalem. Thus the appointed leader of the prophets was James, exiled to Rome. Paul's final ship journey to Rome, was James' journey back from Rome to Caesarea and Jerusalem.
Geoff I'm not squirming out of anything.
In an attempt to make the cleanest argument possible for believers, I have accepted as valid many things that I consider personally likely to be invalid.
I believe that much of the actual set of events that predate the Pauline epistles are completely beyond our ken. The broad outlines at best are what can be retrieved.
Yes, those broad outlines don't conform to a literal bodily resurrection and a historically accurate set of Greek gospels. However even accepting 1 Cor, including the creedal statement as Pauline, the argument succeeds. Therefore, in the interest of simplification, I have decided to accept for the purposes of argument that set of facts.
Evan,
Did you ever stop to consider that perhaps Saul simply refused to believe in the resurrection irrespective of the evidence presented...?
Consider that Christ told his disciples on many occasions that he would die and be resurrected three days later and yet they were still genuinely surprised when he appeared to them after his death.
Like the disciples and many today, Saul simply didn't want to believe in the resurrection.
Yes, I suppose it's possible that Saul was incapable of believing. It's possible that all people who don't believe are incapable of believing. But the argument made by Craig, Wright, Holding et. al. is not that argument. Their argument is that the evidence points to the resurrection as the best possible explanation of the facts on the ground. They claim that a skeptical analysis of the facts still leaves that conclusion as the best explanation.
The fact that Paul was later quite devoted to the Christian faith seems to argue that he was not incapable of believing. Therefore, the only conclusion that makes sense is that he did not find the evidence compelling until his vision.
Again, fideism is an option, just not a very reasonable one.
I liked what Ken Humphreys wrote about Saul of Tarsus at Jesusneverexisted.com
"Saul of Tarsus – a witness for Jesus?
One is informed by Acts that St Paul's early day stance was as "Saul, the Christian persecutor". Yet if Saul really was a vigilante for orthodox Judaism at the time of Stephen's stoning (Acts 7.58-8.3), becoming the chief persecutor of Christians, no less – one wonders just where was Saul, not long before, when a supposed radical rabbi called Jesus was stirring up whole towns and villages?
Paul's role as religious policeman seems not to have awakened until shortly after the godman's death. But in itself this suggests Jesus of Nazareth had no great impact. After all, Saul was a contemporary of Jesus in time and place, raised in Jerusalem ("at the feet of Gamaliel" – Acts 22.3) at precisely the time the godman was overturning moneychangers in the Temple and generally provoking Pharisees and Sadducees.
Would not Saul, a young religious hothead ("exceedingly zealous of the traditions" – Galatians 1.14) have waded into those multitudes to heckle and attack the Nazarene himself? Would he not have been an enthusiastic witness to JC's blasphemy before the Sanhedrin? And where was Saul during "passion week", surely in Jerusalem with the other zealots celebrating the holiest of festivals? And yet he reports not a word of the crucifixion?
Paul, another "witness for Jesus", saw and heard nothing!"
Hey Even,
Thanks for the quick response.
You said,
Let's stop there for a second. What scriptures is Paul talking about? Are you suggesting that more than one Greek gospel existed at the time 1 Cor was written? Or is Paul using OT archetypes as evidence and NOT the evidence of his own eyes and testimony. For the first response, there is simply no evidence for and lots of evidence against the idea that the Greek gospels antedate the epistle of 1 Cor. For the second response, my point is buttressed.
He could not have spoken about the Gospels as they were not written.
Paul was speaking about the OT.
You said.
Again, what Scriptures? Why not say on the basis of evidence?
OT. Because clearly this was more of a point. The OT scripture Paul had previously lived his life by he understood incorrectly, in light of Jesus he now understands the OT correctly. This for Paul is the most powerful piece of evidence.
You said.
Funny, the Greek gospels never mention this sequence.
Not really, there purpose was to present Good News to people about Christ not to list the way in which he appeared to people. This point has nothing to do with your point.....??
You said.
This is the only mention of this appearance in the NT. Why is that?
Easy, The NT is concerned with other issues. But it is mentioned so that is enough.
You said.
If the other appearances were the same as the appearance to Paul, then they were all visions and hardly evidence of a bodily resurrection to start with.
Evan lets be serious. You have decided that these appearances are visions based I assume from Acts? But Paul said they were appearances. Jesus appeared? Not a vision an appearance. The rhetoric sounds ok but you are just taking words to suit your point. Deal with what Paul said.
You said.
Yes. And he persecuted exactly up until he had a vision. The testimony of the people he was persecuting did not convince him.
Again Evan he did not look?
You said?
The author of the "creedal statement" who may or may not have been Paul (the argument works with either assumption) simply confirms my point. Paul is assumed to have been unconvinced by evidence. He was convinced by grace. Those who are not graced cannot be convinced. This is fideism writ large.
Come on Evan, How can Paul make it up when he passed on what he received? Why use this language? Paul has not problem telling people what originally came from his mouth.
Again. NO! Paul was convinced firstly by the evidence of a "Physical" Jesus as were the others. Second Paul was convinced by the confirmation of Jesus' prophecy from the scriptures OT.
He did not look at the "Material" evidence of the resurrection because there was no need. He had personal testimony from Christ and Scriptural proof.
You said.
Or legendary development. I happen to agree with Dr. Price that 1 Cor's "creed" is a later interpolation. If you haven't read him on this, he's extremely compelling. But even if we accept it as Pauline, my argument is untouched by 1 Cor.
I love this Evan and Anthony. A passage is cited and then you quote a scholar you think the passage might not be part of the original... This is very interesting Evan. Rather than look at evidence at this point you quote a witness????? Just like your attack on Paul??
For a demonstration of Dr. Price's extremely poor article see and reasons why and reason to believe 1 Cor 15 see... http://www.christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_interpolation.html
You said.
But even if we accept it as Pauline, my argument is untouched by 1 Cor.
Yes it is. The creedal statement proves that eyewitness had addressed the evidence and made a creed! Furthermore Paul had an opportunity to speak with these people and receive the creed strengthen his position and something he in turn used when he planted churches.
You said.
Sorry but no. There's simply nothing in the creedal statement that suggests he investigated any testimony or physical evidence.
The creed must have been established before A.D. 55. A likely date would be A.D. 45. Meaning in living memory on 15 years previously the creeds establishment could have been verified or not. Now Christians have believed in the resurrection from the very beginning and the creed proves this. If there was no grounds for evidence then the creed would not have lasted. Probability of Multiple assertions claims this.
You said.
Sorry but the evidence for the testimonium being an interpolation is compelling to all scholars who have investigated it without an apologetic bent and it's not present in the copies of Josephus used by 2nd century apologists, or they would have quoted it. We will eliminate the testimonium from consideration for this reason and with that Josephus at best refers to James as the brother of someone named Joshua ... one of MANY such people in 1st century Palestine.
Again Evan fantastic rhetoric but completely unconvincing. Whilst it may be the Josephus was an interpolation, it may not. Furthermore you assert that James' brother Joshua is mentioned and this is not an interpolation. Jesus and Joshua are the same name. Why do you assume Joshua is the correct translation and if you do what context does he have to mention this? In writing a history of the Jews I'll just pick a Joshua out of thin air? Not convincing. Jesus the brother of James far more convincing.
Gotta run will try and aswer you other stuff soon.
Regards, Rev. Phil.
Rev Phil I'll keep from fully addressing all your points. But the name Jesus is simply a Greek translation of Joshua. If the gospels were written in the tongue supposedly spoken by the characters in it, the name would be Joshua. Josephus mentions at least nine people with this name:
Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel are mentioned with the name Jesus. In addition he names the following: Jesus ben Sirach, Jesus ben Pandira, Jesus ben Ananias, Jesus ben Saphat, Jesus ben Thebuth, with the name Yeshua, Joshua, etc. But all are the same Hebrew name, which is also a title, meaning "Savior".
Origen even names Barabbas as Jesus bar Abbas (Jesus, son of the Father).
So again, without the testimonium I don't see a whole lot to hang your hat on in Josephus, who in any case was writing in the last decade of the first century, hardly a Pauline contemporary. In fact, the idea that Josephus corroborates early Christianity is a bit of a joke. He broadly surveys the extant Jewish groups and heresies, yet makes no mention of Christianity during this survey. Was he unaware of them? Disinterested in them? Or did they not exist as a fully separate group that he was aware of at the time he was writing?
Evan,
I am still not convinced on some things in your article; however, that isn’t to say I disagree completely with one aspect of your conclusion. I agree there must be some supernatural intervention accompanying whatever lines of evidence persuade a confession that "Jesus is Lord." Calvinists would call this the “effectual call” that precedes regeneration, while Arminians would call this “prevenient grace.”
Why I’m not convinced:
1. The inductive leap required for your argument to work (what’s true of Paul is true of modern skeptics).
I’m not sure that Paul is representative of the sample on which you wish to extrapolate. Paul’s skepticism about Christianity was couched in a Jewish worldview, or even if you’re really skeptical about Paul – a Hellenistic worldview. The modern skeptic approaches the claims of Christianity from a different perspective, thus how Paul may have responded to the empty tomb + post-mortem appearances seems to imply at least one additional premise. As I understand it, that premise would roughly be, “Paul’s criteria for evaluating the legitimacy of claim x is analogous to the modern skeptic’s criteria.” In light of how most legend theories present Paul as a deluded religious fanatic, do you think this is an appropriate assumption?
2. The best explanation for a belief does not constitute that everyone will find that explanation convincing; therefore, if someone doesn’t find it convincing (even Paul) why does it follow that “the evidence…must be inadequate?” As I read it, explanatory power and scope are concerns of historiography, and not of persuasive potency. In other words, whether or not Paul rejected claims about Jesus before his conversion does nothing about a historical claim - the empty tomb + post-mortem appearances are the best explanation of the early belief in the resurrection, and are themselves best explained by the resurrection hypothesis.
Cheers,
David
As I understand it, that premise would roughly be, “Paul’s criteria for evaluating the legitimacy of claim x is analogous to the modern skeptic’s criteria.” In light of how most legend theories present Paul as a deluded religious fanatic, do you think this is an appropriate assumption?
It doesn't really matter to me what the criteria for Paul were. Remember that the apologist position taken by Craig, Bauckham and Wright is that the evidence for those in early Palestine for the resurrection was overwhelming and that there were multiple eyewitnesses to the events.
Such testimony and evidence would be compelling to the modern skeptic were he there according to the argument that the apologists are putting forward.
Yet that argument fails precisely because there is a known group of ancient skeptics to this doctrine, some of whom called themselves Christians, as well as a group of Jews, among whom, until he was visited by God, was Paul. None of these groups, believers or doubters, were convinced by the evidence for the bodily resurrection. Therefore, it is more likely than not that the evidence for that resurrection was weak, using any criteria.
You then say:
As I read it, explanatory power and scope are concerns of historiography, and not of persuasive potency. In other words, whether or not Paul rejected claims about Jesus before his conversion does nothing about a historical claim - the empty tomb + post-mortem appearances are the best explanation of the early belief in the resurrection, and are themselves best explained by the resurrection hypothesis.
