Peter Kirby will speak in Los Angeles

[Peter Kirby]

Humanist Association of Los Angeles

Sunday, Oct. 2, at 11 am in Santa Monica

Peter Kirby, Internet Infidel, presents,
"The Empty Tomb."

Kirby's essays appear on the internet, and in the book, _The Empty Tomb:
Jesus beyond the Grave_, edited by Robert Price and Jeff Lowder.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? Although 19th- and early 20th-century biblical scholarship dismissed the resurrection narratives as late, legendary accounts, Christian apologists in the late 20th century revived historical apologetics for the resurrection of Jesus with increasingly sophisticated arguments. A few critics have directly addressed some of the new arguments, but their response has been largely muted. The Empty Tomb scrutinizes the claims of leading Christian apologists and critiques their view of the resurrection as the best historical explanation.

What did the authors of the New Testament mean when they said Jesus rose from the dead? What historical evidence is needed to establish the resurrection? If there is a God, why would He resurrect Jesus? Was there an empty tomb? What should we make of the appearance stories? Apart from historical evidence, is belief in the resurrection justified?

(Above two paragraphs from the book description on Amazon.com)

Peter Kirby is the moderator of the "Xianity" email list for discussing the truth
or falsity of Christianity, and the webmaster of
<http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/>. The web site contains texts of
sometimes forgotten early Christian writings, plus links to scholarly discussions.
He also writes a blog on Christian Orgins at <http://www.christianorigins.com/>

Colorado Center Community Room, 2500 Broadway, Santa Monica (near
corner of 26th Avenue and Broadway).

This meeting is free and open to the public. We are a chapter
of the American Humanist Association, and we cooperate with the
Ethical Culture Society of Los Angeles. HALA is the Humanist
Association of Los Angeles (hala.org).

Contact:
Larry A. Taylor
1850 S. Colby Ave. Apt. 8
Los Angeles, CA 90025

Home phone (310) 479-2236
email: larry-a-taylor :at: att.net

--------------------------------

That's the 'press release'. What do you think I should cover in my speech? The themes are the Empty Tomb book and the debate over the resurrection of Jesus. What points and arguments should go in; what can or should be left out?

As an odd case of rarity, this is not a debate but simply a speech. I suspect that most of the audience will be secular humanists, but there is nothing to prevent Christians or other non-humanists from attending.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[Richbee]

Yawn. :zzz:

The apostle Paul once asked King Agrippa,

“Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?”

Professor Thomas Arnold, former chair of history at Oxford, and author of the famous volumes, History of Rome, was skillfully educated in the study of historical facts.

Professor Arnold, stated,


"I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is PROVED BY BETTER AND FULLER EVIDENCE of every sort, than the great sign which God has given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."


Foolish Faith.com has some great content as follows: (www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap7_reason.asp)

Throughout the early decades of Christianity, it seems the physical vacancy of the tomb was not in doubt by anyone.

Not one historical record from the first or second century is written attacking the factuality of the empty tomb or claiming discovery of the corpse. No one in the first century was saying that the tomb still contained Jesus’ body. Events seem to have conspired to place that beyond the reach of argument. The question was always, “What happened to the body?” Incidentally, the corpse of Jesus has never been found.

Thus, it is today widely recognized that the empty tomb of Jesus is a historical fact.

The New Testament critic, D.H. van Daalen, points out,


“It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.”

Jacob Kremer, an Austrian scholar who has specialized in the study of the resurrection, also affirms:


“By far most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb.”

And he lists 28 prominent scholars in support.

[Gideon Brown]

Tuck wants to know if Peter Kirby always speaks in the third person.

[Darth Executor]

Tuck wants to know if Peter Kirby always speaks in the third person.

It's the press release, not Peter Kirby's own words...

[Peter Kirby]

Tuck wants to know if Peter Kirby always speaks in the third person.
No I do not. The 'press release' was written by Larry Taylor, and the title of the thread is, well, a title.

Does anyone think they might be there?

Does anyone have any comments on what I should cover?

thanks,
Peter Kirby

[cbro]

Humanist Association of Los Angeles

Sunday, Oct. 2, at 11 am in Santa Monica

Peter Kirby, Internet Infidel, presents,
"The Empty Tomb."

Kirby's essays appear on the internet, and in the book, _The Empty Tomb:
Jesus beyond the Grave_, edited by Robert Price and Jeff Lowder.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? Although 19th- and early 20th-century biblical scholarship dismissed the resurrection narratives as late, legendary accounts, Christian apologists in the late 20th century revived historical apologetics for the resurrection of Jesus with increasingly sophisticated arguments. A few critics have directly addressed some of the new arguments, but their response has been largely muted. The Empty Tomb scrutinizes the claims of leading Christian apologists and critiques their view of the resurrection as the best historical explanation.

What did the authors of the New Testament mean when they said Jesus rose from the dead? What historical evidence is needed to establish the resurrection? If there is a God, why would He resurrect Jesus? Was there an empty tomb? What should we make of the appearance stories? Apart from historical evidence, is belief in the resurrection justified?

(Above two paragraphs from the book description on Amazon.com)

Peter Kirby is the moderator of the "Xianity" email list for discussing the truth
or falsity of Christianity, and the webmaster of
<http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/>. The web site contains texts of
sometimes forgotten early Christian writings, plus links to scholarly discussions.
He also writes a blog on Christian Orgins at <http://www.christianorigins.com/>

Colorado Center Community Room, 2500 Broadway, Santa Monica (near
corner of 26th Avenue and Broadway).

This meeting is free and open to the public. We are a chapter
of the American Humanist Association, and we cooperate with the
Ethical Culture Society of Los Angeles. HALA is the Humanist
Association of Los Angeles (hala.org).

Contact:
Larry A. Taylor
1850 S. Colby Ave. Apt. 8
Los Angeles, CA 90025

Home phone (310) 479-2236
email: larry-a-taylor :at: att.net

--------------------------------

That's the 'press release'. What do you think I should cover in my speech? The themes are the Empty Tomb book and the debate over the resurrection of Jesus. What points and arguments should go in; what can or should be left out?

As an odd case of rarity, this is not a debate but simply a speech. I suspect that most of the audience will be secular humanists, but there is nothing to prevent Christians or other non-humanists from attending.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby
Who are you and do you have any experience in Apologetics and/or are you being sent there by God?

[Richbee]

Does anyone have any comments on what I should cover?

thanks,

Peter Kirby

Just explain the empty tomb, and why the Roman or Jewish leaders couldn't produce the body - and failing at that - never contested the empty tomb.

:yes:

[MuggleOrSquib]

Peter,
I'd like to attend, it sounds fascinating.

I'd be interested in a comparison of 2nd Temple and early Christian views on miracles with the views of modern Hindus (note instances of bi-location in 'The Autobiography of a Yogi' for example).

Bob Griffin

[Peter Kirby]

Who are you and do you have any experience in Apologetics and/or are you being sent there by God?

Nobody much. I am a student of computational linguistics, classics, and history (esp. history of religion). To your other questions: no and no.

Clutch Cargo, thank you for that mention of items that popularly persuade. Empty tomb, no producing the body, and no counterclaim. Got it.

MuggleOrSquib, I may not be looking at modern Hindus but I will discuss the early Christians and Second Temple Jews.

Thank you all for the comments so far.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[Jin-Roh]

I'm near Santa Monica. I might attend.

[LGM]

Who are you and do you have any experience in Apologetics and/or are you being sent there by God?



