Did Jesus rise from the dead? (tehknologick vs. Kabane52)

[lilpixieofterror]

You put words in his mouth. You said " I guess that means WWI never happened" shunny didn't say anything remotely like that. You made a straw man. Sorry but you've been caught red handed in dishonesty.

And my dear, where did I say that history was above scrutiny and investigation? No where so guess who was caught creating strawman, wasn't that shuny?

You.

Accuracy. As in--historical credibility. Once again you've moved the goal post after you've been caught in a baseless statement.

In other words... you couldn't answer what I have actually said so you have ignored my question in the hopes it goes away, so let me ask it again...

Show where I said history is not subject to criticism or did shuny create a strawman of my position and tried to attack that strawman?

Are you going to answer the question now or will you dodge it like you dodge everything else you can't answer?

Now are you going to admit that you've straw-manned shunny and that you moved the goal post on the issue of the NT? Or do you plan do just throw insults and scream "nah-uh" for the next six pages?

Will you please quote me where I said that history was above scrutiny and investigation or did Shuny simply make a strawman up and went to attack a position I did not hold? Don't you think one good strawman deserves another? In other words my dear child, I was exposing shuny's strawman and now I'm sure you'll simply whine that isn't the case. In other words dear... I was setting him up in a trap.

BTW you started this game way back when you chased Justin and I around asking us to admit to our "errors". Now it's your turn.

Sorry child, but the history shows that your little friend started the attack upon me first and I simply defend myself from his baseless accusations and exposed him for the troll he really is. Now, I will enjoy watching you whine, twist, and scream like the intellectual weenie you really are because you have no real arguments and simply standing up for your buddy buddy because he got a fool made out of him and you don't like it.

[shunyadragon]

Guess WWI never happened! Let us never take a history class ever again because the great shuny just threw out all of history because he wants excuses to throw out his doubt. Although I do give you credit here Shuny... you did what I have yet to see any skeptics doing, throwing out an entire method to justify his doubts. Congrads!

BTW doesn't it suck for you that Christianity and the NT is said to be the most complete and accurate manuscript of the ancient world and despite skeptics trying to tear it down, they still fail to? Gosh, anymore excuses you are looking to feed your doubts or do you simply doubt because you don't like what it has to say?

Please reread my post and respond appropriately. I said various events in history are accepted on varying degrees of certainty, and also noted that events are not necessarily determined to have happened or not. Being subject to skepticism and scrutiny by historical methods is the rule for all events. For example the records and events of WWI have actually changed over time as more information has been found in research.

No the NT is not the most complete and accurate of the ancient world. Chinese manuscripts do much better with earlier paper and printing methods preserving records and manuscripts better, and records contemporary to events. None of the gospels are known manuscripts contemporary to the events recorded.

Again, p;ease reread my post and respond appropriately,

[lost_layman]

The first thing I noted is that Kabane52's documentary presentation in his opening speech is absolutely appalling, and this persists throughout his posts (with few exceptions). Tehknologik's is sporadically better. I would like to have seen more of the usual courtesies of documentation: publication and page #, especially in instances when tehknologik, for example, fails to cite anything when he discusses skepticism in miracle stories and mentions a few inscriptions, or the sociological studies he alludes to. In post #7 of the debate tehknologik lifts material ad litteram from Carrier on the number of unknown sects of Judaism without crediting him. I don't know what to call this other than plagiarism. It's difficult to tell if or if not Kabane52 is parroting the documentation of a single source or a few sources available to him instead of having researched from the primary sources himself. One indication that he hasn't done the latter is his citation (if we can call only a name a 'citation') of Peter Stuhlmacher regarding verses 6-7 of the credo in 1Cor xv, which is apparently secondary and lifted straight from Kirk MacGregor's article (which Kabane52 does name, without a page number albeit) in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society on the exact same point. (p. 2) The article can be found at the following link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1. The quote from A. E. Harvey could have been taken from any number of secondhand sources, as one will see by simply punching the quote into Google, as could the quote of Zusne and Jones. Tehknologik's main source, similarly, seems to be Carrier. Kabane52 also frequently claims the 'majority of scholars' [insert this or that]. I have no way to gauge these claims or even begin to do so, and an argumentum ad populum here is worthless either way. I'm very skeptical of any formal presentation that is poorly documented like this. However, the structural presentation of both users is commendable. Makes it easy to follow along.

That being said, I'll address the major points in the debate. I'm more versed in Hebrew bible studies so I'll be questioning much, and my arguments will mostly originate out of my own reading of the gospels and the little I have read in this field of research. I'll start out by taking Kabane52's argument for a pre-Markan passion source and the empty tomb in one sweep.

