Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Reserection "historical Reality"


Guest T-K

Recommended Posts

name='Badger'

Contrary to what HanSolo said, I do not think we must assume "the Gospel stories are telling a true story;" nor, of course, we should presuppose they are entirely fictous. Instead, let's say the New Testament is essentially a theological document that tells more about the early Christianity, or one branch of it, than about the historical Jesus.

 

I would propose the following events as "historical facts:"

 

Jesus died due to crucifixion and was buried afterwards.

 

A cult leader called "Jesus" could have died and been buried.

Other than that possibility, I don't see much in the way of facts.

However, I do see cult writings that are skewed to promote the belief.

 

His tomb was (probably) discovered to be empty.

 

That's according to cult writings and tradition.

I'm not sure why cult writings should be considered historical facts.

 

The disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.

 

According to cult writings, which are skewed to promote the belief system.

 

Due to these experiences, they were radically transformed.

James, the sceptical brother of Jesus, was converted when he had similar experience.

 

The risen Jesus only appeared to cult members.

That seems rather convenient to me.

 

A few years later the same happened to Paul, who was the persecutor of the Church.

 

It makes for a nice story, but I don't consider it factual when the agenda of the cult is to spread itself and dominate over all other belief systems.

 

(As a side note, this is actually the opinion of the majority of the scholars, non-Christians and Christians alike, who have studied the resurrection of Jesus. Of course we can't conclude that something is true simply because so and so many scholars agree with each other, but this is good place to start in oder to avoid hyper-scepticism.)

 

I'm not sure what "hyper-scepticism" is.

It would seem that the majority opinions of scholars regarding Jesus are based on cult writings, a good many of which have no identified authors, and no firm date as to when the works were written.

Apparently these scholars have also dismissed the possibility of embellishment, somehow knowing "fact" from embellishment, hundreds of years after the events were to have taken place.

They also rest their opinions on the decisions of male Church clerics (made hundreds of years after "Jesus" was supposed to have died), regarding what written works were genuine "facts" and what was heresy and not to be trusted.

The New Testament authors contradict each other in various areas which doesn't lend credibility to the "history", but I suppose these scholars don't consider it enough to taint the theme, so they accept the resurrection as factual anyway.

 

I'm not going to back up these claims right now, since that would make a long post. However, I believe in the resurrection since I find it to be simple the best explanation for all this facts and it requires only one additional hypothesis: that God exists.

 

When you assume that "facts" are established based on cult advertising, then it's fairly easy to reach the conclusion that the version of God being promoted by the cult is factual as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goodbye Jesus
  • Replies 332
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Badger

    105

  • Ouroboros

    65

  • mwc

    54

  • Looking4Answers

    26

It would seem that the majority opinions of scholars regarding Jesus are based on cult writings, a good many of which have no identified authors, and no firm date as to when the works were written.

Yes, it is based on the New Testament (mostly on Paul's letters, actually).

 

They also rest their opinions on the decisions of male Church clerics (made hundreds of years after "Jesus" was supposed to have died), regarding what written works were genuine "facts" and what was heresy and not to be trusted.

I disagree. However, your claim is completely out of place. We don't need to assume the New Testament is historically reliable.

 

The New Testament authors contradict each other in various areas which doesn't lend credibility to the "history", but I suppose these scholars don't consider it enough to taint the theme, so they accept the resurrection as factual anyway.

I did not said these scholars, or at least all of them, accept the resurrection as a historical fact since they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe in it since there are no eyewitness accounts of it ANYWHERE, and since so many other explanations for an empty tomb are a lot more logical and rational.

Actually, there is - Paul.