Just explain the empty tomb, and why the Roman or Jewish leaders couldn't produce the body - and failing at that - never contested the empty tomb.


Sigh...I guess you should be happy that Clutch and Cbro won't be there. :ahem:

I would certainly be interested in hearing your perspective on the chronological evolution of the ressurection stories from Mark's earliest gospel through the later literature and traditions.

[cbro]

Sigh...I guess you should be happy that Clutch and Cbro won't be there. :ahem:

I would certainly be interested in hearing your perspective on the chronological evolution of the ressurection stories from Mark's earliest gospel through the later literature and traditions. LGM, I want to believe that you missed a line in the OP that said:"The Empty Tomb" book scrutinizes the claims of leading Christian apologists and critiques their view of the resurrection as the best historical explanation, because that would mean you are bad enought to try to change the topic of his speech, which, for as kind a person a person as you, would be unthinkable. Also, you don't need to thank me for helping you avoid such a mistake, because I like to think God is making me as kind a person as you are already.

[Richbee]

Sigh...I guess you should be happy that Clutch and Cbro won't be there.

Yawn.


I would certainly be interested in hearing your perspective on the chronological evolution of the resurrection stories from Mark's earliest gospel through the later literature and traditions.

How did the empty tomb change overtime. Empty. Empty. Empty.

And, today?

Empty.

[Richbee]

Nobody much. I am a student of computational linguistics, classics, and history (esp. history of religion). To your other questions: no and no.

Clutch Cargo, thank you for that mention of items that popularly persuade. Empty tomb, no producing the body, and no counterclaim. Got it.

MuggleOrSquib, I may not be looking at modern Hindus but I will discuss the early Christians and Second Temple Jews.

Thank you all for the comments so far.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

O.K. sorry for the sermon. :whistle:

You have studied many extra Biblical texts, and one is called The Gospel of Peter.

Does this add weight of evidence to Pontius Pilate ordering the posting of guard(s) to the tomb?

[LGM]

LGM, I want to believe that you missed a line in the OP that said:"The Empty Tomb" book scrutinizes the claims of leading Christian apologists and critiques their view of the resurrection as the best historical explanation, because that would mean you are bad enought to try to change the topic of his speech, which, for as kind a person a person as you, would be unthinkable. Also, you don't need to thank me for helping you avoid such a mistake, because I like to think God is making me as kind a person as you are already.

:twitch:

Cbro...not sure what you are babbling about, but ALL the evidence for the ressurection YOU believe in, comes from some ancient literature called the "gospels". Unless of course you are another Joseph Smith/Reverend Moon type who claims that Jesus talks to you personally.

So it seems that disputing the ressurection as historical, is all about disputing the gospel ressurection accounts as historical, and instead offering any number of other explanations for what motivated its authorship.

Perhaps you're not familiar with the scholarship that has been done in trying to determine the earliest versions of these ressurection accounts, and how they might have been redacted and expanded into more extensive accounts in the later gospels?

I'm quite certain Peter Kirby is, and is fully capable of speculating on the chronological history and motivations of this process from his vast knowledge of the subject.

[Darth Executor]

Perhaps you're not familiar with the scholarship

Pot call kettle...

[Peter Kirby]

How did the empty tomb change overtime. Empty. Empty. Empty.

And, today?

Empty.

LGM, I believe you have been outsimpled.[1]

sincerely,
Peter Kirby

[1] A rhetorical trope that simply states the conclusion so that a six year old with ADD understands.

[LGM]

Yawn.



How did the empty tomb change overtime. Empty. Empty. Empty.

And, today?

Empty.
:lol:
You're an adorable credophile Clutch.

What tomb are you talking about? Oh! Of course! The one that's being disputed in the Bible stories?!? Brilliant!

Please Mr. Clutch.... show us the empty tomb!!! Today!

And while your at it, show us the Shroud of Turin and the spot where Jesus flew up into the sky and off into the vacuum of space in his physical human body!

:ahem:

Remind me again, why did Jesus have to leave the planet in such a hurry?

Remind me again, how does someone in a physical human body, "fly" off into clouds to reach "heaven"?

Oh yeah...when you foolishly believe "heaven" is just above the dome of the sky!

:lol:

[Peter Kirby]

You have studied many extra Biblical texts, and one is called The Gospel of Peter.

Does this add weight of evidence to Pontius Pilate ordering the posting of guard(s) to the tomb?
That depends on what we think the sources of the Gospel of Peter are, among other things.

If we can establish that the text is independent of the Gospel of Matthew, it would provide corroboration.

If we cannot, it provides evidence of repetition and elaboration of the story.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[Peter Kirby]

And while your at it, show us the Shroud of Turin and the spot where Jesus flew up into the sky and off into the vacuum of space in his physical human body!
My professor of church history told us a story about his travels in Israel in the 1970s. He was visiting the church of the ascension, and outside of it there were footprints in the ground, along with candles around it. A young Arab boy was there, saying that this was where Christ stood just before the ascension, and that he would light a candle for any pilgrim for a few dollars. My professor's only thought was, "what little feet Christ had!"

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[Richbee]

That depends on what we think the sources of the Gospel of Peter are, among other things.

If we can establish that the text is independent of the Gospel of Matthew, it would provide corroboration.

If we cannot, it provides evidence of repetition and elaboration of the story.

kind thoughts,

Peter Kirby

O.K. There is also some question as to the origin of the guard, either Roman or from the Temple!?

Dr. Willaim Lane Craig writes:

"...the chief priests and Pharisees ask Pilate for a guard to secure the tomb to prevent the disciples from stealing the body and thus 'fulfilling' Jesus' prediction of rising on the third day.

Pilate says, 'You have a guard; make it as secure as you can.' It is not clear if this means that Pilate gave them a Roman guard or told them to use their own temple guard.

The Gospel of Peter uses a Roman guard, but this is probably read into the tradition and may be designed to emphasize the strength of the guard. If one might mention a psychological consideration, Pilate would probably be by this point so disgusted with the Jews that he might well rebuff them; but legends know no psychological limits. If Pilate rebuffed the Jews, then one wonders why this part of the story be told at all; but if the Jews really did go to Pilate, then perhaps this detail was remembered. If Pilate gave them a guard it is strange that Matthew does not make this explicit, like the Gospel of Peter, as this would strengthen his apologetic. The fact that the guards return to the chief priests is evidence that a Jewish guard is intended; contrast the Gospel of Peter, where the Roman guard report to Pilate the events at the tomb. The mention of the governor in v. 14 might indicate a Roman guard, but then it would not be clear how the Jews could do anything to keep them out of trouble. The fact that Roman guards could be executed for sleeping on watch and taking a bribe would further point to a Jewish guard. In the Gospel of Peter the bribe and the sleeping story are eliminated; Pilate simply commands the Roman guard to keep silent. If one gives the story the benefit of a doubt, one would assume that the guard is Jewish; but if one is convinced the story is a worthless legend then nothing could prevent one from taking the guard as Roman. So the guard is set and the sepulcher sealed. It has been said that Matthew omits the anointing motif because of the guard and the sealing,{4} but this holds no weight, for the women were clearly ignorant of such actions taken on the Sabbath. Rather it could be that Matthew is following different traditions here, since v. 15 makes it evident that there is a tradition history behind Matthew's story.

Before the women arrive, an angel of the Lord rolls back the stone, and the guard are paralyzed with fear. It is not said that the guard see the resurrection or even that this is the moment of the resurrection.