Of course, I disagree with you. I think this argument is nearly dispositive of the claims of apologists from Lewis to Wright. It suggests that a modern skeptic, with greater scientific knowledge, historical knowledge and understanding of anthropology, economics and crowd psychology would also likely find the data unconvincing. Yet Craig, D'Souza and others suggest that skepticism should lead us to belief in the resurrection. I say hogwash to that.
Additionally I would argue that the legend explanation fits the data far better, and requires no beliefs in processes not visible today. The fact that Paul's evidence in 1 Cor 3-11 is the scriptures and visions like he had on the road to Damascus (since he uses the same words for each appearance), strongly suggests such.
Evan,
In your convo with Rev. You asked regarding the interpretation 1 Cor. 15 the following questions:
(Concerning HIS death) “What scriptures is Paul talking about? Are you suggesting that more than one Greek gospel existed at the time 1 Cor was written?”
The answer: Isa. 53:4-5 ~ “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”
A scripture that Paul would have certainly known and been very familiar with as a Pharisee believing in the messiah and the resurrection
Concerning the resurrection, you ask, “Again, what Scriptures? Why not say on the basis of evidence?”
The answer: Ps. 16:10 ~ “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” and Ps. 22:22-27 ~ “22-I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee. 23-Ye that fear the LORD, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel. 24-For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard. 25-My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him. 26-The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever. 27-All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.”
Concerning the Greek gospels and the order of HIS appearance to the 12: “Funny, the Greek gospels never mention this sequence.”
Answer: The Greek Gospels miss quite a few things in translation. Their object wasn’t a blow by blow or word for word recounting.
Concerning the apostles and the 12 you say: “What apostles were there besides "The twelve"?
Answer “The 12” ~ dodeka ~ “the twelve apostles of Jesus, so called by way of eminence” and “The Apostles” ~ Apostolos- was used 2 general ways- 1- to indicate a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders 1a) specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ and 2 in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers
specifically 1) Barnabas 2)of Timothy and Silvanus- Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995
Concerning the physical appearances of Jesus as Paul expressed and multiple witnessed you said: “If the other appearances were the same as the appearance to Paul, then they were all visions and hardly evidence of a bodily resurrection to start with
the problem is that the evidence is against you in the following ways:
“If the first century Jews were psychologically to project and / or hallucinate about the resurrection of Jesus, we can only suppose that they would have done so in categories that would have made sense in their cultural context. The categories used by the Christ myth theory to explain the resurrection reports are not those of first century Judaism. The New testament itself bears witness that first century Jews did have a category by which to explain appearances of spiritual apparitions (e.g. Acts 12:15) but this is decidedly not the category they used to describe the resurrection of Jesus.”- ‘The Jesus Legend’ Eddy/Boyd 2007 Baker Academic pg. 208
“The proposal that Jesus was bodily raised form the dead possesses unrivaled power to explain the historical data at the heart of early Christianity”- NT Wright ‘Resurrection’ pg. 718
Regarding where Paul could have received his creedal statement you ask the question, “He cites the SCRIPTURES as authority. Are you saying that you can derive all the evidence necessary for the resurrection from the Tanakh?”
Jesus said this: John 5:39 ~ “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” Yes OT references would have been enough for Paul to come to an understanding of who Jesus was.
Any argument about dying and rising cult myths is in the wrong time period and uncompelling. The rising and dying god stories were all products of second century work and prior to that only related to seasonal harvests. Finally they were not know for any expiation of sin as sin was a totally foreign concept to those myths.
Another thing I find unconvincing is any redaction to 1 Cor. 15:3 or the 1 Cor. 15 narrative in particular. 1st there are no language problems and grammatical styles are consistent with the rest of the verse in including parts that are not in question, second the message and events are consistent with what we find in Acts and Galations and redaction of those scriptures are not in question.
Further and this is the lynchpin against your argument, Paul understood what he was doing as he did not have to learn it afresh. He was already persecuting the church according to his own testimony. How and why would he have persecuted that he knew nothing about. Therefore your very own argument becomes the greatest weight of evidence AGAINST your argument because Paul was already aware of who Jesus was and what the “Christ cult” taught in his pre-salvation days against scripture. After meeting the apostles who were already aware of him and his actions, he was able to receive from THEM the exact tradition, along with his own personal study of events. This makes all reasonable sense. Paul simply could not have persecuted what he didn’t already know about.
I would like you to specifically address that issue. Once again Paul musy have already had knowledge of what he was persecuting prior to receiving approval to persecute it.
Thanks.
You misread my post. It's not that Saul was incapable of believing, it's that he didn't want to - the same way the disciples didn't want to believe Christ was going to die.
The argument in the original post is invalid. One cannot take someone's belief or non-belief alone to determine whether the evidence is adequate. To demonstrate this I will give several counter examples.
I'll summarize the original argument because there are many comment:
1) Paul was not convinced of the resurrection, from the evidence available to him.
2) Therefore, the evidence for the resurrection was inadequate.
Some people do not believe that the US landed on the moon, therfore, the evidence for the moon landing is inadequate.
We can even add the time element, as was done in the original argument "in Paul's day"
Some people in 2008 do not believe that the universe in billions of years old, therefore the evidence for an old earth is inadequate.
Both of the above examples are invalid. The conclusion doesn't follow. We can also see that what people believe doesn't give us any indication of the strength of the evidence.
Some people claim that there are aliens visiting the earth from other planets, therefore the evidence must be adequate evidence to believe in aliens.
Christianity is the largest religion, therefore there must be adequate evidence to believe in Christianity.
Beliefs or non-beliefs do not tell us much about the nature or strength of the evidence. People believe or disbelieve for a variety of reasons, not all of them being because of good evidence. When we look at evidence given through other people we should look at what a person claimed to observe, not what they believe. For example, I have no doubt, that there are people who have seen unknown objects in the sky; however, I doubt strongly the claim that this means that there are aliens coming to visit earth from other planets. I'm not doubting the observation, I'm doubting the interpretation of the observation.
Evan wrote:"I believe that much of the actual set of events that predate the Pauline epistles are completely beyond our ken. The broad outlines at best are what can be retrieved."
An easy get-out. When one combines what are in many cases, obvious editorials in the NT with the parallel editorials in the writings attributed to Josephus, much falls into place. A fundamental to realise is that the prophets never died-out as is generally assumed by both Jewish and Christian scholars alike. Prophets were written out of the original records. They were the Essenes. Salome Alexander followed the prophets, not the fictitious Pharisees. Agrippa I and Agrippa II also followed the prophets which is why both were assassinated by the priests. The history is one of increasing friction between priests and prophets, culminating in the opposition of the prophet Judas who was stoned to death - he 'fell headlong' in the first stage of a traditional Jewish stoning. Judas was the centre of Josephus' writings.
Jesus, Paul, John the Baptist, the twelve apostles and the mission to Gentiles were all later fiction. Hence your argument is invalid.
Brian-g,
That was spot on.
Hi Evan,
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
You said.
But the name Jesus is simply a Greek translation of Joshua. If the gospels were written in the tongue supposedly spoken by the characters in it, the name would be Joshua. Josephus mentions at least nine people with this name:
Sorry Evan but this is incorrect. Have you studied Hellenistic/Koine Greek?
The Greek word is Yeshua. Meaning Yahweh saves. Not just savior. We translate this to mean either Jesus or Joshua. The Bible uses both.
It would be good I think for you to come to grips with why the bible translates some Jesus and other Joshua. There are good contextual reasons. The same applies for Josephus
You said.
So again, without the testimonium I don't see a whole lot to hang your hat on in Josephus, who in any case was writing in the last decade of the first century, hardly a Pauline contemporary. In fact, the idea that Josephus corroborates early Christianity is a bit of a joke. He broadly surveys the extant Jewish groups and heresies, yet makes no mention of Christianity during this survey. Was he unaware of them? Disinterested in them? Or did they not exist as a fully separate group that he was aware of at the time he was writing?
I don't hang my hat, rather the criteria of multiple assertion gives more probability to resurrection account, Given Josephus was against Christianity. Perhaps like you?
Now Evan please be more intellectually honest. We were not talking about Christians per se but evidence for the resurrection. Why are you switching topics? This type of tactic will bring no great dialogue with considered Christians.
Previously you said
If a gangster becomes a member of the Nation of Islam and stops doing drugs and changes his religion, lifestyle and philosophy, is this evidence for the truth of the teachings of the NoI?
You are right. But you are faced with an extremely difficult problem now. If Paul was not convinced of the truth of Christianity then you must give an alternative? what do you suggest?
You said,
There's no evidence for this outside of Matthew. No other writer discusses this. Does this mean you also believe Matthew's story about thousands of walking zombies hanging out in Jerusalem?
This is my favorite bit Evan.
Firstly I suggest wider reading or great research on your part before mouthing off. The early Jewish opponents of Christianity affirmed that the tomb was empty (Matthew 28:11-15; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 108; Tertullian, On Spectacles, 30). Contrary to what some people claim, Justin Martyr and Tertullian aren’t just repeating what they read in Matthew’s gospel. Both of them give details in their accounts that aren’t mentioned by Matthew, and both Justin and Tertullian were interacting with the Jewish opponents of their day, so they would have been in a position to know what arguments the Jewish opposition was using.
Here is the evidence. I suggest a greater look. But wait there is more.
ZOMBIES! Come on Evan this is hilarious. ITS a figure of speech. Like when you said "seems pretty clear cut" on this comment strand you did not mean you are cutting something clear? Or did you?
You said,
Does the OT not say that Elisha raised people from the dead? This is news to me.
This is great too. Yes it does. But what is the difference? Resuscitation and resurrection? Why wasn't Jesus Resuscitated? He rose on his won accord or rather God raised him. This is the point.
I eagerly await your answers to this and the other recent comments by Brian, Jason and district supt. harvey burnett.
Regards, Rev. Phil.
I honestly can't believe you guys were ex-pastors. This single bible verse easily negates your whole argument.
Matthew 28:11-15
11While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' 14If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.
obviously Saul believed that the disciples came and stole the body like the rest of jewish elders.
Yeah, because it couldn't possibly have been that they actually DID steal the body and then claim that the priests were lying.
Hey rotten arsenal ,
Yep but prove it?
I think you'll find nothing to support your claim?
Rev. Phil.
P.S. Evan, Where are you?
First let me apologize for my tardiness. I was busy at work and have had some food-related illness tonight that has diverted my attention.
Many of the comments here are missing the point, and I want to try to come at it in a different way before I try to answer the specific points that people are making.
So let me be clear, I am not saying that Paul's initial skepticism proves there could not possibly have been a resurrection. That kind of certainty can come from a naturalist worldview (which I have), but I do not expect believers to share that with me.
What I am saying is that the certainty with which apologists of today wish to grant the resurrection is unwarranted in the light of Paul's early skepticism, the skepticism of the Jews in general and the skepticism of the Ebionite Christians.
What Craig, et. al. are selling is that the very best explanation for the events of early Christianity is an actual bodily resurrection.
Therefore, my argument is not specifically against the resurrection -- that would be another argument -- but it is against the sense that there is some historical certainty that can be gained by a purely skeptical outlook because of the validity of the Greek gospels and the few congruences between them and the epistles.
On to specific queries where they apply to the above point:
First Rev. Phil you say:
Evan lets be serious. You have decided that these appearances are visions based I assume from Acts? But Paul said they were appearances. Jesus appeared? Not a vision an appearance. The rhetoric sounds ok but you are just taking words to suit your point. Deal with what Paul said.