 

Third, without question, the most critically-respected witness for Jesus' resurrection is the apostle Paul. As Norman Perrin states, "Paul is the one witness we have whom we can interrogate." And 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is taken to be the strongest evidence for the historicity of this event. Howard Clark Kee boldly asserts that Paul's testimony here "can be critically examined... just as one would evaluate evidence in a modern court or academic setting." For several strong reasons, most scholars who address the issue think that this testimony predates any New Testament book. Murphy-O'Connor reports that a literary analysis has produced "complete agreement” among critical scholars that "Paul introduces a quotation in v. 3b..." (G. Habermas,
Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present
)

The Jesus Seminar, for example, dates the tradition in 1 Cor. 15:3-8 no later than AD 33. Early dating is confirmed by such non-Christian scholars like Gerd Ludemann and Bart Ehrman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe in it since there are no eyewitness accounts of it ANYWHERE, and since so many other explanations for an empty tomb are a lot more logical and rational.

Actually, there is - Paul.

 

 

 

Paul was NOT at the tomb on 'easter morning.' Get real already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You was talking about eyewitness accounts of resurrection, saying there is no such. If, by 'eyewitness,' you mean a person who saw the rising of Jesus, then, of course, you're right. No one claimed to have seen it! But Paul is the eyewitness for the risen Jesus and we do have accounts from him. He gives us early, eyewitness testimony, not to mention he was, according to his own testimony, hostile before the experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul admits that he did not see Jesus resurrected in a physical body, but in a vision. A vision isn't the best evidence for a resurrected person. I've heard stories (first hand) from people who claim to have seen their dead relatives in visions, does that mean people are being resurrected all over the place right now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contrary to what HanSolo said, I do not think we must assume "the Gospel stories are telling a true story;" nor, of course, we should presuppose they are entirely fictous.

Basically, you're saying they are partially true, and partially wrong, correct?

 

Instead, let's say the New Testament is essentially a theological document that tells more about the early Christianity, or one branch of it, than about the historical Jesus.

 

I would propose the following events as "historical facts:"

  • Jesus died due to crucifixion and was buried afterwards.
  • His tomb was (probably) discovered to be empty.
  • The disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
  • Due to these experiences, they were radically transformed.
  • James, the sceptical brother of Jesus, was converted when he had similar experience.
  • A few years later the same happened to Paul, who was the persecutor of the Church.

By the same argument we should propose the UFO sightings, time lapses, levitating objects by pure telekinetic power, psychic power, and witches turn into black cats, to be true. It has been reported by different people, at different times, so by the same method, we must assume there is some truth to it, and not based on delusions or other mental issues. And I'm sorry, that I can not.

 

(As a side note, this is actually the opinion of the majority of the scholars, non-Christians and Christians alike, who have studied the resurrection of Jesus. Of course we can't conclude that something is true simply because so and so many scholars agree with each other, but this is good place to start in oder to avoid hyper-scepticism.)

I do agree that there is a possibility that someone and/or some group existed, but the stories in the Gospels are refined works of art, many generations after the fact and events, that I find them way to unreliable to even trust for the basic belief that Jesus was bodily resurrected. And I can imagine magic tricks achieving the same feat, and drunken stupor in the waves of sorrow, losing their beloved leader.

 

I'm not going to back up these claims right now, since that would make a long post. However, I believe in the resurrection since I find it to be simple the best explanation for all this facts and it requires only one additional hypothesis: that God exists.

First of all you must admit that Luke is out of the question, since Luke wasn't even a disciple in the early group. Gospel of John is written in such advanced language, that most likely it wasn't written by an eyewitness at all. So it really leaves only Mark and Matthew. And isn't the theory that Matthew borrowed from Mark? So where do we finally end up? In one Gospel only?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul admits that he did not see Jesus resurrected in a physical body, but in a vision.

Quite the contrary! In 1 Cor. 15:8 Paul affirms that Jesus appeared also to him, which imply he didn't condider his experience as visionary one, "but an actual resurrection appearence of a kind with the other in this series." (Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 732) That Paul believed his experience on the Damascus road wasn't a mere vision is also confirmed in 1 Cor. 9:1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, you're saying they are partially true, and partially wrong, correct?

The point was, I'm not going to demand that we must believe the New Testament is historically reliable. Let's approach it as any other ancient literature.