After the women leave, some of the guard go to the Jewish authorities, who bribe them to say that the disciples stole the body. This story has been spread among the Jews until this day, adds Matthew."

Hotlink: The Guard at the Tomb (www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/guard.html)

[LGM]

My professor of church history told us a story about his travels in Israel in the 1970s. He was visiting the church of the ascension, and outside of it there were footprints in the ground, along with candles around it. A young Arab boy was there, saying that this was where Christ stood just before the ascension, and that he would light a candle for any pilgrim for a few dollars. My professor's only thought was, "what little feet Christ had!"

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby
:lol:

Oh that is hilarious and precious...pearls for that, and for all your wonderful efforts at your websites!

[cbro]

:lol:

Oh that is hilarious and precious...pearls for that, and for all your wonderful efforts at your websites!LGM, your secret of not being an atheist is out. You show it when you ignore the ideas that you don't like because anyone like The New Testament critic, D.H. van Daalen, who says,

“It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.” is showing that they think they can know what is true. But, you know how foolish it is to think we can know anything. Which a true atheist would never say, but an agnostic always does say.

[LGM]

LGM, your secret of not being an atheist is out. You show it when you ignore the ideas that you don't like because anyone like The New Testament critic, D.H. van Daalen, who says,

“It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.” is showing that they think they can know what is true. But, you know how foolish it is to think we can know anything.

Dearest Cbro, your secret of being incoherent is well known.

What is it exactly that you or DH Van Halen think establishes the "empty tomb" as "historical"?

Here, try looking up some of these terms:

Begging the Question
Circular Reasoning
Argumentum in Circulo
Fallacy of Redundancy
Tautology

An argument that uses its conclusion as one of its premises is most often called begging the question or circular reasoning. This classic case of circular reasoning has been used as an example for so long that we find only a few theists still using this fallacy:

Is the bible all "true"
Yes.
How do you know?
Because the bible sez so!

Or this recent Cbro variation:

Was there an empty tomb?
Yes.
How do you know?
Because the Bible says so.
How do you know the Bible is correct?
Because it was inspired by the god who was ressurected from the empty tomb.
Besides...D.H. van Daalen thinks so!


Or this hilarious Clutch variation:

Was there an empty tomb?
Yes! And its still empty today! Empty! Empty! Empty! So there!
How do you know?
Because the Bible says so and everybody knows the bible is accurate history.
Besides, I subscribe to the www.empty_tomb_webcam.com site for $9.99 a month, and check it every day! And it was still empty this morning!
Besides, the Romans and Jews have had 2,000 years to find the body, and they never did.
Ha! I'm a genius!

[cbro]

Dearest Cbro, your secret of being incoherent is well known.
Only people of my sig say that.

[quote=LGM]What is it exactly that you or DH Van Halen think establishes the "empty tomb" as "historical"?I don't want to impose on your kindness but could you give any reason why Van Halen and I should not depend on History to be "historical"?

[LGM]

I don't want to impose on your kindness but could you give any reason why Van Halen and I should not depend on History to be "historical"?

I don't mind...my kindness is infinite. :teeth:

First, do you understand the difference between mythology and history?

Tell me which of the following are completely accurate works of "history"? And how you came to that conclusion.

1. The works of Homer
2. The Epic of Gilgamesh
3. The book of Mormon
4. The Rig Veda
5. The New Testament

[shunyadragon]

Yawn. :zzz:

The apostle Paul once asked King Agrippa,

“Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?”

Professor Thomas Arnold, former chair of history at Oxford, and author of the famous volumes, History of Rome, was skillfully educated in the study of historical facts.

Professor Arnold, stated,



"I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is PROVED BY BETTER AND FULLER EVIDENCE of every sort, than the great sign which God has given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."


Foolish Faith.com has some great content as follows: (http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap7_reason.asp)

Throughout the early decades of Christianity, it seems the physical vacancy of the tomb was not in doubt by anyone.

Not one historical record from the first or second century is written attacking the factuality of the empty tomb or claiming discovery of the corpse. No one in the first century was saying that the tomb still contained Jesus’ body. Events seem to have conspired to place that beyond the reach of argument. The question was always, “What happened to the body?” Incidentally, the corpse of Jesus has never been found.

Thus, it is today widely recognized that the empty tomb of Jesus is a historical fact.

The New Testament critic, D.H. van Daalen, points out,



“It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.”

Jacob Kremer, an Austrian scholar who has specialized in the study of the resurrection, also affirms:



“By far most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb.”

And he lists 28 prominent scholars in support.

Quotes from devoute believers do nothing to support the resurrection.

The first century is pretty much devoide of any known documents for or against Christianity. The second century does not ave enough to comment on either.

[Darth Executor]

The first century is pretty much devoide of any known documents for or against Christianity.

:twitch:

[Richbee]

Quotes from devoute believers do nothing to support the resurrection.

Yet, what evidence do have to refute the eyewitness accounts?


The first century is pretty much devoide of any known documents for or against Christianity. The second century does not ave enough to comment on either.

Almost immediately the basic facts were captured in an oral tradition resulting in creeds recored by scribes around 35 AD.

We have no good reason to doubt this evidence, as if this were a lie, it would be instantly challenged and refuted.

As I posted, the book of Acts doesn't reveal that any Jewish leader disputed the empty tomb, and there were no rumors or evidence of a body.


R. T. France, a British New Testament scholar, has written,

At the level of their literary and historical character we have good reason to treat the Gospels seriously as a source of information on the life and teaching of Jesus.... Indeed many ancient historians would count themselves fortunate to have four such responsible accounts [as the Gospels], written within a generation or two of the events, and preserved in such a wealth of early manuscript evidence. Beyond that point, the decision to accept the record they offer is likely to be influenced more by openness to a supernaturalist world view than by strictly historical considerations.

R. T. France, "The Gospels as Historical Sources for Jesus, the Founder of Christianity," Truth 1 (1985): 86.

[Doubting John]

I wish you well.

The next time I sit down to read I'm ready to read your chapter in that book. There's so much to cover, isn't there? And with an audience like that on your side it'll be tempting to state the case with a great deal of assurance "preaching to the Choir."

I'll post a few comments or questions when I read it, probably tonight. But so far, what I've read up until your chapter has been very good!

I do find it interesting how G.A. Wells made a case for a mythical Christ in 1985, I think, and before very long it seems to have been adopted by a number of skeptics. With a mythical Christ, who cares about the claim of an empty tomb.

It seems as though one has to adopt the claim that Jesus was placed in a tomb, before we can discuss whether or not it's empty. If someone concludes the tomb was empty, then we'd have to further discuss why it was empty. If someone concludes that God brought about the empty tomb of Jesus, we'd still have to discuss what an empty tomb proves.

[cbro]

I don't mind...my kindness is infinite. :teeth:

First, do you understand the difference between mythology and history?

Tell me which of the following are completely accurate works of "history"? And how you came to that conclusion.

1. The works of Homer
2. The Epic of Gilgamesh
3. The book of Mormon
4. The Rig Veda
5. The New TestamentI hope we can agree that there are people that my sig describes to one degree or another. Which means that any conclusion they can't accept, remains unacceptable no matter how I came to that conclusion. So, I believe it is best to give up expecting them to change and look at the results of their beliefs, as well as our own, so to have some assurance of who it is that is addicted to lying to themselves about why they are not accepting one idea or another.
LGM, do you understand and/or agree with anything here?

[Doubting John]

Very Good chapter. I skimmed through the next chapter and it seems Lowder disagrees with you. I'll read it to see for sure.