Paul's episode in Damascus was a vision. If you don't accept that there's not much I can say. If you believe that there was a body who appeared to Paul, the onus is on you to show how Paul, who hated physical bodies and argued against a physical resurrection, believed that Jesus appeared to him in a physical body. His appearance was a vision (according to Paul flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom) by our standards. The details of Paul's vision are lost to history largely (as is certainty there was a Paul), but the argument doesn't entail this.
The only real argument is whether there is a huge amount of undeniable evidence for the resurrection. Evidence for which the very best explanation available for a 1st century Jew, a 1st century Christian, a 20th century Christian, a 20th century non-Christian theist and a 20th century skeptic would be convincing. This is Craig's argument and that's what I'm addressing. Paul's initial skepticism puts the lie to this argument.
You can believe because believing is better, because you were taught it and don't wish to change your mind or because you believe God has appeared to you like he did to Paul (as I said, people believe this to this day), but I reject any argument that the evidence is compelling, when it wasn't even compelling to a church father.
Next you say:
Come on Evan, How can Paul make it up when he passed on what he received? Why use this language? Paul has not problem telling people what originally came from his mouth.
He claims in Galatians that no man gave him the gospel, that he only got it from God. So which is it Rev? Did he get it from God, or did he get it from men? If he got it from men, why doesn't he tell us who, what their evidence was, and what story they told him?
He uses the scriptures as the dispositive evidence. I am very sorry but the OT does not convince very many Jews that Christ's death is foretold by it.
You also say:
Again. NO! Paul was convinced firstly by the evidence of a "Physical" Jesus as were the others. Second Paul was convinced by the confirmation of Jesus' prophecy from the scriptures OT.
Funny that he would go on to say that flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom of God. Anyway, this is a side point.
Then you say:
Again Evan fantastic rhetoric but completely unconvincing. Whilst it may be the Josephus was an interpolation, it may not.
But again, if the testimonium is an interpolation, then Craig's argument fails.
Then you say:
The Greek word is Yeshua. Meaning Yahweh saves. Not just savior. We translate this to mean either Jesus or Joshua. The Bible uses both.
I'd always assumed Yeshua was a Hebrew name translated into Greek as Iesous. It is translated from Hebrew directly into English as Joshua. If you have better information and some rational distinction between the names in the Semitic original language (since Jesus was not a Grecophone as far as we know) then I'd be interested. However, if your point is merely to say that Yeshua is a 2nd temple version of Yehoshua and this makes them different names ... I don't buy it. Are Guillaume and William different names to you? How about Guglielmo and Guillaume? How about Wilhelm and William? Steven and Steve? Rick and Richard? Dick and Richard?
Seriously Rev Phil ... or is it Philip? And do you really love horses?
Then finally you get to the meat of my argument:
I don't hang my hat, rather the criteria of multiple assertion gives more probability to resurrection account, Given Josephus was against Christianity. Perhaps like you?
Probability. Really? It's more probable that a man rose from the dead than that it was a legend? How is that possible? You are making my argument for me here Rev. If all we have is probability, the infinitesimal probability of a resurrection blanks out that explanation's likelihood, especially in the face of widespread skepticism.
Therefore, as I continue to repeat, the argument from apologists that bodily resurrection is the best explanation is prima facie absurd. Legend is a far superior explanation -- and in addition is the one that the apologists use to explain the legends of other religions.
The position of the apologist is that all those miracles from Simon the sorcerer, Aesclepias or Appolonius of Tyana -- those are legends -- but this legend, the one of Jesus, that one is almost certainly true. Paul's skepticism puts the damper on that argument.
Harvey on to you (BTW it is good to have you posting -- I was worried about you for a bit there).
You say that Paul's scriptures were the OT. But of course, this is circular reasoning then. Paul wrote before there were gospels in Greek. Then Greek writers used the LXX to formulate a midrash on OT texts to create the legend of Jesus, and now you are saying that this midrash is historically true. But you can't really say that even accepting conservative dates for the gospels. If you assume Pauline priority -- there's just no way around the fact that Paul didn't have scriptures talking about Jesus of Nazareth (and Paul never mentions him). So we cannot use Paul to validate the Greek gospels as they were using his epistles as source material, assuming they were Christians.
The crucifixion narrative in Mark tracks quite closely with Psalm 23-25. Are you saying that the authors of these anonymous Psalms were actually foretelling Jesus? If they were, why didn't they mention his name?
I certainly agree that Paul had knowledge of the Christians (according to the NT) before he became one. And this knowledge did not convince him.
Thus, if this knowledge was unconvincing to him at the time, we cannot be certain that his vision didn't alter his beliefs with evidence that is not available to us today, but we also can't accept the evidence of his vision (something that still happens today and that we do NOT find authoritative) as dispositive evidence.
Again, Harvey, if someone in your church comes up to you and tells you of a vision they had of Christ, do you believe them? Do you then immediately follow any instructions they give you from the vision? Do you believe that Joseph Smith's visions were accurate, or Ellen G. White's? What technique do you use to distinguish those visions from that of Paul?
David, your conclusions are basically the same as mine and you seem to agree that the certainty that Craig, Wright and the others seem to think a skeptic can have of the resurrection is illusory without a "road to Damascus" moment for each believer.
You say:
The best explanation for a belief does not constitute that everyone will find that explanation convincing; therefore, if someone doesn’t find it convincing (even Paul) why does it follow that “the evidence…must be inadequate?”
That's correct. But it does mean that the evidence isn't overwhelming, especially given the fact that the man eventually became a church father after he had a vision of Jesus.
As I read it, explanatory power and scope are concerns of historiography, and not of persuasive potency. In other words, whether or not Paul rejected claims about Jesus before his conversion does nothing about a historical claim - the empty tomb + post-mortem appearances are the best explanation of the early belief in the resurrection, and are themselves best explained by the resurrection hypothesis.
I simply disagree with your conclusions here, and perhaps that's because you have had a vision of Jesus who assured you this was correct. From my point of view, a legend is a far better explanation and it's one that doesn't require me to invoke actions by a deity that no longer take place on earth.
Jason:
You misread my post. It's not that Saul was incapable of believing, it's that he didn't want to - the same way the disciples didn't want to believe Christ was going to die.
Right. Saul was not incapable of believing, yet the evidence didn't convince him. I might not want to believe the Raiders lost yesterday, but the evidence is overwhelming and I'd be delusional not to accept it. Christians can assume Paul was delusional to start with I suppose, but this doesn't really help their argument much.
In the face of overwhelming evidence, only a fool doesn't believe. Therefore, whatever Saul did or didn't want to believe, he didn't have overwhelming evidence until the vision. That's my only point here.
Brian G, it's good to see that Jason thinks you're spot on. I assume that means he's not a young-earth creationist -- since you use young-earth creationism as an example of a belief held against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
But again, my argument is NOT that Paul's skepticism disproves the resurrection completely. My argument is that Paul's later conversion shows that he was not unable to believe. Yet the evidence didn't convince him until his vision -- and therefore the evidence was not overwhelming -- and therefore it is also not overwhelming today.
That's simple and I hope you can see it.
Beliefs or non-beliefs do not tell us much about the nature or strength of the evidence.
Yes they do. Almost nobody believes that JFK wasn't assassinated. There's film of it. The evidence is dispositive. Very few people believe that Elvis is alive. The evidence for his death is very good, but there's no film of him dying, so some people maintain he's alive. There's nobody who isn't a nut or ignorant who thinks the Dolphins won the Super Bowl last year. There are varying levels of quality in evidence, and they do effect the likelihood of belief. Overwhelming evidence usually creates conformity of opinion, but you are right that a lie can make its way half way around the world while the truth is tying its shoes.
People believe or disbelieve for a variety of reasons, not all of them being because of good evidence.
I completely agree.
When we look at evidence given through other people we should look at what a person claimed to observe, not what they believe. For example, I have no doubt, that there are people who have seen unknown objects in the sky; however, I doubt strongly the claim that this means that there are aliens coming to visit earth from other planets. I'm not doubting the observation, I'm doubting the interpretation of the observation.
Yes, again we agree. I don't doubt there were some early Christians who had visions of Christ. I don't doubt that they wrote about them. I doubt very strongly there was a man who rose from the dead. In this respect I doubt the interpretation. Moreso, without overwhelming evidence of a kind that would convince almost all skeptics, this claim deserves, nay, demands that we disbelieve it.
In the face of overwhelming evidence, only a fool doesn't believe. Therefore, whatever Saul did or didn't want to believe, he didn't have overwhelming evidence until the vision. That's my only point here.
Except that Christ's own disciples didn't think he was going to die and when did, didn't think he was going to be resurrected, even in light of overwhelming evidence. Were the disciples fools for disbelieving? Absolutely, and Christ admonishes them for their unbelief. Likewise, was Paul a fool for not believing? Of course he was - so were the Jews, the Pharisees, the scribes, the false prophets and everyone else who rejected Christ as the Messiah. It's not as though unbelief in light of overwhelming evidence is an uncommon subject in Scripture...
It's not as though unbelief in light of overwhelming evidence is an uncommon subject in Scripture...
But it is uncommon today. Do you believe your favorite team won a game because you want to? Do you believe that you are rich because you want to? Can you even believe such things when they are not true?
So we are left with two possibilities:
1. Human nature was different, as were the laws of nature and the general principles of history in the 1st century CE, or
2. The scriptures are not overwhelming evidence in favor of a dead man rising.
Number 2 is much more parsimonious.
You previously said, "In the face of overwhelming evidence, only a fool doesn't believe."
That's right. Thus, the disciples, the Jews, Saul et al, were fools. It has nothing to do with the laws of nature or there not being enough evidence. As such, the third possibility, specifically the one you're still avoiding but one you've already alluded to, is that there was plenty of evidence of Christ's resurrection but that many didn't want to believe out of sheer stubbornness, ignorance, etc. (aka, the disciples, the Jews, Saul, etc.) and they were fools to do so.
Evan,
1. The more this argument is clarified, the more vague it seems to get.
2. "This is Craig's argument and that's what I'm addressing. Paul's initial skepticism puts the lie to this argument."
Where does Craig argue this? I visited the link you provided and did not find it there.
3. What do you make of Scott's comment?
David,
For a location where Craig specifically lays out his argument that the resurrection is the single best explanation for the data we have, see his debate with Bart Ehrman. Specifically check his statement "(II) The best explanation for these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead."
Wright says in his work here:
That, I believe, is the result of the investigation I have conducted. There are many other things to say about Jesus’ resurrection. But, as far as I am concerned, the historian may and must say that all other explanations for why Christianity arose, and why it took the shape it did, are far less convincing as historical explanations than the one the early Christians themselves offer: that Jesus really did rise from the dead on Easter morning, leaving an empty tomb behind him.
My argument is that this explanation fails because of the large number of Palestinians (Jews, Ebionites, Paul) who simply didn't accept this at that time in that place!
If historians want a best explanation, it should at least have been one supported by testimony written down near the time of events, in the language in which they took place, by authors whose work is independent of one another.
As for you Jason, I think I am finished when you say:
That's right. Thus, the disciples, the Jews, Saul et al, were fools.
Yet you think they were reliable. That's really all I need to know.