 

By the same argument we should propose the UFO sightings, time lapses, levitating objects by pure telekinetic power, psychic power, and witches turn into black cats, to be true. It has been reported by different people, at different times, so by the same method, we must assume there is some truth to it, and not based on delusions or other mental issues. And I'm sorry, that I can not.

I listed events or factors that I proposed as historical facts, and said that also the majority of scholars accept them, even if they're not willing to say the resurrection happened. These facts are a result of historical investigation and we need to seek the best explanation for them. That was my point.

 

First of all you must admit that Luke is out of the question, since Luke wasn't even a disciple in the early group. Gospel of John is written in such advanced language, that most likely it wasn't written by an eyewitness at all. So it really leaves only Mark and Matthew. And isn't the theory that Matthew borrowed from Mark? So where do we finally end up? In one Gospel only?

First of all, the case is mainly based on Paul's epistles not on the Gospels. On the other hand, we don't need to presuppose the Gospels are written by eyewitnesses or that they are historicall reliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem that the majority opinions of scholars regarding Jesus are based on cult writings, a good many of which have no identified authors, and no firm date as to when the works were written.

 

Yes, it is based on the New Testament (mostly on Paul's letters, actually).

 

As others have noted, Paul wasn't an eyewitness to Jesus.

His information came from dreams and visions.

 

They also rest their opinions on the decisions of male Church clerics (made hundreds of years after "Jesus" was supposed to have died), regarding what written works were genuine "facts" and what was heresy and not to be trusted.

 

I disagree. However, your claim is completely out of place. We don't need to assume the New Testament is historically reliable.

 

If the bulk of the evidence is based on the New Testament, why is it out of place to point out that the New Testament is the product of clerical decisions made hundreds of years after the alleged event took place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul admits that he did not see Jesus resurrected in a physical body, but in a vision.

 

Quite the contrary! In 1 Cor. 15:8 Paul affirms that Jesus appeared also to him, which imply he didn't condider his experience as visionary one, "but an actual resurrection appearence of a kind with the other in this series." (Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 732) That Paul believed his experience on the Damascus road wasn't a mere vision is also confirmed in 1 Cor. 9:1.

 

1 Cor 9:1

Am I am not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?

 

How does this verse confirm that Paul met Jesus in the flesh?

If Jesus appeared as a hologram or light beam, does that count as an actual resurrection appearance on par with that of the disciples?

Are you saying that the ascended Jesus, sitting at the right hand of the Father, descended back to earth and appeared to Paul in the flesh?

 

Paul tells of visions and revelations of Jesus, he doesn't say anything about meeting Jesus in the flesh.

 

2 Cor 12:1-4

It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)

How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

 

If Paul was speaking of himself in this passage, he doesn't seem at all sure of what was happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As others have noted, Paul wasn't an eyewitness to Jesus.

His information came from dreams and visions.

All right, let's accept that. It doesn't change my original argumentation anyway. As Habermas points out "the most critically-respected witness for Jesus' resurrection is the apostle Paul" and "1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is taken to be the strongest evidence for the historicity of this event." This small passage records an ancient tradition that dates back to 30-35 A.D. For example, in his book The Resurrection of Jesus, Gerd Lüdemann states: "We can assume that all the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus." Here we have early eyewitness testimony, even if Paul himself wasn't an eyewitness. The resurrection appearances enjoy also multiple attestation. But what about Paul? He tells that something happened also to him. As a result of this experience, his life was radically transformed (Gal 1:13-16).

 

If the bulk of the evidence is based on the New Testament, why is it out of place to point out that the New Testament is the product of clerical decisions made hundreds of years after the alleged event took place?

Because the New Testament documents are not "product of clerical decisions." We're not talking about the Christian canon, but ancient literature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul admits that he did not see Jesus resurrected in a physical body, but in a vision.