Since some of your argument depends on the shorter ending of Mark, I have a question. Is there any way to know for sure that Mark didn't originally have a longer ending? So many of us skeptics are so quick to say that Paul didn't write this, or Matthew didn't write that. What if Mark had a longer ending that was quickly lost, due to persecution or fire? I suppose there just isn't any evidence for that, and I don't suppose anyone is arguing that case, either.

Fred Craddock wrote a book on Mark from a Christian perspective that I read and owned once. He made a good case, I thought at the time, for why Mark stopped when he did, but I forget now what he said.

[Layman]

Peter,

I do not know who scheduled it for that particular day, but scheduling it for a Sunday morning is not the best way to procure the presence of those who may oppose the gist of The Empty Tomb.

As for what I what I would like to see addressed, I am curious if you really believe that 1) the response of critics of Christian apologists have been "largely muted" (if so, by whom) and 2) that The Empty Tomb is, en toto, an "objective response" to apologists? All from the dust jacket. Personally (whatever the persuasive force of the arguments presented) I found the book's description to be misleading, especially considering that the book's title had been changed (from something like "Jesus is Dead" to "The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave") to imply it was a more balanced presentation than it is.

As to number 1, anyone familiar with the subjects is aware, and the editors admit, that almost all of The Empty Tomb chapters are reproductions of previously published arguments that are widely available and, many of them, freely available at Internet Infidels. Do you, Richard Carrier, and Jeff Lowder really think that you have been silenced? You have founded two of the most frequented and exposed websites dealing with early Christianity on the internet.

As to number 2, Richard Carrier and Jeff Lowder founded Internet Infidels for the express purpose of promoting naturalism (and by definition combating theism). Robert Price spews condescension throughout The Empty Tomb, applying the term "apologist" to respected scholars that cannot fairly be called so and refering to saving people from "the foolishness of the untutored masses." (page 15). Though he insists on the sincerity of the book's contributors, Price declines to consider the possibility that his opponents share his sincerity though not his conclusions (he claims that Christian apologists are strewing "red herrings" around with "gleeful abandon" (page 15)).

What really got me, though, was Price's treatment of Jerome Murphy-O'Connor in chapter 4 (arguing that 1 Cor. 15:3-11 is an interpolation). He begins by attacking Murphy-O’Connor, who has questioned some of the purported interpolations suggested by other scholars. He accuses Murphy-O'Connor of claiming that no proposed interpolation “need be taken seriously” absent “definitive manuscript evidence.” According to Price, Murphy-O’Connor is engaging in nothing more than a “theological apologetic” akin to the “fundamentalists” who defend the King James Version as the only inspired version of the Bible. This misrepresentation of Murphy-O’Connor’s scholarship is an unfounded, provably false rant. Murphy-O'Connor is an expert in Pauline studies in general and the texts of the Corinthian letters in particular. Far from denying the presence of interpolations absent any manuscript evidence, Murphy-O’Connor concludes in published articles that two passages in the Corinthians letters, 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 2 Cor. 16:14-7:1, are non-Pauline despite their presence in all of the manuscript traditions. Murphy-O’Connor, “The Non-Pauline Character of 1 Corinthians 11:12-16?”, page 615. Regarding 1 Cor. 15:34-35, see also Murphy-O’Connor, “Interpolations in 1 Corinthians,” pages 90-93. In fact, I read the article Price of Murphy-O'Connor's that he referenced (and many others), and did not see where MOC rejected any proposed interploation on the basis of the manuscript evidence. Indeed, MOC carefully considered the evidences presented, usually contextual, and responded with contextual arguments of his own. He explicitly states that these are arguments well worth considering and is not dismissibe in tone or substantive. Accordingly, I find Price's contributions to be anything but a "sober, objective response," especially in light of the Introduction and Chapter 4.

[Peter Kirby]

Peter,

I do not know who scheduled it for that particular day, but scheduling it for a Sunday morning is not the best way to procure the presence of those who may oppose the gist of The Empty Tomb.
Are you saying you can't come?

The Humanist Association of Los Angeles meets on the first Sunday of every month. I have no control over that.


As for what I what I would like to see addressed, I am curious if you really believe that 1) the response of critics of Christian apologists have been "largely muted" (if so, by whom) and 2) that The Empty Tomb is, en toto, an "objective response" to apologists?
No and no. Defending my own errors would be bad enough, so I am not inclined at all to cover for the overstatements of publishers, or even of co-essayists.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[Layman]

Are you saying you can't come?

The Humanist Association of Los Angeles meets on the first Sunday of every month. I have no control over that.
I figured you had nothing to do with the date.

For this I would miss a Sunday of church, but my wife is having a c-section on September 14. I doubt she will be recovered enough to be left alone that Sunday with all three kids. But she might be or I might be able to make other arrangements for her and the kids. It would be nice to finally meet. I probably will not know for sure until that weekend. I'll let you know.



No and no. Defending my own errors would be bad enough, so I am not inclined at all to cover for the overstatements of publishers, or even of co-essayists.


You are wise young Peter. Your namesake would be proud. :)

[Peter Kirby]

You are wise young Peter. Your namesake would be proud.
Well, thanks. Are you sure he wouldn't say something like 2 Peter 2:22?
For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment that was passed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, 'The dog turns back to its own vomit,' and, 'The sow is washed only to wallow in the mud.'
The New Testament doesn't have kind words for those who have left the group. :uneasy:

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[Layman]

But Peter might also recall the words of Jesus, when he asked in Matthew 18:22:


"Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.

And Peter might also remember that he was given another chance, and the charge to "tend my sheep," by Jesus after his denial of him. John 21:17.

So if this passage from 2 Peter is all that is preventing your return from the fold, which honestly I do not know enough to assess how firmly entrenched in it you ever where, then fear not, we have enough room for your return. :)

[Peter Kirby]

So if this passage from 2 Peter is all that is preventing your return from the fold
No, I meant only that 'my namesake' might not be so proud.

In any case, thanks again for the compliment. It would be very good to meet you there, but better priorities may come first, as you mentioned.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[Layman]

Peter (Kirby),

In all seriousness, I would like to make it and can if I will. I spoke to Jenny about it and she'd like me to go, but it does come down to how quickly she recovers.

If I can make it, I'd be happy to take you to lunch (though you likely have other plans with your humanists friends).

;)

[shunyadragon]

Yawn.



How did the empty tomb change overtime. Empty. Empty. Empty.

And, today?

Empty.

I believe that the existence of the empty tomb is over rated as an argument for resurrection, because of the numerous arguments possible for an 'empty tomb' including 'stolen body' to the belief by some that Christ did not die on the cross, but experience a near death esperience, either divinely or naturally.

As for guards at the cruxifiction or at the tomb, they were human and could be bribed, which was not unheard of at that time.

Probably the crux of the argument is the testimony of those that witnessed the resurrected Christ. What did they see? A real bodily resurrected Christ, a vision, a Christ that had not died, but left the tomb, and possibly later escaped in secret to lead Christianity in the Roman Empire incognito.

[cbro]

Very Good chapter. I skimmed through the next chapter and it seems Lowder disagrees with you. I'll read it to see for sure.

Since some of your argument depends on the shorter ending of Mark, I have a question. Is there any way to know for sure that Mark didn't originally have a longer ending? So many of us skeptics are so quick to say that Paul didn't write this, or Matthew didn't write that. What if Mark had a longer ending that was quickly lost, due to persecution or fire? I suppose there just isn't any evidence for that, and I don't suppose anyone is arguing that case, either.