Evan,
Your argument reminds me of a joke. The police approach Mr. Smith and say “We can produce 5 wittinesses that saw you rob the jewelry store.” “That's alright,” said Smith, “I can produce a thousand wittinesses that didn't.”
Are suggesting that the many Jews who didn't see the risen Jesus are to be put on a scale to out way the ones that did?
I find it quite remarkable that as an atheist, you would be trying to weigh numbers of believers and non-believers, to discern which side has more evidence. If it's a numbers game we're playing, I think I'm in a pretty good spot. If we compare the numbers of all the major categories of religions, and believe systems (including Buddhism and Atheism), Christianity is the largest. So I must be correct in assuming that Christianity has more evidence then any of the others. If I compare all the different branches of Christianity, Catholicism is the largest, therefore it must have more evidence then the other branches of Christianity. As a Catholic, I'm in pretty good shape, when it comes to numbers.
As much as I would like this argument to work, I simply don't find it convincing.
I may have overstated my original position. There very well may be some correlation between the strength of evidence and the amount of people who believe it. If this is the case, then we could say that if there is a larger number of believers, statistically speaking, there is a greater degree of probability that the believe has good evidence. However, in particular cases, I think that the probability argument can be diminished by considering both the evidence itself and motivating factors for belief or non-belief. In other words, we're better off looking at the actual evidence, than looking at the numbers of believers or non-believers.
If one considers relatively new beliefs, there will always be a greater number of non-believers. Take Galileo, his views were not accepted by the vast majority of people in his day. However, his observations with a telescope did cast doubts on the Ptolemaic system. (Directly observing the phases of Venus, for example). The strength of his evidence is not reduced by the fact that people in his day didn't accept it. The reason they didn't accept Galileo were several: 1) it ideas were new, they went against accepted facts. 2) his beliefs were rejected by authority figures of his day, namely the Catholic Church.
Contrary to your proposal, I don't think that the prior skepticism of Paul and others during the formation of early Christianity, shows that the evidence is weak. The fact that people were willing and able to doubt the resurrection, indicates to me that critical thinking was going on. I think it would be much more suspicious if everyone accepted the Christianity and the resurrection without question. The fact that the belief was both new, and seemed to go against the generally accepted facts, as well as being rejected by authorities of the day, would surly create some amount of skepticism, regardless of how much evidence there was for the resurrection.
Fools and Fools
I think there is a big difference between saying that there is solid evidence for the Resurrection, and saying that those who doubt it are fools. There are intelligent people on all sides of this religious debate. I don't think trying to decide who the fools are is very helpful to an intelligent discussion. Was John Loftus a fool when he was a Christian? Did he snap out of it when he became an atheist or is he still a fool? These aren't helpful questions. It's very possible that he wasn't a fool in either case. According to his own account he knew both sides of most of the arguments when he was still a Christian. Does this mean that the state of the evidence has changed? Has there been any new evidence discovered or did he re-evaluate evidence that was already there.
Hey Evan.
Thanks for the apology!
You said.
Paul's episode in Damascus was a vision. If you don't accept that there's not much I can say. If you believe that there was a body who appeared to Paul, the onus is on you to show how Paul, who hated physical bodies and argued against a physical resurrection, believed that Jesus appeared to him in a physical body. His appearance was a vision (according to Paul flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom) by our standards. The details of Paul's vision are lost to history largely (as is certainty there was a Paul), but the argument doesn't entail this.
Great but your not going on what Paul said rather what Luke wrote about? This is my point which you failed to address. Paul's said this. So please answer if you can. Evan you cannot just take the bits of the bible you life to refute this is intellectual prostitution.
(1) Paul said Jesus appeared to Him.
(2) according to Paul flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. Incorrect this is our of context. Paul is peaking to a church when he said this not referring to Jesus' resurrection. PLEASE READ YOU BIBLE IN CONTEXT?
(3) Lost to history!!!! The bible is the most historical document of its time???? Please prove otherwise?
You said
The only real argument is whether there is a huge amount of undeniable evidence for the resurrection. Evidence for which the very best explanation available for a 1st century Jew, a 1st century Christian, a 20th century Christian, a 20th century non-Christian theist and a 20th century skeptic would be convincing. This is Craig's argument and that's what I'm addressing. Paul's initial skepticism puts the lie to this argument.
But Evan, he was convinced? Your argument fails to answer that? Your only response is to say that a religious event occurred. But this is false. Paul says Jesus Appeared! Case close! Answer that! Butdon't make rely on a figure of speech [ a vision] for your only defense!
You said
You can believe because believing is better, because you were taught it and don't wish to change your mind or because you believe God has appeared to you like he did to Paul (as I said, people believe this to this day), but I reject any argument that the evidence is compelling, when it wasn't even compelling to a church father.
My point exactly. Evan you have not convinced me or other Christians. Yet you moth off that you are right? Your critique should be passed to you not me. Answer the questions I have proposed. As yet you have dodged these.
You said.
He claims in Galatians that no man gave him the gospel, that he only got it from God. So which is it Rev? Did he get it from God, or did he get it from men? If he got it from men, why doesn't he tell us who, what their evidence was, and what story they told him?
Good question but you have decided to go to another source than against my initial question. Your moving hermeneutic is painful. Evan, his gospel is form God, Gospel means good news. No where does he mention evidence or mean it. This attack is silly and shows your lack of consideration. Please understand the meanings of the words used otherwise you look stupid.
He uses the scriptures as the dispositive evidence. I am very sorry but the OT does not convince very many Jews that Christ's death is foretold by it.
This is true, and this did not convince Paul until he saw Jesus. Something Jews have been extremely troubled with? as you are?
You said.
Funny that he would go on to say that flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom of God. Anyway, this is a side point.
See above?
You said.
But again, if the testimonium is an interpolation, then Craig's argument fails.
Prove it was!! You can't can you? You Just assume some scholars are correct! Please interact with evidence like a good scientist or is this too hard?
You said
I'd always assumed Yeshua was a Hebrew name translated into Greek as Iesous. It is translated from Hebrew directly into English as Joshua. If you have better information and some rational distinction between the names in the Semitic original language (since Jesus was not a Grecophone as far as we know) then I'd be interested. However, if your point is merely to say that Yeshua is a 2nd temple version of Yehoshua and this makes them different names ... I don't buy it. Are Guillaume and William different names to you? How about Guglielmo and Guillaume? How about Wilhelm and William? Steven and Steve? Rick and Richard? Dick and Richard?
Seriously Rev Phil ... or is it Philip? And do you really love horses?
He He He! Awesome Evan. Cheers great humor. Before I answer I always receive crap due to my name and my upbringing on a farm. You reminded me of that. Still make me laugh.
My answer is, answer my question? The I'll answer yours. If you understand why the bible translates some Jesus and Some Joshua than we can have a dialogue. Up till that point your just asking me for answer than do your own research?
I look forward to your response?
You said,
Probability. Really? It's more probable that a man rose from the dead than that it was a legend? How is that possible?
Ah, awesome. If its probable then your a Christian. But the point is Evan, not whether is probable for a man to rise or whether its probable that this account was made up. As yet you you have not shown why these people made it up? Or where it came from? Or why these records are false and others [as I have mentioned]? Or why this suddenly birth the most significant religion in the world explained the empty tomb?
You assume as do many materialist that if it is not observable then it no real?
Let me ask you. Have you ever viewed a black hole? Something scientists assume as fact yet by definition unobservable.
You said.
Therefore, as I continue to repeat, the argument from apologists that bodily resurrection is the best explanation is prima facie absurd. Legend is a far superior explanation -- and in addition is the one that the apologists use to explain the legends of other religions.
You are making my argument for me here Rev. If all we have is probability, the infinitesimal probability of a resurrection blanks out that explanation's likelihood, especially in the face of widespread skepticism.
Great but offer another explanation. You only have historical skepticism. Disbelief is not disproof? Einstein's theory of Relativity is a great example of this. If its not true off an alternate example. Otherwise all I have to do is produce scientists that are Christianity is true and case closed.
You said
The position of the apologist is that all those miracles from Simon the sorcerer, Aesclepias or Appolonius of Tyana -- those are legends -- but this legend, the one of Jesus, that one is almost certainly true. Paul's skepticism puts the damper on that argument.
See above, the have been disproved, Jesus has not. Please try?
I fell I must be a peeking tom and respond to other posts also.
You said
That's correct. But it does mean that the evidence isn't overwhelming, especially given the fact that the man eventually became a church father after he had a vision of Jesus.
No Evan; all it means is that one person was initially not convinced and the was, due to more incontrovertible evidence. Perhaps what you are seeking?
You said,
I simply disagree with your conclusions here, and perhaps that's because you have had a vision of Jesus who assured you this was correct. From my point of view, a legend is a far better explanation and it's one that doesn't require me to invoke actions by a deity that no longer take place on earth.
Evan give your point of view then in terms that are irrefutable . If you cannot then rejection shows your own biases. The very fact that Paul was a debunking Christian [like your] and became a church father is case in point. And Evan you don't need to evoke actions of a deity just explain why he became a Christian? Can You?
You said.
But it is uncommon today. Do you believe your favorite team won a game because you want to? Do you believe that you are rich because you want to? Can you even believe such things when they are not true?
This is very weak Evan. How many scientist do not agree about apparent scientific fact? This is extremely common.
Regards, Rev Phil.
Yet you think they were reliable. That's really all I need to know.
Of course I think they're reliable. Christ appeared to the disciples and admonished them for their unbelief and then charged them to go into the world to preach the gospel (which they did) and Saul was converted from an unbeliever to a believer and also preached the gospel. What or whom do you think is unreliable and why?
Evan, your entire premise is flawed because you simply refuse to admit there's the possibility that Saul might not have wanted to have believed in exactly the same manner Christ's disciples refused to believe he was going to die.
Evan,
I don't see the connection between your response and your original argument.
Your original claim was that Paul's unbelief prior to conversion supports the conclusion that et + a is insufficient to convince a skeptic.
Now you appear to be trying to scope your argument to include all Palestinian unbelievers during that time. From that, you conclude that their unbelief offers evidence against the explanatory power of the et + a.
Perhaps you may be onto something, I would want to see someone arguing that explanatory power is a function of the number of adherents to the explanation, particularly in the context 1st century Palestine.
Also Scott has asked about Matthew 28:11-15, and now I have asked as well. What is your take on that?