Quite the contrary! In 1 Cor. 15:8 Paul affirms that Jesus appeared also to him, which imply he didn't condider his experience as visionary one, "but an actual resurrection appearence of a kind with the other in this series." (Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 732) That Paul believed his experience on the Damascus road wasn't a mere vision is also confirmed in 1 Cor. 9:1.

The others who were with Paul did not see Jesus. So it wasn't a bodily Jesus that was there--in flesh and blood. And also, the Damascus experience was after Jesus had ascended to Heaven. So did Jesus come back, the second time, already, for just a few minutes talking to Paul, and the next time Jesus comes back it will be the third time? It doesn't make sense. And he doesn't say in Cor that he met Jesus in person. It's inferred maybe, but not clearly stated. So it comes down to what you want to believe he meant, rather what he clearly said or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, you're saying they are partially true, and partially wrong, correct?

The point was, I'm not going to demand that we must believe the New Testament is historically reliable.

You're going back and forth on your position. Is it a completely reliable historical document, or only partially?

 

Let's approach it as any other ancient literature.

Exactly. And do you know how most historians approach ancient literature when it's riddled with fabulous miracles? They remove those things as rumors and extrapolations. So if any other ancient literature claims some spirit as a dove leaving their body, or the dead body sitting up and talking, or any other fantastic event, they disregard them as superstitious confabulations.

 

So... lets do exactly that. Lets remove the resurrection and all the miracles from the Gospels, just like we would with any other ancient literature.

 

I'm glad that you finally understand that, and you are willing to do that. Lets treat the Bible--finally--the same way as any other literature, and not take it on "leaps of faith".

 

I listed events or factors that I proposed as historical facts, and said that also the majority of scholars accept them, even if they're not willing to say the resurrection happened. These facts are a result of historical investigation and we need to seek the best explanation for them. That was my point.

This topic is about the resurrection as a historical fact, and not if Jesus existed or not. So the debate here isn't if historians would accept (or even if I would accept) some form of a historical Jesus, but rather if historians accept the resurrection as a real historical event. And most don't, unless they're Christian, which means they deal with the Gospel text different than other historical texts.

 

First of all, the case is mainly based on Paul's epistles not on the Gospels. On the other hand, we don't need to presuppose the Gospels are written by eyewitnesses or that they are historicall reliable.

Ok. And I will keep on maintaining the position that Paul didn't meet Jesus in person, but had a vision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right, let's accept that. It doesn't change my original argumentation anyway. As Habermas points out "the most critically-respected witness for Jesus' resurrection is the apostle Paul" and "1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is taken to be the strongest evidence for the historicity of this event." This small passage records an ancient tradition that dates back to 30-35 A.D. For example, in his book The Resurrection of Jesus, Gerd Lüdemann states: "We can assume that all the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus." Here we have early eyewitness testimony, even if Paul himself wasn't an eyewitness. The resurrection appearances enjoy also multiple attestation. But what about Paul? He tells that something happened also to him. As a result of this experience, his life was radically transformed (Gal 1:13-16).

Notice that Haberman say: "We can assume..." Which means it's something that is not evident, but is assumed. Do you take science for being assumed? Do you want to trust that 1+1=2 because we assume it is? Here is the dividing line between us. Here's the nexus of our discussion. You feel that you can assume certain things, because you believe them to be so, but they're not as strong so a person like me can say, "oh, yes, obviously that is true." But rather I can assume the opposite side. I can assume that Paul ate bad mushrooms, or was dehydrated from the long trip, or for any other reasons was tripping out and had "visions" not unlike people who see aliens or think they're Napoleon. There are human beings today who have visions too, but I doubt that you trust them all to be true. I doubt that you trust 100,000 people seeing aliens and UFOs and so on, because of the simple fact that you know that we are fragile beings who can have episodes of hallucinations. So, I can assume Paul didn't really meet Jesus at all, and his vision was caused by whatever reason, and probably it was triggered by his utter hate and fixation on the cult he was persecuting. It's not unheard of that people who have a strong hate against another group, also have a hidden desire to join them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The others who were with Paul did not see Jesus. So it wasn't a bodily Jesus that was there--in flesh and blood.