Fred Craddock wrote a book on Mark from a Christian perspective that I read and owned once. He made a good case, I thought at the time, for why Mark stopped when he did, but I forget now what he said.One reason for no replies is that no one knows to who or about what you are talking about.

[cbro]

I don't mind...my kindness is infinite. :teeth:

First, do you understand the difference between mythology and history?

Tell me which of the following are completely accurate works of "history"? And how you came to that conclusion.

1. The works of Homer
2. The Epic of Gilgamesh
3. The book of Mormon
4. The Rig Veda
5. The New Testamentmy kindness appears not to be infinite. Which could be why I did not answer your question before I talked about the context of my answer in my first reply to this post. My answer to your question would be that the "Historical Method" of the thread of the same name by Kirby is how I would conclude which is mythology or history.
So let me depend on your kindness as I ask again, we can agree that there are people that my sig describes to one degree or another. Which means that any conclusion they can't accept, remains unacceptable no matter how I came to that conclusion. So, I believe it is best to give up expecting them to change and look at the results of their beliefs, as well as our own, so to have some assurance of who it is that is addicted to lying to themselves about why they are not accepting one idea or another.
LGM, do you understand and/or agree with anything here?

[Richbee]

I believe that the existence of the empty tomb is over rated as an argument for resurrection, because of the numerous arguments possible for an 'empty tomb' including 'stolen body' to the belief by some that Christ did not die on the cross, but experience a near death esperience, either divinely or naturally.

As for guards at the cruxifiction or at the tomb, they were human and could be bribed, which was not unheard of at that time.

Probably the crux of the argument is the testimony of those that witnessed the resurrected Christ. What did they see? A real bodily resurrected Christ, a vision, a Christ that had not died, but left the tomb, and possibly later escaped in secret to lead Christianity in the Roman Empire incognito.

In just one example, if the body was stolen, how do you explain the resurrection eyewitness testimony?

And, before Christ's resurrection the disciples were fearful and disheartened; Peter even denied Jesus three times. After His resurrection the same group of people became bold and aggressive. Peter was the first one to stand up at Pentecost to preach to more than three thousand people. No fabrication can produce such a life-transforming change and among all the diciples, IMO.

If this was a lie, I would expect more than a doubting Thomas.

[lonigan]

Hi Peter. For years Christian apologists have told us that most scholars
consider the empty tomb to be historical. Habermas and Craig, for example, are referenced in the following link:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/ress.html

Both Habermas and Craig seemed to have met no opposition in debates
in which they insisted that to deny the empty tomb would be naive and in
opposition to well established historical fact. I have recently come to believe
that the debating opponents of these Christian apologists should have
demanded evidence for insisting that the empty tomb should be considered
historical. What surveys have the Christian apologists done that allow them
to state these so called "historical facts?" A contributer to this web site,
John Powell, did a survey among historians to determine their viewpoints of
Jesus as myth. That thread can be found here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=13062&page=1&pp=16%3Cbr%20/%3E

If you read this thread you will realize the historians are highly fearful
in responding to questions about historical Christianity. Among those who
did respond, however, there is nothing to indicate that these historians
are taking much of the gospels as historical.

My question to you is do you know of any surveys that would clarify
the issue as to what scholarly opinion is of the empty tomb?

[Peter Kirby]

My question to you is do you know of any surveys that would clarify the issue as to what scholarly opinion is of the empty tomb?
I know of no scientific sampling. All I have to go on is what scholars have written. And of that, all I can see is what I've read or what others have mentioned they have read. W. L. Craig can assemble a list of some two dozen or more authors who have affirmed the empty tomb, and I can assemble a list of at least a dozen authors who have expressed doubt about the empty tomb. From this unscientific assessment, it looks like roughly 2 to 1 in favor of affirmation of the empty tomb. A scientific survey might give more accurate results, but of how much value would those results be? It seems to me enough to know that this is a live issue in scholarly circles.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[Richbee]

I know of no scientific sampling. All I have to go on is what scholars have written. And of that, all I can see is what I've read or what others have mentioned they have read. W. L. Craig can assemble a list of some two dozen or more authors who have affirmed the empty tomb, and I can assemble a list of at least a dozen authors who have expressed doubt about the empty tomb. From this unscientific assessment, it looks like roughly 2 to 1 in favor of affirmation of the empty tomb. A scientific survey might give more accurate results, but of how much value would those results be? It seems to me enough to know that this is a live issue in scholarly circles.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Is the tomb still empty?

[shunyadragon]

Is the tomb still empty?

No, it was leased and rezoned for tomb condos.

[shunyadragon]

In just one example, if the body was stolen, how do you explain the resurrection eyewitness testimony?

Easy, people have visions and hallucinations all the time, even today.


And, before Christ's resurrection the disciples were fearful and disheartened; Peter even denied Jesus three times. After His resurrection the same group of people became bold and aggressive. Peter was the first one to stand up at Pentecost to preach to more than three thousand people. No fabrication can produce such a life-transforming change and among all the diciples, IMO.

If this was a lie, I would expect more than a doubting Thomas.

In the second through the fourth centuries, where we have records, there was not a consistent belief in the reserection or its nature. There were many doubting Thomas'. The Romans effectively cleansed all these other views, including all Christian Jews from the fold and doctrine. In the first century we have no records eather way.

Being bold and aggressive in the face of persecution and martyrdom is a characterisitc of many religions and does not initself give credability to their beliefs.

[MuggleOrSquib]

Shunya,
You state that

In the second through the fourth centuries, where we have records, there was not a consistent belief in the reserection or its nature. There were many doubting Thomas'. The Romans effectively cleansed all these other views, including all Christian Jews from the fold and doctrine. In the first century we have no records eather way.

I'm not aware of any variances in interpretation among the non-Gnostic Christians. There is also evidence that the Christian Jews may have been incorporated into (and assimilated by) the Eastern Orthodox, and I am completely unaware of any evidence that the Christian Jews had a belief regarding the resurrection inconsistent with the beliefs held by most Christians of the day.
The Romans had little or no effect on the Christians of the Persian empire, whether Assryian or Armenian, yet there seems to have been no controversy among the Christians of Armenia and Mesopotamia regarding the resurrection. There also doesn't seem to have been enough controversy among the Christians in the west for any of the ancient Christian apologetists to pay it any attention. On the other hand, it is not surprising at all that those who didn't identify as Christian did not believe that a Galileean Jew rose from the dead during the reign of Tiberius Caesar.

On checking a couple pages of a Google search on Ebionites and Resurrection, I found no clear evidence that the Ebionites had a different understanding of the resurrection from that of more 'orthodox' Christians; rather I found evidence that the Ebionite view of the resurrection closely paralleled that of the 'orthodox', while their theological take on Jesus varied greatly.