Cheers,
David
Evan,
This is way off topic but yet something that was brought up here. On this name issue read this:
“Our English form of Jesus is derived from the Hebrew name, Yesu, the shortened form of the earlier and “more correct’ from Yesua found in the late books of the Hebrew Bible”- Professor John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew Vol. 1 “The Roots Of The Problem & The Person” Pg. 205
(special notes- I say “more correct” because the shorter form, Yesu, comes from the loss in proper pronunciation of the final Hebrew letter ‘ayin The Rabbinic literature, which deplores the loss of the pronunciation of the ‘ayin, associates it with the dialect of Galilee(see, e.g.,b.Ber.32a; b.Meg.24b) David Noel Freedman has suggested to me (letter Nov. 26, 1990) that in the 1st century Jesus of Nazareth would have been called Yesua or even Yehosua have been used.)….Skipping to more detail…“Mr. Freedman has also pointed out that the passage from o to e is difficult to explain on any account. He suggests that ultimately the two names Yehosua and Yesua may have had different roots or derivations and became equated because they sounded alike and had the same meaning” Professor John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew Vol. 1 “The Roots Of The Problem & The Person” Pg. 231 Notes to Ch. 8
As continued in original thought ~ “The name Yesua is in turn a shortened form of the name of a great biblical hero Joshua son of Nun, in Hebrew Yehosua the successor of Moses and the leader of the people of Israel into the promised land. “Joshua” was the ordinary form of the name used before Babylonian exile. Among Jews after the Babylonian exile however, “Jesus” (Yesua and later the shorter Yesu) became the common form of the name, though “Joshua” did not die out entirely. “Jesus “ remained a popular name among the Jews until the beginning of the 2nd Century A.D., when perhaps Christian veneration of Jesus Christ led Jews to stop using Yesua and Yesu as a personal name. They instead revived “Joshua” as a common form of the name the form borne by a good number of noteable rabbis. Thus “Jesus” became a rare name among Jews after the 2nd Century”Professor John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew Vol. 1 “The Roots Of The Problem & The Person” Pg. 205-206
Once again, as many things, this cannot be merely oversimplified.
Thanks
Evan,
In addition, as I originally argued, other individuals do not hear a VISION as we see recorded in Acts. Those that were with Paul HEARD, HEARD, HEARD but they didn't SEE Jesus.
Your argument against Carig and NT. Wright is misplaced also. They are addressing the fact (at least in my opinion)that the Christian church grew exponentially (sp) because of the evidences INCLUDING that of the empty tomb. The Empty Tomb didn't stand on it's own because it ment nothing without the testimony of the evangelists who put a form to all events.
This does not deal with a persons ability, willingness or lack thereof to believe or disbelive what's been reconted and evidenced.
I think you're suggesting that noone would have disbelieved if it were true and that's just NOT the case. Jews had reasons for their unbelief as I stated and we know that people such as atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers come to various conclusions based on the same or similar evidence.
So in short, I don't feel that the atheist crowd has gained ground by making an argument against the bible in this post. The Christians that have showed up here have argued very well!
Thanks. C-ya round the way!
If I'm reading Acts 9 right, specifically verse 15, Jesus said he chose Paul to be his instrument or servant. This means Paul had no choice in believing what his own mind concluded, on what the apostles were claiming, after seeing the vision. Jesus chose him obviously to make christianity what it is today. Without Paul, we probably wouldn't be talking about Jesus at this moment. There's no indication that he questioned whether his vision was real or not, but was baptized three days or so later. It would seem even if Paul wanted to choose hell, he wouldn't be able to.
This story is so planned (pun intented). A literary work is evident, as in verse 4, Jesus is asking Paul why is he persecuting him, when Jesus himself knew this was meant to be, and since Paul being the top villain would make the best case for a non-believer, who all of a sudden, turned into a believer. So if Paul now believed, he must have really seen a resurrected Jesus, therefore everyone else who hears or reads about this will also believe. Well, this obviously didn't work.
This reminds me of the story of Adam & Eve after eating the fruit, God came asking where are they, and who told them they were naked, etc, as if he didn't already know.
To me, this does not sound like history, it sounds more like legend.
Rev Phil,
You don't need to thank me. Again, I am going to try to limit my replies to those issues that address the central point -- which is again, that there is no overwhelming evidence in favor of the resurrection being the best possible explanation for the facts we know about the story of Jesus.
You say:
(1) Paul said Jesus appeared to Him.
Yes, Paul says he talked to Jesus. Again, I ask you what your response is to people who tell you that they talk to Jesus and he tells them things. Do you consider them authoritative? I really wish you would answer this question. It's almost as if you have something to hide. Are you avoiding answering this for a reason?
(2) according to Paul flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. Incorrect this is our of context. (sic) Paul is peaking (sic) to a church when he said this not referring to Jesus' resurrection. PLEASE READ YOU BIBLE IN CONTEXT?(sic)
Was Paul saying something like "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom" and what he really meant was "only people with flesh and blood resurrected bodies who eat fish and have holes in their hands you can put your finger through but can walk through walls and disguise their appearance can inherit the kingdom?"
Paul's statement in 1 Cor about flesh and blood is quite clear, and in context he backs it up by talking about how Adam is from the earth. I'll quote him:
45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality
Paul compares the earthly body of Adam, made of flesh, to the spiritual body of the 2nd Adam, made of spirit. Now I have always understood that Paul was talking about Christ when he talks about the 2nd Adam, but maybe you have someone else in mind and then perhaps for you the context is different. To me the context is quite clearly about the resurrected body of Christ (which is a spirit that appeared to him).
(3) Lost to history!!!! The bible is the most historical document of its time???? Please prove otherwise?
Easy. Herodotus is a better historian and he was much earlier. Thuycidides is still one of the best historians ever and he is much earlier. Polybius is also one of the best historians and he wrote earlier than the NT. Josephus wrote about the time of the NT and while he isn't a very good historian, he's far superior to the NT.
Please show me any professional historian who believes the Bible is a better history than any of those writers above.
Then you say:
But Evan, he was convinced? Your argument fails to answer that?
No, it answers it quite well. He was convinced by an epiphany. If I have such an epiphany, I will possibly be convinced (depending on the strength of evidence given by such an epiphany). But each person's epiphany is epistemologically unavailable to others. Nobody can experience your or anyone else's epiphany and therefore the only thing others can analyze is your story of your epiphany.
I've never had one. I don't know if you have or not. Paul's is not authoritative, it's one man's story. Your epiphany would have no more authority for me than Mohammed's angelophany.
Your only response is to say that a religious event occurred. But this is false. Paul says Jesus Appeared! Case close! Answer that! Butdon't (sic!) make rely (sic) on a figure of speech [ a vision](sic) for your only defense!
It's not a figure of speech. A vision is the only thing Paul himself ever describes. Paul doesn't say he hugged Jesus and went and ate with him. He says Jesus appeared to him. But people say that today. What do you say when they say that? Please let me know.
The Book of Acts disagrees with the epistles on several points. Do you believe it is MORE accurate about what happened to Paul than his own writings are?
My point exactly. Evan you have not convinced me or other Christians. Yet you moth off (sic) that you are right? Your critique should be passed to you not me (sic). Answer the questions I have proposed. As yet you have dodged these.
What questions am I dodging? I have tried to answer everything that has been posed here (with the possible exception of the lame Matthew reference which I will get to in this post). Yet you are dodging my question about how you regard visions of Jesus today from people who continue to have them. Why is that?
Then you say:
Evan, his gospel is form (sic) God, Gospel means good news. No where does he mention evidence or mean it. This attack is silly and shows your lack of consideration. Please understand the meanings of the words used otherwise you look stupid.
You make my point for me. Paul had a vision. In this vision he felt personally that his experience was convincing enough to become a Christian. He doesn't mention any of the evidence that modern apologists use, and in fact never mentions an empty tomb once. Therefore, Paul was not convinced by the evidence. Is that really that hard to grasp?
Sorry if that makes me look stupid. I keep looking for something deeper inside what you're writing and I can't find it, so I guess I am either stupid or have trouble reading into your writing what you mean.
About the testimonium you say:
Prove it was!! You can't can you? You Just assume some scholars are correct! Please interact with evidence like a good scientist or is this too hard?
I can't prove it was. You can't prove it wasn't. The evidence is clearly in favor of interpolation -- the Catholic church's scholars believe it was an interpolation for goodness' sake. I am interacting with the evidence and the internal and external textual evidence suggests interpolation. Do you believe the first century apologists who had read Josephus would have failed to quote the testimonium if it were present in the manuscripts they read? Please interact with that evidence. You haven't yet.
As to all the brouhaha about Jesus' Aramaic name ... I'm done. I'm not arguing that point on this thread. It's ridiculous. Nobody can argue that there were many people with the Aramaic name that was translated into Greek as Iesous living in Palestine in the 1st century CE.
Then you talk about probability:
Ah, awesome. If its probable then your (sic) a Christian. But the point is Evan, not whether is (sic) probable for a man to rise or whether its (sic) probable that this account was made up. As yet you you have not shown why these people made it up? (sic) Or where it came from? (sic) Or why these records are false and others [as I have mentioned]? (sic) Or why this suddenly birth (sic) the most significant religion in the world explained the empty tomb? (sic)
I don't have to. People make stuff up all the time. They do so for obscure, sometimes bizarre reasons that they themselves don't even know.
Do you know the reason why Melville wrote Moby Dick? Do you have to know it to decide whether or not Moby Dick is historical?
Do you know the reason why people think Elvis was alive in the 80s? Do you have to know them to decide if Elvis was alive?
Do you know the reason why some people believe in Mormonism? Do you need to know to decide if there were gold plates in reformed Egyptian hieroglyphs that were uncovered in northern NY in the 19th century?
I eagerly await your answers to those questions.
Let me ask you. Have you ever viewed a black hole? Something scientists assume as fact yet by definition unobservable. (sic)
Nope. I haven't. Have you ever observed an atom? Neither is observable to the naked eye. We infer their existence from reproducible data. Give me the reproducible way to get Jesus to appear to me and I'll try it. Just let me know what to do. I await your answer to this.
You then say:
Great but offer another explanation. You only have historical skepticism. Disbelief is not disproof? (sic) Einstein's theory of Relativity is a great example of this. If its (sic) not true off (sic) an alternate example. Otherwise all I have to do is produce scientists that are Christianity is true (sic) and case closed.
Disbelief is not disproof, without question. Do you believe in unicorns, Santa Claus, leprechauns? I bet you don't. Yet can you disprove them. Nope. You can't.
But then you have to explain why people made up the stories. If you can't give a perfect answer, will you then believe in them? I won't.
I don't believe things that are highly improbable. You do. That's the difference between us. Perhaps Jesus has appeared to you. He never has to me. The evidence and testimony certainly don't convince me, just like they did not convince Saul.
I listed a bunch of 1st century miracle workers and you responded:
See above, the (sic) have been disproved, Jesus has not. Please try?
WHAT???
Please disprove, using the standards of evidence that you use to "prove" the resurrection, that Appolonius of Tyana didn't perform miracles. Who has "disproved" this? I'm all ears.
Then you add:
Evan give your point of view then in terms that are irrefutable . (sic) If you cannot then rejection shows your own biases. The very fact that Paul was a debunking Christian [like your] (sic) and became a church father is case (sic) in point. And Evan you don't need to evoke actions of a deity just explain (sic) why he became a Christian? Can You? (sic)
Phil I don't know you personally, but is English your first language? This is very hard to follow. Are you saying that Paul converted without the actions of a deity? I'm really unclear what you are suggesting here.
Finally you say:
This is very weak Evan. How many scientist do not agree about apparent scientific fact? This is extremely common.
No, it's not common at all. Find me scientists who disagree with gravity, electromagnetic theory, quantum theory (in physics), continental drift, the nature of rock formation, the nature of the geologic column (in geology), the germ theory of disease, the genetic etiology of huntington's disease or down's syndrome, the neurofibrillary plaque theory of alzheimer's (in medicine), common descent of life from a single set of ancestors, natural selection as a means of species modification and proteins being derived from RNA (in biology).
There is simply no disagreement beyond a few kooks for any of those theories. Nobody disputes them. The evidence is too strong.
Again Rev Phil (if this was too long and you're scrolling), what is your response to modern visions of Jesus. Do you believe they are authoritative? If not, why not?