This information comes from Acts, not from Paul's letters. Paul doesn't, as far as I remember, describe his experience.

 

And also, the Damascus experience was after Jesus had ascended to Heaven. So did Jesus come back, the second time, already, for just a few minutes talking to Paul, and the next time Jesus comes back it will be the third time? It doesn't make sense.

It may be that Jesus is able to move back and forth between earth and heaven, and probable did so before the Ascension. Lewis Chafer says "it is probable that Christ was resident in heaven from the resurrection day onward and only visited the earth as contact with his followers." (Systematic Theology Vol. 5, page 262) But what exactly is this heaven, the abode of the Godhead? Since God is spirit, not physical being, it seems that heaven isn't either physical place (at least not in the sense we understand the word). Moreover, God is omnipresent and not bound by time and space.

 

And he doesn't say in Cor that he met Jesus in person. It's inferred maybe, but not clearly stated. So it comes down to what you want to believe he meant, rather what he clearly said or not.

I'm ready to admit I wasn't thinking clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The others who were with Paul did not see Jesus. So it wasn't a bodily Jesus that was there--in flesh and blood.

This information comes from Acts, not from Paul's letters. Paul doesn't, as far as I remember, describe his experience.

Well, that's funny, because then how can it be said that his experience is the best evidence for a bodily resurrected Jesus?

 

And also, the Damascus experience was after Jesus had ascended to Heaven. So did Jesus come back, the second time, already, for just a few minutes talking to Paul, and the next time Jesus comes back it will be the third time? It doesn't make sense.

It may be that Jesus is able to move back and forth between earth and heaven, and probable did so before the Ascension. Lewis Chafer says "it is probable that Christ was resident in heaven from the resurrection day onward and only visited the earth as contact with his followers." (Systematic Theology Vol. 5, page 262) But what exactly is this heaven, the abode of the Godhead? Since God is spirit, not physical being, it seems that heaven isn't either physical place (at least not in the sense we understand the word). Moreover, God is omnipresent and not bound by time and space.

And if you include Paul's explanation of the "heavenly body," that it is a spiritual body and not the same as our physical body here, then Jesus would have to be seen as a ghost, and not as a physical body. So really, in the end, the whole discussion about Jesus resurrected in body is ludicrous, and it would be more sensible to talk about a spiritual only resurrection, and it would fit into many other beliefs as well. (Even though I don't believe in a spirit world either, and think the the visions of spirits are attributed to other kinds of influences, like drugs or alcohol.)

 

And he doesn't say in Cor that he met Jesus in person. It's inferred maybe, but not clearly stated. So it comes down to what you want to believe he meant, rather what he clearly said or not.

I'm ready to admit I wasn't thinking clearly.

I can accept that.

 

Lets say I would go out on a limb and accept a spiritual world, then it would be much easier for me to accept stories about resurrection and afterlife based on the continuation of the spirit/soul rather than the body. It just doesn't make sense that physical particles, quarks, protons, DNA, flesh, hair, water molecules in the body, would be transferred through some "beam" between parallel universes. It would make more sense if it was pure spirits... perhaps... I think maybe. Mostly based on the thought that a parallel universe might not be built on the same physical laws as the one we live in here. The quarks might be incompatible, and explode into energy. Who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're going back and forth on your position. Is it a completely reliable historical document, or only partially?

Let's presuppose NT documents are partially reliable, if that helps.

 

Exactly. And do you know how most historians approach ancient literature when it's riddled with fabulous miracles? They remove those things as rumors and extrapolations. So if any other ancient literature claims some spirit as a dove leaving their body, or the dead body sitting up and talking, or any other fantastic event, they disregard them as superstitious confabulations.