So, please give references for the teachings of these Christian 'doubting Thomases'.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[MuggleOrSquib]

To clarify my exclusion of the Gnostics:
The Gnostic Christians tended to believe that Jesus didn't have a physical body during his ministry. Given this belief, their beliefs about the crucifixion and resurrection were bound to vary from the 'orthodox' beliefs. On the other hand, their beliefs don't support a doubting position, as they are not recorded as having rejected the resurrection as such, they simply rejected the death (and physical life) of Jesus, and thus their position in regards to the resurrection was somewhat similar to that of the Muslims several centuries later.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[shunyadragon]

Shunya,
You state that

I'm not aware of any variances in interpretation among the non-Gnostic Christians. There is also evidence that the Christian Jews may have been incorporated into (and assimilated by) the Eastern Orthodox, and I am completely unaware of any evidence that the Christian Jews had a belief regarding the resurrection inconsistent with the beliefs held by most Christians of the day.
The Romans had little or no effect on the Christians of the Persian empire, whether Assryian or Armenian, yet there seems to have been no controversy among the Christians of Armenia and Mesopotamia regarding the resurrection. There also doesn't seem to have been enough controversy among the Christians in the west for any of the ancient Christian apologetists to pay it any attention. On the other hand, it is not surprising at all that those who didn't identify as Christian did not believe that a Galileean Jew rose from the dead during the reign of Tiberius Caesar.

On checking a couple pages of a Google search on Ebionites and Resurrection, I found no clear evidence that the Ebionites had a different understanding of the resurrection from that of more 'orthodox' Christians; rather I found evidence that the Ebionite view of the resurrection closely paralleled that of the 'orthodox', while their theological take on Jesus varied greatly.

So, please give references for the teachings of these Christian 'doubting Thomases'.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

I will give more, but you cannot exclude the gnostics from the desenters, because they did represent a different belief concerning the resurrection and Christian doctrine in the early history of Christianity. The Jews were systematically eleminated from Rome, and observances of the Torah forbidden before the seperation between east and west. If similation took place in the Eastern Orthodox it was minimal. I do not know of any references that would indicate this to any significant extent.

[shunyadragon]

To clarify my exclusion of the Gnostics:
The Gnostic Christians tended to believe that Jesus didn't have a physical body during his ministry. Given this belief, their beliefs about the crucifixion and resurrection were bound to vary from the 'orthodox' beliefs. On the other hand, their beliefs don't support a doubting position, as they are not recorded as having rejected the resurrection as such, they simply rejected the death (and physical life) of Jesus, and thus their position in regards to the resurrection was somewhat similar to that of the Muslims several centuries later.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

The position of the gnostics would reject the resurrection as believed by orthodox Christianity, and they would be considered a disenting and doubting position.

[MuggleOrSquib]

The Jews were systematically eleminated from Rome, and observances of the Torah forbidden before the seperation between east and west. If similation took place in the Eastern Orthodox it was minimal. I do not know of any references that would indicate this to any significant extent.
Ah, you're referring to the non-Christian Jews. With reference to them, I agree. As to the small community of Jewish Christians, the only references I found had to do with the Church of the Apostles in Jerusalem ( http://www.centuryone.org/apostles.html ). Bargil Pixner makes the argument that the Church of the Apostles was originally a Jewish-Christian synagogue, and that the Jewish-Christian community of Jerusalem was reconciled to the Gentile Christian community in the late 4th century. It's an interesting argument.

As to the Rabbinic Jews, they were persecuted by both the Latin and the Byzantine Christians. On the other hand, the beliefs of the Rabbinic Jews regarding the resurrection of Jesus are no more (and no less) relevant than those of Celsus, a Roman opponent of Christianity.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[MuggleOrSquib]

The position of the gnostics would reject the resurrection as believed by orthodox Christianity, and they would be considered a disenting and doubting position.
Dissenting, but not doubting. Their position on the resurrection was as much a part of their faith as the 'orthodox' position on the resurrection was a part of the faith of 'orthodox' Christians.

The Jewish and Gentile opponents of Christianity not only doubted the resurrection, they denied it, a somewhat different stance from simple doubt. The difference can be easily demonstrated in the case of the assassination of John F Kennedy. There are some who believe there was a large conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Others doubt the existence of such a conspiracy, and may (or may not) believe that Lee Harvey Oswald alone assassinated JFK. Yet others deny the existence of such a conspiracy, and are certain that Oswald was the sole assassin. Three different stances. Likewise in regards to the resurrection. Christians (in which group for the sake of the argument I include Gnostic Christians) believed that Jesus was resurrected, though they differed in understanding and interpretation. Some of the non-Christians doubted the resurrection, while those committed to opposition to Christianity denied the resurrection.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[shunyadragon]

Dissenting, but not doubting. Their position on the resurrection was as much a part of their faith as the 'orthodox' position on the resurrection was a part of the faith of 'orthodox' Christians.

The Jewish and Gentile opponents of Christianity not only doubted the resurrection, they denied it, a somewhat different stance from simple doubt. The difference can be easily demonstrated in the case of the assassination of John F Kennedy. There are some who believe there was a large conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Others doubt the existence of such a conspiracy, and may (or may not) believe that Lee Harvey Oswald alone assassinated JFK. Yet others deny the existence of such a conspiracy, and are certain that Oswald was the sole assassin. Three different stances. Likewise in regards to the resurrection. Christians (in which group for the sake of the argument I include Gnostic Christians) believed that Jesus was resurrected, though they differed in understanding and interpretation. Some of the non-Christians doubted the resurrection, while those committed to opposition to Christianity denied the resurrection.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

Your splittin' frog hairs here. The bottom line there was not unanimity among Christians in the first ~400 years concerning doctrine and belief. Whether it is doubt, desent or disbelief in a particular doctrine would not be a concern. Gnostic Christians did not believe in bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ which is the doctrine of traditional Christianity, and a subject of contention in the early years. For the sake of argument statements such as yours carry little weight.

I will add more examples later.

[MuggleOrSquib]

Your splittin' frog hairs here. The bottom line there was not unanimity among Christians in the first ~400 years concerning doctrine and belief. Whether it is doubt, desent or disbelief in a particular doctrine would not be a concern. Gnostic Christians did not believe in bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ which is the doctrine of traditional Christianity, and a subject of contention in the early years. For the sake of argument statements such as yours carry little weight.

I will add more examples later.

If you're correct that statements such as mine carry little weight, then if I'm to continue in this discourse, I'll need to be convinced that I'm not wasting my time. If I am wasting my time, then there will be no reason for me to attend the lecture.

My approach:for the purposes of clumping data, doubt, denial, and interpretational differences are each classed separately. To give an example:I tend to doubt the account of the 'bi-location' of Parmahansa Yogananda's guru. Most hard naturalists would tend to deny said 'bi-location'. I am not aware of any attempts at re-interpretation.
By the way, the Gnostic re-interpretation of the resurrection, while it does not radically contradict some of the 19th and 20th century re-interpretations, is functionally and contextually radically different. To the degree that the Mandaeans have maintained their historic beliefs one could examine Mandaean attitudes towards historical claims (in the Ginza Rabba for instance) as a model for Gnostic attitudes towards the Gnostic Gospels.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

PS Non-wasteful discourse does not require one or the other party to change philosophical position. Rather it requires both parties to be operating from mutually respected positions (doesn't require agreement). I can have such discussions if I don't a priori negate the position of my fellow disputant.

[shunyadragon]

If you're correct that statements such as mine carry little weight, then if I'm to continue in this discourse, I'll need to be convinced that I'm not wasting my time. If I am wasting my time, then there will be no reason for me to attend the lecture.

My approach:for the purposes of clumping data, doubt, denial, and interpretational differences are each classed separately. To give an example:I tend to doubt the account of the 'bi-location' of Parmahansa Yogananda's guru. Most hard naturalists would tend to deny said 'bi-location'. I am not aware of any attempts at re-interpretation.
By the way, the Gnostic re-interpretation of the resurrection, while it does not radically contradict some of the 19th and 20th century re-interpretations, is functionally and contextually radically different. To the degree that the Mandaeans have maintained their historic beliefs one could examine Mandaean attitudes towards historical claims (in the Ginza Rabba for instance) as a model for Gnostic attitudes towards the Gnostic Gospels.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

PS Non-wasteful discourse does not require one or the other party to change philosophical position. Rather it requires both parties to be operating from mutually respected positions (doesn't require agreement). I can have such discussions if I don't a priori negate the position of my fellow disputant.