Jason you say:
Of course I think they're reliable.
They are reliable fools, I guess. Did they stop being fools at some point? Did their essential nature change?
Christ appeared to the disciples and admonished them for their unbelief and then charged them to go into the world to preach the gospel (which they did) ...
And he hasn't appeared to me. So all I have is their hearsay about it. I don't find that compelling data. You do, even though you admit they were fools (and fools often make stuff up to make themselves look better to others).
... and Saul was converted from an unbeliever to a believer and also preached the gospel. What or whom do you think is unreliable and why?
Saul was converted by a vision. Again Jason, do you consider someone who today has visions from Jesus (and it happens all the time) authoritative. Will you do whatever Jesus asks you to from someone else's vision?
Finally you go again with the idea that someone can want not to believe something and then not believe it. If someone you love dies, you may not want them to be dead. But if they are dead, you know they are dead and you can't believe anything else without being considered delusional. Are you suggesting that Christianity is indeed based on a delusion by this argument?
Or are you saying that someone who knows someone has died yet doesn't accept it is the one who is NOT delusional, and the ones who believe the dead remain dead are the ones who actually are deluded?
I am curious how this would play out in your life at funerals.
David, you say:
Your original claim was that Paul's unbelief prior to conversion supports the conclusion that et + a is insufficient to convince a skeptic.
Now you appear to be trying to scope your argument to include all Palestinian unbelievers during that time. From that, you conclude that their unbelief offers evidence against the explanatory power of the et + a.
No, the larger argument includes my first post, which I link to in the original text. The first post talks about the Ebionites who were Christians yet did not believe in a bodily resurrection and were a major force in Christianity for three centuries in Palestine. This post enlarges that argument to the Jews and to Saul of Tarsus as a specific case.
Again, if there were overwhelming evidence, you'd think at least the Christians would all have agreed.
Harvey, see above to Rev. Phil about the Yeshu etc. stuff. It's a total side point.
Additionally you bring up Acts again. I am sorry but the story in Acts contradicts the epistles, and even contradicts itself, and cannot be a reliable history:
When Paul experienced a vision on the road to Damascus, did his traveling companions also hear a voice?
* Yes - "The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one." (Acts 9:7)
* No - "Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me." (Acts 22:9)
Did those present during Paul's vision fall down or remain standing?
* They remained standing: "The men who were traveling with him stood speechless." (Acts 9:7)
* They all fell down: "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice." (Acts 26:14)
Shortly after his conversion, did Paul meet with the disciples?
* Yes - "For several days he was with the disciples at Damascus." (Acts 9:19) "And when he had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples." (Acts 9:26)
* No - "When he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem. (Galatians 1:15-18)
Suffice that to discredit Acts as a reliable history of Paul's vision.
Then you say:
Your argument against Carig (sic) and NT. Wright is misplaced also. They are addressing the fact (at least in my opinion)that the Christian church grew exponentially (sp) because of the evidences INCLUDING that of the empty tomb. The Empty Tomb didn't stand on it's own because it ment (sic) nothing without the testimony of the evangelists who put a form to all events.
As far as I can see from the quotes I have given, Craig and Wright believe that the best explanation for the empty tomb is a resurrection and not a legend. Their evidence for this is largely the Greek gospels and NOT the spread of Christianity.
If the spread of Christianity were the best evidence, they should be Mormons, because the Mormons have grown MUCH faster than the early Christian church did.
Then you say:
I think you're suggesting that noone would have disbelieved if it were true and that's just NOT the case. Jews had reasons for their unbelief as I stated and we know that people such as atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers come to various conclusions based on the same or similar evidence
No, I'm suggesting that the evidence is not overwhelming. I'm suggesting that if we have reasons to believe, those reasons can't be historical, because the historical evidence is clearly NOT adequate to conclude that a man raised bodily from the dead is a better explanation than a legend.
Finally, to Scott's use of the Matthew legend about the Jews paying the guards to say that the disciples stole the body. I agree completely with Rotten Arsenal's response. Remember that Jason thinks all the disciples were fools. Starting a religion is a good way to make money. Ask L. Ron Hubbard.
They are reliable fools, I guess. Did they stop being fools at some point? Did their essential nature change?
Why must their essential nature change? Everyone's played the fool before, even you. Should we assume you're still foolish?
And he hasn't appeared to me. So all I have is their hearsay about it. I don't find that compelling data. You do, even though you admit they were fools (and fools often make stuff up to make themselves look better to others).
This isn't about you, Evan. This is about the "earliest witness", remember?
... and Saul was converted from an unbeliever to a believer and also preached the gospel. What or whom do you think is unreliable and why?
Saul was converted by a vision. Again Jason, do you consider someone who today has visions from Jesus (and it happens all the time) authoritative. Will you do whatever Jesus asks you to from someone else's vision?
If they went through exactly the same experiences as Saul did, with first-hand witnesses, other people and history to support his claims, and teachings, sure I would. Why wouldn't I?
Finally you go again with the idea that someone can want not to believe something and then not believe it. If someone you love dies, you may not want them to be dead. But if they are dead, you know they are dead and you can't believe anything else without being considered delusional.
But this doesn't stop me from believing they're still alive and living in spirit form in my house. People call this 'refusing to accept' the facts.
Are you suggesting that Christianity is indeed based on a delusion by this argument?
Nope.
Or are you saying that someone who knows someone has died yet doesn't accept it is the one who is NOT delusional, and the ones who believe the dead remain dead are the ones who actually are deluded?
I'm saying some people refuse to accept the facts. We do this all the time whether it be with global warming, oil, smoking, drinking, gambling, etc. etc. Paul did it with Christ's resurrection.
And Evan, please stop misquoting me. It's immature and intellectually dishonest. I never once said I thought "all the disciples were fools". What I said was they were foolish for not believing Christ was going to die and foolish for not believing he had been resurrected.
Jason 1:
That's right. Thus, the disciples, the Jews, Saul et al, were fools. It has nothing to do with the laws of nature or there not being enough evidence. As such, the third possibility, specifically the one you're still avoiding but one you've already alluded to, is that there was plenty of evidence of Christ's resurrection but that many didn't want to believe out of sheer stubbornness, ignorance, etc. (aka, the disciples, the Jews, Saul, etc.) and they were fools to do so.
12:49 PM, September 23, 2008
Jason 2:
And Evan, please stop misquoting me. It's immature and intellectually dishonest. I never once said I thought "all the disciples were fools". What I said was they were foolish for not believing Christ was going to die and foolish for not believing he had been resurrected.
10:26 PM, September 24, 2008
Evan, for the last time, I'm saying the disciples and Saul were fools for not believing in Christ's resurrection in light of the overwhelming evidence. They refused to accept the facts. Stop taking my words out of context or twisting them to mock me and instead deal intelligently with the opposing viewpoints raised here by myself and others.
How on earth am I taking your words out of context? I just quoted your entire context.
You say that the disciples were fools when they didn't accept facts. I agree with you.
We may differ on exactly when they were fools, but I don't suffer fools gladly -- and you do.
Finally, to Scott's use of the Matthew legend about the Jews paying the guards to say that the disciples stole the body. I agree completely with Rotten Arsenal's response. Remember that Jason thinks all the disciples were fools. Starting a religion is a good way to make money. Ask L. Ron Hubbard.
-Evan said this.
This can't even be considered a rational or logical response. You agree with what arsenal said? arsenal offered up a sarcastic explanation with no evidence to back his assertion, in other words a 'naked assertion'. This is what arsenal said.
"Yeah, because it couldn't possibly have been that they actually DID steal the body and then claim that the priests were lying."
All you have done is give an assertion with no evidence to back it up. Do you have any evidence at all that the disciples stole the body? did the disciples dress up like angels and kill the guards? did the disciples drag Jesus's dead body and show him to mary, 500 different people, 2 men on a road, all without being caught?
Its not hard to give claims with no evidence behind them, which is what you both have done regarding the scripture I gave in matthew. Please respond with a rational response next time thanks.
How on earth am I taking your words out of context? I just quoted your entire context. You say that the disciples were fools when they didn't accept facts. I agree with you.
That's right - when they didn't accept the overwhelming evidence that Christ was going to die and be raised. Full stop. When Jesus finally appeared to them, he "upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart" (Mark 16:14). Note that he didn't admonish their "essential nature" nor did he subsequently forbid them to preach the gospel out of fear people would think they were unreliable.
Their foolishness is situation-specific and I had hoped this would have been clear to you. Apparently not.
Evan,
If I may deal with a couple of additional points that you make. And as always, you do make them quite well (No sarcasm) so I know I’ve got some work cut out here:
You stated this,
“Paul's statement in 1 Cor about flesh and blood is quite clear, and in context he backs it up by talking about how Adam is from the earth”
Then you stated,
“Paul compares the earthly body of Adam, made of flesh, to the spiritual body of the 2nd Adam, made of spirit. Now I have always understood that Paul was talking about Christ when he talks about the 2nd Adam, but maybe you have someone else in mind and then perhaps for you the context is different. To me the context is quite clearly about the resurrected body of Christ (which is a spirit that appeared to him).”
You rightly quote the verses but might I point out the one verse in particular that shed’s the proper light on your contention. Verse 49 “And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” Now your contention is that Jesus was spiritual because of the language of the passage. Based on this verse, and to be consistent with your interpretation, not only are WE natural or “earthly” but we will be will be “spirit” or “spiritual” also because the scripture says that we will “bear the image” of the heavenly. Your claim is that “spirit” is a non-caporal (sp) body without time and extension in space. I would argue that that spirit is a non-caporal (sp) body WITH time and extension in space like the body of Jesus. I think that this argument is one that allows much speculation but I also remember what Paul said,
I Cor. 15:53 ~ “51-Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52-In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53-For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.”
This is a mystery, and I don’t expect to settle all aspects of this here on DC. But the teachings here are biblically consistent. John says the same when he says this,
1 John 3:2 ~ “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”
“Doth not yet appear” ie: we don’t know every detail of how this will work and we fully can’t grasp it now…but…etc…
Another attestation to a physical body of Jesus is Luke 24:13-35, which recounts that Cleophas and another disciple encountered Jesus on Emmaus Rd. to counter any mythological claims against the city, Josephus also confirms that Emmaus was a city although excavations have not revealed it as of present. ~ William Smith; revised and edited by F.N. and M.A. Peloubet, Smith’s Bible dictionary [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997
As I have argued previously that the “glorified body” will not need blood but will be composed of flesh and bone. So the scripture confirms my thoughts in this area:
1 Cor. 15:50 ~ “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Flesh and Blood (that combination) will not inherit. It is a mystery what will but nevertheless, whatever will be, does have extension in time and space. That was the BODY of Jesus. He had an extension in time and space. He was not a spirit. Jesus spoke of spirits like this,
Luke 28: 38-40 ~ “38-And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 39-Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40-And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.”
Jesus had “flesh and bone” and both John and Paul attest that we shall be “like” Jesus we can only surmise that we will have “flesh and bones” also. Beyond that we can only speculate.
In relevant arguments regarding the empty tomb and also concerning Paul’s mention of the empty tomb you said this,
“He doesn't mention any of the evidence that modern apologists use, and in fact never mentions an empty tomb once.”