Supernatural is certainly problem for naturalist; maybe there is something from with naturalism. But remember what I told you in another discussion: good number of scholars acknowledge that Jesus did something miraculous, even if not in supernatural sense. They do not think these stories are simply rumors. B. L. Blackburn states that "among NT scholars there is almost universal agreement that Jesus performed what he and his contemporaries regarded as miraculous healings and exorcism." (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, page 556) For my purpose, it is not necessary to believe the miracle stories reported in the Gospels are true. I'm not arguing the resurrection happened because the Bible says it happened.

 

This topic is about the resurrection as a historical fact, and not if Jesus existed or not. So the debate here isn't if historians would accept (or even if I would accept) some form of a historical Jesus, but rather if historians accept the resurrection as a real historical event. And most don't, unless they're Christian, which means they deal with the Gospel text different than other historical texts.

I'm arguing there is good case for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection even if we don't take the Gospels at face value.

 

Ok. And I will keep on maintaining the position that Paul didn't meet Jesus in person, but had a vision.

That's fine. What kind of vision you think it was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

centauri:As others have noted, Paul wasn't an eyewitness to Jesus.

His information came from dreams and visions.

 

All right, let's accept that. It doesn't change my original argumentation anyway. As Habermas points out "the most critically-respected witness for Jesus' resurrection is the apostle Paul" and "1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is taken to be the strongest evidence for the historicity of this event." This small passage records an ancient tradition that dates back to 30-35 A.D.

 

Anyone can be classified as "critically-respected" if they have enough apologists like Habermas backing them.

1 Cor 15:3-8 is evidence that a creed existed which revolved around a resurrected god-man.

The existence of a creed doesn't prove that the premise of the creed is true and actually happened.

The details of the creed also conflict with the Book of Acts which states that there were only about 120 believers at the time Jesus ascended, rather than 500+.

 

For example, in his book The Resurrection of Jesus, Gerd Lüdemann states: "We can assume that all the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus."

 

A person can assume just about anything, but assuming doesn't establish.

The existence of a tradition doesn't establish the elements of the tradition as being factual.

 

Here we have early eyewitness testimony, even if Paul himself wasn't an eyewitness.

 

We have a second-hand report of alleged eyewitnesses, provided by a man called Paul.

Paul also says he received his gospel from no man, but was instructed by revelation.

There's no telling how much of this information was accurate and in the case of the number of eyewitnesses, the figure given by Paul, and only by Paul, conflicts with the information given in Acts.

 

The resurrection appearances enjoy also multiple attestation. But what about Paul? He tells that something happened also to him. As a result of this experience, his life was radically transformed (Gal 1:13-16).

 

None of those confirmations come from outside the cult.

Stories that promote a doctrine don't automatically establish the doctrine as being factual.

Paul having an experience doesn't make the resurrection factual.

Joseph Smith had revelations that radically transformed him, but he is often dismissed as a crank false teacher.

New Age gurus have revelations all the time.

 

centauri:

If the bulk of the evidence is based on the New Testament, why is it out of place to point out that the New Testament is the product of clerical decisions made hundreds of years after the alleged event took place?

 

Because the New Testament documents are not "product of clerical decisions." We're not talking about the Christian canon, but ancient literature.

 

Proof for the resurrection comes straight from the New Testament.

The New Testament documents are the product of clerical decisions, specifically councils of men.

Ancient literature didn't get into the Bible unless it was authorized to be in the Bible by the Church.

Christian canon represents what is supposed to be "true" and reliable.

The New Testament is constantly warning about false teachers and false doctrines.

The Church performed the function of validating fact from fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's presuppose NT documents are partially reliable, if that helps.

Sure.

 

Supernatural is certainly problem for naturalist; maybe there is something from with naturalism. But remember what I told you in another discussion: good number of scholars acknowledge that Jesus did something miraculous, even if not in supernatural sense. They do not think these stories are simply rumors. B. L. Blackburn states that "among NT scholars there is almost universal agreement that Jesus performed what he and his contemporaries regarded as miraculous healings and exorcism." (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, page 556) For my purpose, it is not necessary to believe the miracle stories reported in the Gospels are true. I'm not arguing the resurrection happened because the Bible says it happened.