For your claims to carry more weight they have to be based more on what desent, doubt and opposition to Christianity consisted of in the first ~400 to 700 years of Christian history.

The question is basically was there a general unanimity of belief in the early church. My view is there was a great diversity of theological beliefs fairly well documented from different sources, and it was the Romans that finally settled by decree and force. Your putting unnecesary weight on the word 'doubt', and excluding gnostics with strained reasoning does not work well. The Nag Hammadi documents document the gnostic differences as significant as in the 'Treatise on the Resurrection'. The gnostics do represent a significant desenting theological position in the early years of Christianity.

There were others, such as Marcion, who was teaching in Rome at the same time as Justin Martyr and the gnostic teacher Valentinus. Paul described desent among the Christians in his letters, but did not ellaborate in great detail.

It is true, that it is not clear what the early Christian Jews of Rome believed except they apparently wished to continue to observe the laws of the Torah, but it is a good example of how throughly Rome cleansed Christianity to suit their own design, and eliminated any potential alternatives.

The following website goes into this in more detail.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/diversity.html


As late as ~600s to the ~700s desent was still strong and some attribute the rise of Islam and its religious beliefs as reflecting the theology of some of those desenters

[MuggleOrSquib]

For your claims to carry more weight they have to be based more on what desent, doubt and opposition to Christianity consisted of in the first ~400 to 700 years of Christian history.

I'm not sure we are agreed as to what my claims are.

I am claiming that all of those who called themselves Christian, whether Gnostic, Ebionite, 'Orthodox' (not sure the term was used at the time, so I'm retaining the quotes), or otherwise believed that there was no corpse of Jesus. That's ALL I am claiming.

Of course, a corollary to that claim is that all of those who didn't call themselves Christian either doubted or denied the resurrection of Jesus. There may also have been some in the Christian community who DOUBTED the resurrection, but not because they were part of sects which were characterized by such doubt, but rather because of PERSONAL doubts.



The question is basically was there a general unanimity of belief in the early church.

Actually, that isn't the question at all, as far as I can tell. I'm certainly not making that claim!



My view is there was a great diversity of theological beliefs fairly well documented from different sources,

Agreed! Absolutely agreed! No question about it! Even the New Testament documents a diversity of theological beliefs (many of which were rejected or opposed by the authors of the New Testament).




and it was the Romans that finally settled by decree and force.

GRAVE disagreement! The Romans only had power over the Roman Empire. The varieties of Christian thought in the Persian Empire were not susceptible of Roman control. Moreover, the history indicates that theological agreements between the Christians of the Persian Empire and those of the Roman Empire were seen as cause to suspect the Assyrian and Persian Christians of alliance with the enemy. Several persecutions took place on this basis.

On the other hand, the use of force to enforce doctrinal agreement IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE is well established, though the results were quite mixed.

Bordering areas and client states, such as Georgia, were less subject to Roman theological decree.



Your putting unnecesary weight on the word 'doubt', and excluding gnostics with strained reasoning does not work well. The Nag Hammadi documents document the gnostic differences as significant as in the 'Treatise on the Resurrection'. The gnostics do represent a significant desenting theological position in the early years of Christianity.

Absolutely! However, the Gnostics, while not orthdox, held to a rather different understanding of Jesus than that held, for instance, by Mara bar Serapion of Samosata, who wouldn't be considered a Christian at all.

I don't exclude the Christian Gnostics, rather I group them with the 'Orthodox' in regards to a belief in the resurrection.
Thanks for the referrence to the 'Treatise on the Resurrection'. I'm going to peruse it on-line, and then respond again in another post.


There were others, such as Marcion, who was teaching in Rome at the same time as Justin Martyr and the gnostic teacher Valentinus. Paul described desent among the Christians in his letters, but did not ellaborate in great detail.

No disagreement on this.



It is true, that it is not clear what the early Christian Jews of Rome believed except they apparently wished to continue to observe the laws of the Torah, but it is a good example of how throughly Rome cleansed Christianity to suit their own design, and eliminated any potential alternatives.

The following website goes into this in more detail.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/diversity.html

Why is it that we have such a European focus when examining Christian history? Are the non-Western Churches mythological? Do we have some problem with Alopen, Chin-chin, Mar Bawai and the other Assyrians and Persians and Sogdians, the Ethiopians, Sahak Shnorhali and the other Armenians, Shenouti and the other Copts?


As late as ~600s to the ~700s desent was still strong and some attribute the rise of Islam and its religious beliefs as reflecting the theology of some of those desenters
Agreed! Actually, Manicheanism survived in China until the 1500s I think.

I'll be reading the Treatise on the Resurrection, and will get back to you in a bit.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[MuggleOrSquib]

Having just read the Gnostic Treatise on the Resurrection, I have the following to offer:
Excerpts from the Treatise on the Resurrection, translated by Malcom L. Peel
( http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/res.html )


Now the Son of God, Rheginos, was Son of Man. He embraced them both, possessing the humanity and the divinity, so that on the one hand he might vanquish death through his being Son of God,...



The Savior swallowed up death - (of this) you are not reckoned as being ignorant - for he put aside the world which is perishing. He transformed himself into an imperishable Aeon and raised himself up, having swallowed the visible by the invisible, and he gave us the way of our immortality.



For it is the domain of faith, my son, and not that which belongs to persuasion: the dead shall arise!



For we have known the Son of Man, and we have believed that he rose from among the dead. This is he of whom we say, "He became the destruction of death, as he is a great one in whom they believe."



What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion. It is no illusion, but it is truth!


I have tried to be true to the document in excerpting from it, but the reader is urged to check for him/herself.

Shunya, if you know of any Gnostic Christian documents which are more skeptical of the resurrection of Jesus, please inform me, either in this thread or via private message or email.

[MuggleOrSquib]

Shunya,

We have a tendency to read our 'modern' viewpoints into the world-views of other cultures. This is often a mistake.
If we want to understand Gnosticism, the best access-point, in my opinion, is the Mandaeans, a modern non-Christian Gnostic community which has been in existence for at least 1500 years. How do the traditional Mandaeans understand their faith? How does the traditional Mandaean viewpoint square with a modern secular/skeptical viewpoint?
The modern Mandaean community appears to be rather well-educated in general, and there is some Mandaean presence on the internet. It would be worth both your and my time, I believe, to spend some time visiting Mandaean websites.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[Rusty T]

I just want to know who's in the icon you're using, Peter.

[furay]

I just want to know who's in the icon you're using, Peter.
Looks like either the Apostle St John or St Thomas to me. Not sure though... could be someone else.

[Peter Kirby]

I just want to know who's in the icon you're using, Peter.
It's an icon of the apostle Thomas. The letters theta-omega-mu-alpha can just barely be made out in the reduced size image.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[furay]

Boo-yah! What do I win?


It's an icon of the apostle Thomas. The letters theta-omega-mu-alpha can just barely be made out in the reduced size image.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[Richbee]

If you're correct that statements such as mine carry little weight, then if I'm to continue in this discourse, I'll need to be convinced that I'm not wasting my time. If I am wasting my time, then there will be no reason for me to attend the lecture.