Although Earl Doherty argues this and other apostasies in “The Jesus Puzzle”
Let’s handle this like this:
Paul does however mention this which is not in dispute:
Gal. 1:19 ~ “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” This confirms Paul’s knowledge of Jesus as a contemporary or a person of actual PHYSICAL history. James wasn’t a spirit and his brother “Jesus” would have had to at least at some point been a PHYSICAL person also.
Along with a host of other Jesus teachings, Paul shows his knowledge of the teaching of Jesus on divorce in 1 Cor. 7:10-11 again confirming that he had a actual knowledge of what Jesus had actually taught while he was alive
Paul recounts the Passover meal in 1 Cor. 11:23-26. Contrary to you’re contention (I’m sure) Paul being a Phariseac Jew would not have found it appealing to recant a mystery religion parallel here as none existed at the time and Paul later recants no other mystery religious teachings in association with Christianity So arguments to the contrary have been found to be less than compelling.
Then Paul confirms the PHYSICAL death of Jesus and describes who carried it out,
1 Thess. 2:13-16 ~ “13-For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. 14-For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15-Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:”
Finally we make a big circle back to 1 Cor. 15. IF Paul was familiar with the life of Jesus as scripture demonstrates, IF Paul was familiar with the death of Jesus as scripture demonstrates, THEN what he says in 1 Cor. 15 Indicates without doubt, that he understood the tomb to be empty. Specifically when he said,
1 Cor. 15:3-4 ~ “3-For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4-And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”
He on multiple occasions admits the death and burial of Jesus and he says that HE (Jesus) rose again. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that he is saying that the TOMB WAS EMPTY? To get any other conclusion is a case of “special pleading” that we handle this passage DIFFERENTLY than other writings be they religious or secular, whereby information is inferred and brought to similar reasonable conclusions.
So we have multiple attestation that Jesus had died and was risen and physically interacted with individuals
You say this of Acts,
“Suffice that to discredit Acts as a reliable history of Paul's vision.”
Let’s look at Acts to see what it actually says and I will throw out any apologetic harmonization efforts for the moment and look at minimal facts recounted:
Summary of Acts 9: 1-9
1- Paul sees a “Light”
2- Paul falls to the ground and
3- Paul hears a voice
4- The Lord then identifies himself and Paul becomes obedient and subjects himself unto salvation.
5- Men with him stood speechless
6- The men (with Paul) heard a voice but saw “no ONE”
7- They pick Paul up and proceed on
Summary of Acts 22:9
1- Paul sees a light (v-6)
2- Paul falls to the ground (v-7)
3- Paul hears a voice (v-7)
4- The Lord identifies himself
5- Men with him saw the light (v-9)
6- Did not hear the voice (v-9)
7- They gather Paul to continue on their journey(v-11)
Summary Acts 26:12-18
1- Paul sees a light (v-13)
2- Those that were with him saw a light also (v-14)
3- All fall to the ground (v-14)
4- PAUL hears a voice speaking to him in HEBREW (v-14)
5- The Lord then identifies himself gives Paul his charge (v-16-18)
6- Jesus tells Paul to rise from the ground (v-16)
What items are consistent in all 3 recountings?
1- Paul sees a light
2- Paul falls to the ground
3- Paul hears a voice (Hebrew even)
4- The Lord identifies himself
5- Paul is given a charge
6- Paul is picked up from the ground
7- The men with Paul saw NOONE…
8- The men were speechless (scripture does not recount that they said anything)
Based on the minimum facts the story is consistent in all of these areas. This is NOT a vision it is an encounter with a person who SPEAKS and actual identifiable language. HEBREW.
What items vary between scriptures?
1- The men see a light (2 of 3)- [And even this could be in the top list]
2- The men hear a voice (1 of 2)
3- The men did not hear a voice (1 of 2)
So in your recounting, the ONLY issue is whether the men heard a voice or did not hear a voice? Since NEITHER of them testified I believe that it’s unreasonable to discredit the account because of that issue….That’s a radical, irrational and highly unreasonable way to examine the narrative or historical facts. If I were to put on my apologetic hat I could EASILY harmonize this for obvious reasons but I won’t.
Also, you offer a conflict between Acts 9 and Gal. 1. Once again I understand your reasoning here but all Galations does is place a time frame on actual events. Paul simply states that he went to Arabia, then to Damascus preaches there for 3 years then Goes to Jerusalem.
I believe this confusion comes from how verse 19 is structured,
“So when he had received food, he was strengthened. Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus.” “Then” only indicates order of events and not necessarily immediacy of events. If that’s the case (as I believe study proves) there is additionally NO PROBLEM with the recounting.
So I feel that I’ve dealt with your assertion that Acts is not reliable history. I believe that assertion DOES NOT stand under the weight of examination of the scriptures you present.
Next you say regarding the resurrection evidence, “No, I'm suggesting that the evidence is not overwhelming.”
That’s a little too subjective for me Evan. What does one consider or evaluate what is “overwhelming”? For Paul and the early church the evidence was so “overwhelming” that they gladly gave their lives for what they examined and knew. In fact we see both people who had an experience with a resurrected Christ and otherwise who examined the evidence and died for what they knew. Don’t lump these in psychologically with others because they were all convinced of the Jesus of History not myth.
Love those Jesus mythers, you give us such a great opportunity to expound on the Gospel and it’s such a treat.
Thanks, keep ‘em comin’!
PHB.
Scott,
You say:
Its (sic) not hard to give claims with no evidence behind them, which is what you both have done regarding the scripture I gave in matthew (sic). Please respond with a rational response next time thanks (sic).
You are using Matthew as a source of history, Scott. Matthew believes that the streets of Jerusalem were alive with zombies during the Sabbath Jesus was in the tomb. Do you? Isn't it odd that Luke, John and Mark, much less all the epistle writers ignore this fact?
But, to take your argument more seriously than it deserves, here is the evidence:
Jeffrey Jay Lowder from "Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb" in The Empty Tomb, Price and Lowder eds.:
"The historicity of the Jewish polemic should not be assumed, however. For all we know, the Jewish polemic may be a literary device designed to answer obvious doubts that would occur to converts. Or, supposing that there is some sort of historical basis to the polemic, it may be that the polemic originated with a non-Jew and then later Matthew attributed the polemic to the Jews. Given that the polemic is not recorded in any contemporary Jewish documents, we can't assume that Jews actually responded to the proclamation of the Resurrection with the accusation that the disciples stole the body.
But suppose, for the sake of argument, the Jewish polemic is historical. In that case, is there any reason to think the Jews actually accepted the Christian claim of the empty tomb? Craig assumes the Jews would have accepted the empty tomb story only after verifying it for themselves. But this assumption is multiply flawed.
First, there is no evidence that Jewish knowledge of the empty tomb presupposed by the polemic was based upon direct, firsthand evidence of an empty tomb. This is especially problematic because the date of the Jewish polemic is uncertain. For all we know, the polemic may not be earlier than 70 CE when the first known story of the empty tomb, Mark, was written. By 70, Jerusalem had been sacked and the body had decomposed, so no one could really "check the tomb."
... Second, Jewish polemic was just that -- polemic. Polemical rumors need neither a basis in fact nor even sincere belief among those who spread them. An analogy should make this point clear. The claim that first century Jews accepted the empty tomb story is akin to the claim that Romans and Jews "presupposed" that Joseph was not Jesus' father because Mary had conceived Jesus with a Roman soldier named Panthera. Just as no scholar uses Celsus and the Talmud as evidence for the claim, "Joseph didn't father Jesus," there is no reason to believe the Jews actually believed their polemic."
So there's that evidence for you, Scott. Have at it.
Jason you say:
Their foolishness is situation-specific and I had hoped this would have been clear to you. Apparently not.
Can you differentiate for me what situations you would find these particular fools to be reliable and what you would find them to be fools in? For example, would the Peter described in the Greek gospels ever tell a lie if it benefited him?
As for you Harvey, you keep trying to refute the mythicist position, and I can see why you would need to, but it's not necessary to my argument here, so I'm not going to spend much time on it. Assuming the Greek gospels give some accurate testimony that there was a preacher named Yesu or Yeshua or Y'shua or Yehoshua ... or whatever, who actually did some of the things that are in the Greek gospels, you still can't establish any overwhelming evidence for his resurrection if your best evidence is Paul's vision (so variously described in spots in the NT, as you admit).
Please, please someone ... tell me what you consider authoritative about MODERN visions?
If Jesus appeared in the flesh to one of your friends, and two other friends saw light and heard a voice -- would you believe them?
Would you do whatever Jesus told them you needed to do?
Why is this question so hard for anyone to deal with?
Evan,
If "the historicity of Jewish polemic should not be assumed", how will the second premise of your argument stand?
David the second premise of my argument has nothing to do with the text of Matthew or the supposed argument that the disciples stole the body. Paul mentions nothing of any of this.
My second premise again is: The evidence for the resurrection failed to convince Paul of the truth of Christianity.
How on earth does this have anything to do with Matthew?
And since you're responding ... please let me know what you would think if three of your friends came to tell you about one of them having an appearance from Jesus, and 2 of them seeing a light and hearing a voice. Assume Jesus instructed your friend he appeared to that all Christians should run daily marathons and become vegans.
Please, I wanna know how you would respond.
Evan,
Read my statement again, and notice I say nothing about Matthew or a stolen body.
Where do we learn of Paul's resistance to the empty tomb + postmortem appearances? Do you intend to give this account historical status while dismissing the Matthean account as Jewish polemic. If so then on what grounds?
Responses will only be given to serious questions; I don't have time to play games with you.
David, I assume you are not understanding what I am writing and for that I apologize.
I'll try again.
The story we have is that Paul was unconvinced until he had a vision.
I hope you understand that.
As far as an empty tomb goes, Paul never once mentions it. Neither do any of the other epistle writers for that matter. The first mention ever of an empty tomb is in Mark which dates to circa 70 CE.
So any discussion of an empty tomb is irrelevant to my argument -- I was merely humoring all of you who kept demanding some response to Scott.
Now as to the historicity of Paul, I am not defending that, but Christians do. So if you believe the evidence for the resurrection is overwhelming, certainly part of the evidence for that is the conversion of Paul. However, his conversion must stand in distinction to his persecution, which took place during the time when the evidence and testimony for the resurrection was at its freshest.
The man, Saul/Paul (if he existed) who would have been alive and in Palestine during the time of the supposed resurrection was absolutely unconvinced by the supposed evidence, which we here in the 21st century are supposed to be overwhelmingly convinced by.
I am not assuming the historicity of anything. But apologists do assume that historicity, and for that reason, using their assumptions, I am criticizing the internal consistency of the facts they accept with the conclusions they reach.
Does that explain it better for you?
Whatever Matthew wrote based on Mark does not have anything to do with this argument since both of those books were written after Paul's supposed conversion.
Not even the most conservative scholar suggests that the Greek gospels existed at the time of Paul's conversion and Paul certainly never mentions them.
So there simply is no relevance to this argument as it concerns my argument.
And again, every single one of you apologist types keeps ducking my extremely serious question, so I'm going to keep asking it every time so that someone will please answer it:
Let me know what you would think if three of your friends came to tell you about one of them having an appearance from Jesus, and two of them seeing a light and hearing a voice. Assume Jesus instructed your friend he appeared to that all Christians should run daily marathons and become vegans.