Okay. I can accept that. After all, Chris Angel do some really impressive tricks, and if I didn't know better, I would think he used real supernatural powers to do them.

 

I'm arguing there is good case for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection even if we don't take the Gospels at face value.

Well, we can say at least there were a bunch of people who did believe it back then. If they were mistaken or not is hard to say, but I can go as far as say that some of them truly believed it.

 

It's very much like how the N-Rays were considered true by the followers of Blondlot. They were absolutely convinced that they were happening, and they could "see" it, but in reality they didn't. They thought they did. Mind tricks can be very dangerous and deceptive. I think what happened with the resurrection of Jesus was that one or two of the followers were so disappointed in the death of their leader, so they wanted to see Jesus alive again. In their despair they got delusional and had a vision. Then the other disciples felt they were left out, and of course they couldn't be one of those who did not see Jesus, so some of them faked it, because they didn't want to lose their position as a "true" disciple, and some maybe even had the same mass-hypnotic vision. Since it has been documented in events like the N-Rays, it doesn't strike me as odd or impossible for this to happen. I even have experienced other people in my old church who "saw" things that were not there. Angles and demons, etc, or even miracles that I could see were not there. I wanted to see it, but I guess I always were a bit too much of a realist.

 

Ok. And I will keep on maintaining the position that Paul didn't meet Jesus in person, but had a vision.

That's fine. What kind of vision you think it was?

Very much the same as the ones I describe above. People can under duress have visions. I don't put any "true-ness" to them in the sense that they are representing real angels, demons, gnomes, trolls, Jesus-es or whatever, but it's the mind playing tricks. The people who experience it have no doubts they saw it. And sometimes these visions can occur in groups too. After intense prayer, worship, and singing, it is not unusual for people to get a bit delirious. And in Paul's case I think he was exhausted, irritated for chasing this Jewish heretic cult, and perhaps lack of food, sleep, and liquids. It can cause states of delirium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading up on the resection as its about the last part of the bible that I have not studied enough to understand why it bullshit. After watching Lee Strobel's DVD the case for Christ I found he gave some very misleading info on the authenticity and wording of documents especially the Talmud.

 

The resurrection is believable only if you have 'faith' in what you are taught. Without faith, there is little remaining that is believable. As a fundy, I used to believe in the resurrection completely. Since then, I've grown up and my thinking has matured, somewhat.

 

In the days of Jesus there were those who did not believe in the resurrection, such as the Sadducees, and those who did believe in the resurrection, the Pharisees. There are those, such as myself, who believe the New Testament was written around the doctrine of the apostle Paul who claimed to have been a Pharisee, one who believed in the resurrection. Most scholars accept the book of Galatians as having been written by Paul but little else. The remaining books and letters claimed to have been written by him were forgeries. What if the whole New Testament were written by Paul or his minions and none of the stories are true but are instead stories written to support the notion of a resurrection? Historical fiction, is still fiction. One person's idea of a new religion? We have such people today, just look at Mormonism. Their religion was 'pulled out of a hat' by their prophet. Why would ancient people be more trustful than today? How hard could it be to forge documents in ancient days? They do it today.

 

Just about everything to do with Christianity and other religions such as Islam and Judaism are very misleading. I believe it is done to purposefully make it difficult for someone to rationalize their way through the fiction. The stuff was written many centuries ago when the spiritual world was very real for the majority of the human population. You do well to be skeptical. Always question what you read and what you hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice that Haberman say: "We can assume..." Which means it's something that is not evident, but is assumed. Do you take science for being assumed? Do you want to trust that 1+1=2 because we assume it is? Here is the dividing line between us. Here's the nexus of our discussion. You feel that you can assume certain things, because you believe them to be so, but they're not as strong so a person like me can say, "oh, yes, obviously that is true."