My approach:for the purposes of clumping data, doubt, denial, and interpretational differences are each classed separately. To give an example:I tend to doubt the account of the 'bi-location' of Parmahansa Yogananda's guru. Most hard naturalists would tend to deny said 'bi-location'. I am not aware of any attempts at re-interpretation.

By the way, the Gnostic re-interpretation of the resurrection, while it does not radically contradict some of the 19th and 20th century re-interpretations, is functionally and contextually radically different. To the degree that the Mandaeans have maintained their historic beliefs one could examine Mandaean attitudes towards historical claims (in the Ginza Rabba for instance) as a model for Gnostic attitudes towards the Gnostic Gospels.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

PS Non-wasteful discourse does not require one or the other party to change philosophical position. Rather it requires both parties to be operating from mutually respected positions (doesn't require agreement). I can have such discussions if I don't a priori negate the position of my fellow disputant.


Quick question here, is Peter Kirby a classical fundy Gnostic or NeoGnostic in the school of Elaine Pagels?

[Darth Executor]

Quick question here, is Peter Kirby a classical fundy Gnostic or NeoGnostic in the school of Elaine Pagels?

:lolo:

[SteveF]

:lolo:

You aint the first.

[Richbee]

Now, boys and girls, please, let us review and seek to define a few terms here.

St. Irenaeus taught, "It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world" (Adversus haereses, 3, 3, 1).

Translation, read the Bible. Read the Church Fathers and the great saints. Forget the Gnostic gospels. (e.g. GoT)

Ahem. :ahem: (Clears throat, searches for soap box to stand on.)

:solly:


The first traces of Gnosticism arise centuries before Christianity and are rooted in the ancient religions of Syria, Babylonia, Phoenicia and Persia, and in the Greek Platonic schools of philosophy. Gnostic communities existed throughout the Roman Empire, and because of the religious apathy toward traditional religion and the fascination with mystery cults, they caused some curiosity. In a sense, they were like the "new-agers" of today’s society. With the founding of our Church and the spread of Christianity, the Gnostics incorporated elements of Christianity into their beliefs. Keep in mind that each Gnostic leader supplied his own nuances to the Gnosticism.

Saunders, Fr. William. "The Gnostic Gospels." (www.catholicherald.com/saunders/03ws/ws031023.htm)

Note, that Paul wrote many apologetic letters against Gnosticism, and the notion of a Gnostic or spirit Jesus removed from the flesh was early. (Everything material was thought to be of the devil and therefore evil. So, Jesus was alleged to have been in spirit only - not a man. Also called, Docetism which was an integral part of Gnosticism.)

Here is the best example I can think of:




Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with
God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a MAN,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death --
even death on the cross.

(emphasis mine)


The first traces of Gnosticism arise centuries before Christianity and are rooted in the ancient religions of Syria, Babylonia, Phoenicia and Persia, and in the Greek Platonic schools of philosophy. Gnostic communities existed throughout the Roman Empire, and because of the religious apathy toward traditional religion and the fascination with mystery cults, they caused some curiosity. In a sense, they were like the "new-agers" of today’s society. With the founding of our Church and the spread of Christianity, the Gnostics incorporated elements of Christianity into their beliefs. Keep in mind that each Gnostic leader supplied his own nuances to the Gnosticism.

Nevertheless, the basic points are as follows:

— Gnosticism is a dualistic theological system. God is all good and the source of all goodness. Everything spiritual is of God and therefore good. Light too is of God and therefore good.

— Equal to God but diametrically opposed is the devil who is evil and the source of all evil. Everything material is of the devil and therefore evil. Darkness too is of the devil and therefore evil.

— Regarding creation, the Gnostics rejected Christian teaching. Instead, they posited that a series of aeons emanate from God in descending order. These aeons are paired, being called "syzygies," in almost a male-female sense: so the aeons depth and silence produce mind and truth, which produce reason and life, which produce man and state. All together they form the "pleroma."

— As these aeons recede from God, they become less perfect. The last aeon, the Demiurge, creates the material world due to some flaw, sin or passion. Man is created, but because of some primordial fault, his soul has fallen to this world and is imprisoned in the physical body. While his physical being is corrupt, his spiritual soul is good. In a sense, the good soul is the prisoner of the evil body; therefore, redemption is to release the soul from its bodily prison. To release the soul necessitates awakening the "gnosis," (the wisdom) within, a gnosis which "has fallen asleep" in physical matter.

— According to the Gnostics, individuals fall into three categories: the pneumatikoi are influenced by the spirit, have the necessary gnosis, and are assured salvation; the psychikoi may be saved; and the hylikoi are so influenced by matter that they have no hope of salvation.

The Gnostic version of Jesus is not the Jesus of Christianity.

Source::More (catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0676.html)

[Richbee]

It's an icon of the apostle Thomas. The letters theta-omega-mu-alpha can just barely be made out in the reduced size image.

kind thoughts,

Peter Kirby

Merry Christmas Peter!

How was your 2005 and did you make many speeches about your books or contributions to this topic?

BTW, who wrote the GoT?


:joy:

[MuggleOrSquib]

:lolo:
Richbee actually raises an interesting question. Is Peter Kirby actually a traditional Gnostic i.e. someone who has accepted one of the traditional Gnostic schemas, and is using modern scholarship to bolster his beliefs, or instead is he primarly of secular/semi-secular 20th/21st century mindset, primarily following folks like Crossan, Pagels, Robinson et al.

The Mandeans are the only continuous historical Gnostic group still in existence. I'm not sure the term 'fundamentalist' is appropriate for referring to Gnostics.

There may be some modern Gnostic groups which take the Gospel of Thomas as Scripture. I believe there was at least one such group during the 1970s/1980s. I don't know if there are any groups for which the entire Nag Hammadi corpus is Scripture, nor do I believe that there are any neo-Manichean groups in existence.

What I've heard of most modern Gnosticism is rather synchretistic, drawing from the entirety of gnostic writings as well as from the Kabbalah and other non-Gnostic materials, and not treating any of it as divinely inerrant. The intellectuals in such groups are probably influenced by Pagels et al.

As regards Elaine Pagels, I don't know about her personal beliefs regarding God and the universe. The academic students of Gnosticism whom I have met tend to LIKE Gnosticism, but not actually believe it. The one exception is a very well-read Marcionite.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[Peter Kirby]

Merry Christmas Peter!

How was your 2005 and did you make many speeches about your books or contributions to this topic?

BTW, who wrote the GoT?


:joy:

Merry Christmas!

Actually I only made this one appearance...I did visit the SBL though, that was a whole lot of fun.

I am looking forward to 2006 and some projects I have been delaying.

thanks,
Peter Kirby

[cbro]

:twitch:

Cbro...not sure what you are babbling about, but ALL the evidence for the ressurection YOU believe in, comes from some ancient literature called the "gospels". Unless of course you are another Joseph Smith/Reverend Moon type who claims that Jesus talks to you personally.

So it seems that disputing the ressurection as historical, is all about disputing the gospel ressurection accounts as historical, and instead offering any number of other explanations for what motivated its authorship.

Perhaps you're not familiar with the scholarship that has been done in trying to determine the earliest versions of these ressurection accounts, and how they might have been redacted and expanded into more extensive accounts in the later gospels?

I'm quite certain Peter Kirby is, and is fully capable of speculating on the chronological history and motivations of this process from his vast knowledge of the subject.Peter, do you agree with LGM on speculating or will you be a killjoy and give facts about what really happened?