The reason it is a serious query is because if you discount such an event NOW when you have actual witnesses you can interview, you have no epistemic basis to trust it in the past when all the witnesses are long dead and the only evidence you have is textual.
I hope you can understand me and I apologize for doing such a poor job at explaining my argument to you thus far.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Look at this post. Paul , obviously rejected the testimony of the apostles about the resurrection of Jesus as many jews did. But later was converted by Jesus DIRECTLY which you all know and was eventually killed for his faith later. You people here are totally blind to the foolishness of this concept. You think Paul not believing in the beginning is a strike against Christianity. yet *OBVIOUSLY* Jesus is real enough to Paul on the road to Damascus to change his entire life and lead to his death.
Evan,
there is no reason to answer your "supposed" serious question. Why? Because it doesn’t make any sense. You and the other unbelievers on this site are determined in your heart not to believe. You are so committed to unbelief that you actually question the idea that Paul the apostle even existed. Something that is totally completely RIDICULOUS! In order for you to reject this you have to reject every single book he dictated, peters reference to him, and the references made about him by the early church fathers. There is no "debunking" Christianity. This site is just one foolish post after the next. You look straight in the face of the truth and swim 100 miles to discount it. What do you think will happen to you when Jesus does return? Also, i wonder if this will ever cross your minds as you take the mark and line up for the antichrist. Probably not because you will all be cheering because those pesky Christians are finally getting the punishment they have so long deserved. I may sound harsh but i am still gong to pray that God has mercy on you guys and opens your eyes.
Samurai-Saint,
Cut'em up, cut'em up baby! Although I don't believe that's the type of argument they want to address around here...(LOL-LOL)
Keep cuttin' though. God bless!
Samurai, it must be so comforting to be so cock-sure that what you believe it true. A lot of us were the same way you are now. Unfortunately the reality is evolution is true, history and science are indeed against Christianity. I believed as you did for 25 years of my life. I was a strong Christian, never having any doubt, fully trusting in Christ my righteousness and redeemer.
My faith was devastated when I decided to be objective and to examine what the evidence was for evolution and to listen to what many of the progressive evangelicals were saying about the critical issues related to the Bible. It was reading authors trying to be honest with the evidence and remain Christian that I realized that the evidence didn't support my faith. Loosing ones faith is not easy.
Harvey, you are such a riot. Of course after doing the hatchet job of quote mining on evolution I found that there isn't much that you have to say that is worth taking seriously. Of course if the only material you read are anti-evolution and pro-Christian then you will be convinced of your faith. It won't get you any closer to understanding the world around you. Seriously, have you ever read anything skeptical of your faith with any sort of objectivity?
Samurai Saint -- you seem to agree with me completely on the facts of the case. Your argument is from personal credulity, but it doesn't really carry any weight as an argument so I don't really see anything to dispute you with.
We both agree that the evidence for the resurrection didn't convince Paul and it was only after Jesus appeared to him (in whatever way that happened) that he was convinced.
So again ... why can't Jesus appear to everyone?
How come nobody will answer me about what their response would be if someone had Jesus appear to them now.
Harvey you obviously have time to post:
Cut'em up, cut'em up baby! Although I don't believe that's the type of argument they want to address around here...(LOL-LOL)
But really, there is no argument there, just gainsaying. Yet you keep ducking my very serious question so again I will ask:
Let me know what you would think if three of your friends came to tell you about one of them having an appearance from Jesus, and two of them seeing a light and hearing a voice. Assume Jesus instructed your friend he appeared to that all Christians should run daily marathons and become vegans.
And let us not forget that the traditions of how the apostles died are only known from apocryphal Catholic tradition. Not a jot of proof anywhere.
Paul died for his faith? Evidence, myah.
Christians on this thread have stated that Saul "didn't want to believe." If this is so, then Jesus appearing to Saul was in defiance of Saul's free will to disbelieve.
It has also been implied that Saul was a fool of some sort. Yet Jesus still appeared to Saul in defiance of his right to be a fool.
Furthermore, its been implied that Saul may have been refusing to accept the facts. If that is so, then Jesus' appearance to Saul only served to correct & supplement Saul's understanding of Christianity.
When the Bible documents that visitations from Jesus can overcome foolishness, free will, and good old-fashioned denial on the part of the skeptical, Evan's question "...why can't Jesus appear to everyone?" gets more and more perplexing.
Evan,
An internal critique must allow the Christian worldview to speak for itself.
Observe the First Epistle to the Corinthians written by Clement circa AD 96:
"42. The Apostles preached to us the Gospel received from Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was God's Ambassador. Christ, in other words, comes with a message from God, and the Apostles with a message from Christ. Both these orderly arrangements, therefore, originate from the will of God. And so, after receiving their instructions and being fully assured through the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as confirmed in faith by the word of God, they went forth, equipped with the fullness of the Holy Spirit, to preach the good news that the Kingdom of God was close at hand."
Remember what I said earlier about the effectual calling or prevenient grace...saving faith cannot come from evidence alone.
Evan,
If your "serious question" assumes the context of the Christian worldview, then this claim must be rejected on the grounds that God has given his final revelation in Christ (Hebrews 1).
I would tell my friends to go read their Bibles if they think that God is still acting this way.
David thanks for bringing up Hebrews 1.
I am taking it that you believe that after Hebrews 1 was written no further appearances from Jesus took place.
I also take it from your quoting of 1 Clement that you believe the church fathers to have some authority.
Now it's indisputable that other NT texts were written after Hebrews (at least if you assume even conservative scholarship), so I am curious how you harmonize your belief with the supposed inspiration of those texts, but let's analyze Hebrews a bit:
In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
Now I'm curious about why Jesus can't appear to me because of that text. It really doesn't scan that he's in Heaven so he can't appear on earth.
Are you suggesting he was floating around the earth for several years prior to appearing to Paul? That's something I've never heard put forward before.
Are you suggesting that at the time Hebrews was written that was the exact time that Jesus stopped appearing to people?
In addition, if you believe the church fathers were authoritative, I'm wondering what you think of Constantine's vision as reported by Eusebius that was viewed by his whole army:
And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might have been hard to believe had it been related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, when he was honored with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could hesitate to accredit the relation, especially since the testimony of after-time has established its truth? He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, Conquer by this . At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle.
Do you believe this story? Do you think it is historical? And if you don't, why not? There are multiple witnesses -- a whole ARMY of them. If you do, doesn't that disprove the idea that Jesus can't appear any more because of Hebrews? Eusebius certainly wasn't troubled by it, and he read Hebrews.
Anyway. We both agree that the evidence is insufficient to create a belief in the resurrection. I'm happy you admit that and I'll just leave it at that.
Evan,
By revelation I refer to expounding something new, not to appearances by Christ.
In other words, of a vision contradicts what the Bible says, or else adds something to it...
*if a vision
Also, if we agree that the Christian worldview proposes what I have described then your internal critique fails to show an inconsistency, correct?
Oh and just to clarify I don't hold that the early church fathers are authoritative, I just picked the earliest example to demonstrate the the belief didn't just pop up later in Christian thinking.
David, no I don't agree that the Christian worldview isn't inconsistent. That's pretty much the whole point of this blog, in case you haven't noticed.
I think you agree with me that contra Wright, Strobel, Craig and Bauckham, there simply is not adequate evidence to believe the resurrection took place on the basis of historical data.
Therefore, you can be a fideist, which I believe you are arguing for. If so, then I have no argument with you because you can't be argued with. You believe against the evidence.
But if you think the evidence is compelling, then you have to deal with internal contradictions in that evidence. The fact that Paul was unconvinced by the evidence alone and required an appearance from Jesus is certainly a contradiction for those who argue that today we can be certain the resurrection took place.
I think there is some misunderstanding going on and I can't place my finger on it exactly.
Wright, Craig, and Bauckham all agree with my position that evidence alone is not sufficient to save someone.
They do however argue (in differing ways) that the empty tomb and appearances are best explain the early belief in resurrection, which in turn is best explained by the resurrection hypothesis.
I agree with them completely, and your disagreement stems from your belief that any best explanation should follow certain criteria which their hypotheses fail to satisfy.
Are we good so far?
With regards to your internal critique, your conclusion is that the evidence during the time of the resurrection was not strong enough to convince some people, therefore it is not strong enough to convince some people today.
I have said that a best explanation does not guarantee such things, but you seem to think it does.
David,
Evan over-simplifies his arguments because he knows it doesn't hold water. He feels their's a one to one between evidence and belief and that's not the case. It's not the case in any courtroom in the US when there's opposing sides of an issue, especially criminal court. So he's being unreasonable trying to save a fallacious argument that carries no weight.
now it would be funny of what he wants comes to pass. I mean if Jesus shows up to you (which he has the ability to do) and you render your heart and repent, I wonder what will you tell your atheist friends? In fact I wonder how will you clean up all the bogus arguments you've made against Christ and truth? I don't wanna be in your position...the sheer weight of having to clean up the garbage you've set forth would be horriffic.
So far as you Anthony,
Observed any good abiogenesis lately? Or how about any multibillion year stones turning into a living organism? I'm sure if we dig deep enough in the earth we'll find plenty of new creatures developing from all sorts of non living matter right? What about all those transitional forms across species? I'm sure you've got plenty of those in your back yard.
Or let's go to the moon and uncover those billions of years of moon dust...Ooh, I forgot, the dust was only consistent with a much shorter biblically consistent history...So I guess you don't have an argument there either huh?
Listen you were wrong when you were a bible believer and you're wrong now...plain and simple! End of story.
Peace.
Harvey,
You still show no understanding of evolution and its overwhelming evidence. First, you spend a lot of time on abiogenesis, why? Technically both creationists and evolutionists believe in abiogenesis, do you not believe that God created Adam from dust and breathed life into him? Is that not life from nonlife? Besides abiogenesis was not what convinced me of evolution.
What about all those transitional forms across species? I'm sure you've got plenty of those in your back yard.
There are plenty of examples of transitional fossils, but problem is that creationists either ignore the evidence or dismiss it.
If you want to be honest about the evidence then I would suggest a little reading on the topic. Here are a couple of links:
Padian's testimony at Kitzmiller on the fossil record
Keith Miller on transitional fossils
TalkOrigin's has numerous examples.
There is also Donald Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters.
Or let's go to the moon and uncover those billions of years of moon dust...Ooh, I forgot, the dust was only consistent with a much shorter biblically consistent history...So I guess you don't have an argument there either huh?
Harvey, are you kidding me? You are actually bringing up the moon dust argument? No one believes this argument anymore, not even most creationists, including Answers in Genesis.
Listen you were wrong when you were a bible believer and you're wrong now...plain and simple! End of story
Here again is the no true Scotsman fallacy. Harvey, tell me, why was I wrong? Because I was a Calvinist? Hey I was also amillennial, egalitarian, and a conditional immortalist, so what? Are you wanting to have a pissing contest or something? You didn't like my theology so you dismiss me?
Come on man, let's think reasonably and rationally.
There's something that I still don't understand about all of this.
The crux of this seems to be whether or not Saul and the jews refused to accept the evidence of christ's ressurection because the evidence wasn't very good or because they just didn't want to accept it.
But if the evidence was very good then the unconverted had to have been lying to themselves in the face of eternal damnation.
I mean, why would anybody condemn themselves to eternal suffering for something that they knew was a lie?
Post a Comment