It is Lüdemann who wrote that, not Habermas. And do I really need to point out that history is not mathematics? Now, your criticism is flawed. I'm not assuming the tradition recorded in 1 Corinthians 15 is early simply because I believe it to be so. Instead, I believe it is early based on the linguistic data and Paul's testimony it is not from him; he had received it. Earlier I noted that Jesus Seminar dates the tradition no later than AD 33. The Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide states, "This unified piece of tradition which soon was solidified into a formula of faith may be considered as a statement of eyewitnesses for whom the experience of the resurrection became the turning point of their lives." (The Resurrection of Jesus)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's funny, because then how can it be said that his experience is the best evidence for a bodily resurrected Jesus?

I haven't said so. Simple.

 

And if you include Paul's explanation of the "heavenly body," that it is a spiritual body and not the same as our physical body here, then Jesus would have to be seen as a ghost, and not as a physical body. So really, in the end, the whole discussion about Jesus resurrected in body is ludicrous, and it would be more sensible to talk about a spiritual only resurrection, and it would fit into many other beliefs as well.

According to Paul, God will transform "our lowly body" to be like Christ's glorious body (Phil 3:20-21); it will not be destroyed but transformed. He also speaks about "the redemption of our bodies" (Rom 8:23).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice that Haberman say: "We can assume..." Which means it's something that is not evident, but is assumed. Do you take science for being assumed? Do you want to trust that 1+1=2 because we assume it is? Here is the dividing line between us. Here's the nexus of our discussion. You feel that you can assume certain things, because you believe them to be so, but they're not as strong so a person like me can say, "oh, yes, obviously that is true."

It is Lüdemann who wrote that, not Habermas.

Ok.

 

And do I really need to point out that history is not mathematics?

You're missing the point. Because that is exactly my point that when you "assume" something, then it isn't math. Hence it isn't clear, fixed, sure, true, or any other adjective that describe a certainty beyond doubt.

 

Now, your criticism is flawed.

Not unless the word "assume" has changed meaning the last 5 minutes.

 

My point is that he say: "We can assume..." Do you know what assume means in English?

 

Your counter-argument is flawed.

 

I'm not assuming the tradition recorded in 1 Corinthians 15 is early simply because I believe it to be so. Instead, I believe it is early based on the linguistic data and Paul's testimony it is not from him; he had received it. Earlier I noted that Jesus Seminar dates the tradition no later than AD 33. The Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide states, "This unified piece of tradition which soon was solidified into a formula of faith may be considered as a statement of eyewitnesses for whom the experience of the resurrection became the turning point of their lives." (The Resurrection of Jesus)

The assumption is that Paul's description is some kind of certain evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, but it isn't since it's an assumption. That's the idea of assumptions. To not to be definitive.

 

Pinchas use the word "...may be considered..." which is also an statement of assumption. My option is that many of these things can be assumed and may be considered the total opposite to what you think they do.

 

When someone is convinced don't use those terms. So it's very simple, they (the theologians you are referring to) do not believe it to 100%. Or put it another way, they are making inductive inferences, and the receiver of said inference can only accept it based on the fundamental arguments behind them, which are flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's funny, because then how can it be said that his experience is the best evidence for a bodily resurrected Jesus?

I haven't said so. Simple.

Okay, so Paul's experience is NOT the main evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. So what is then?

 

 

And if you include Paul's explanation of the "heavenly body," that it is a spiritual body and not the same as our physical body here, then Jesus would have to be seen as a ghost, and not as a physical body. So really, in the end, the whole discussion about Jesus resurrected in body is ludicrous, and it would be more sensible to talk about a spiritual only resurrection, and it would fit into many other beliefs as well.

According to Paul, God will transform "our lowly body" to be like Christ's glorious body (Phil 3:20-21); it will not be destroyed but transformed. He also speaks about "the redemption of our bodies" (Rom 8:23).

Transformed to what? A better DNA? Different protons? Higher order super-strings? Are you saying that it is your physical body that is transformed? Does that mean that it's important to save all your bones in a bag as some cultures used to do (or maybe still)? Does this rule out cremation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.