If one of the 'primary reasons' for a pre-Markan passion narrative is that the high priest is not named, and ergo in Kabane52's view dates no later than 37 AD, then I find this to be a very poor item of evidence. It would no more provide a terminus ad quem for the date of this speculated source than the failure of the late authors of the Pentateuch to name a pharaoh, which is probably due, depending on the account, to their not knowing the name (as in the case of the exodus) or to the account being non-historical. (as in the case of Abraham's sojourn to Egypt) In some cases it just may well be sloppy historiography. Not naming the high priest would certainly be consistent with a thesis that there is a pre-Markan passion narrative whose date of composition terminates with 37 AD, but it is a neutral piece of evidence and ergo is useless for dating any section of Mark. The pendulum in this case swings in neither direction. This kind of weight can't be accorded to pure conjecture. (a flaw I find common in much biblical scholarship, Old or New Testaments) In the words of the late R. E. Brown:

A large number of scholars argue that there was a written preMarcan passion narrative (or narratives) that can be detected beneath Mark's passion. Unfortunately the reconstructions differ widely. In BDM 2.1492-1524 M Soards surveys thirty-five scholars' views of the preMarcan passion, and there is scarcely one verse that all would assign to the same kind of source or tradition...The likelihood that there was a preMarcan passion account does not remove a real doubt whether we have the methodology to reconstruct it exactly or at length.
--[1997] An Introduction to the New Testament, New York: Doubleday, pp. 149f.

And to no surprise Kabane52 never informs us of the contours of this pre-Markan passion narrative as would be needed to repose our confidence in any implications he draws up assuming this pre-Markan passion narrative ever actually existed.

Kabane52 goes on to argue that the empty tomb 'enjoys explicit attestation from the four Christian gospels as well as implicit attestation in the First Corinthians 15 creed'. The number 'four' I would argue is misleading since two of the gospels use a third (Mark) as an immediate source. They're literarily dependent on Mark's gospel. (of course, adapting him as seems fit) So they count as only one witness, not three. And John I would argue is just a later adaptation of this same single current of Christian tradition. It is perhaps literarily independent of the other gospels, but not 'independent' in the sense of satisfying any historical criterion for independent attestation. So all the gospels count as one witness, not four. This is all the more so if Kabane52's assumption that the gospels go back to the same circle of 'eyewitnesses' is true. Further, in the earliest source, Mark, the women, the primary witnesses to the empty tomb, say nothing about it to anyone. Even granting for argument's sake that Mark ever intended to finish with post-resurrection appearances, or that the ending with these appearances is now lost to history, the wording of the text presupposes that if Mark ever considered himself as recording history, the women would have stayed silent for a significant length of time before ever proclaiming the fact of the empty tomb. No small wonder Matthew and Luke eliminate this embarrassment and go right into recording post-resurrection appearances. (drastically at entirely different ends of the map! I will discuss this later) I haven't studied the dating of 1Cor xv in-depth, but what I have read on the apologist's side of things isn't very convincing. Arguing that Paul's visit to Peter in Galatians establishes the date of the credo since he 'likely' received it then (no arguments for this 'likely') is to my mind feebly circumstantial evidence and goes against the very point Paul is focusing on in this passage: that a revelation straight from heaven is the source of his gospel commission, not the tradition of men. The linguistic arguments I'll leave alone, again having not studied them in-depth. I might comment on the argument that in 1Cor xv Paul is employing rabbinical terms for the transmission of oral information, but this seems to me to be harassed by Ga i.11-12 & 16 where Paul is very clear and emphatic that his gospel was 'received' (same term) from a direct visionary or some other revelatory experience. 'Technical' or customary terms though they might be, in my mind this doesn't prove anything more than Paul's training emerging through his rhetoric. Even if 'radical' groups like the Jesus Seminar concede an early date for the credo, this appears to me to be only because it conveniently serves to falsify the resurrection view, as we can see from works of members like Gerd Ludemann. Having read his The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry, I know his purpose is to provide empirical grounds for refuting the resurrection view on the basis of the hallucination theory. The earlier the credo is the more likely on the hallucination theory that the post-resurrection 'experiences' of the disciples are historical. That way the hallucinations, if historical, are not explained away as later tradition. So when apologists like Bill Craig parrot Ludemann in their debates and literature, they're being intentionally misleading about why such an ostensible 'concession' is being made about the date of the credo. It's not a 'concession' at all. It's ammunition.

Anyway, the best one could say is that the credo presupposes an empty tomb that was unknown. As Richard Carrier points out in his contribution ('The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb') to Price & Lowder, eds., The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave it is completely inconceivable that Paul would be defending the reality of the resurrection in the manner he goes about it in this chapter and not mention this would-be weighty evidential support for its truth. (especially in verses 29ff.) So it wouldn't be the empty tomb we are familiar with from the gospel narratives, but an empty tomb, allowing that Paul understood the resurrection of the body as physical. But I believe a strong case can be made for the spiritual body hypothesis. He also never mentions the women. He wouldn't be under any constraints not to do so either when writing to the Corinthians, especially in light of the equality in gospel faith he claims between men and women (various passages), and his acclaim for the outstanding evangelism of female apostolic figures. (Rm xvi) What's more amazing in my view is that in Acts the empty tomb doesn't play the important role we expected if it were an authentic and powerful corroboration of the resurrection of Jesus, or if the accusation that the disciples stole the body (as it appears in the doubtlessly fictional guard at the tomb account in Matthew) was early or prominent. Against the empty tomb arguments tehknologik made his case for the plausibility of theft. Unfortunately Kabane52 never seems to have grasped the nature of the argument tehknologik was making and kept erecting the same straw man that tehknologik failed to provide positive support for his theft hypothesis. But I believe there are grounds for regarding Mark's empty tomb narrative as legendary growing out of earlier silent traditions like found in Paul. It's odd that the passion narratives in all the gospels are more uniform/less contradictory than the empty tomb narratives and are colored by scriptural citations and theological motifs lacking in the empty tomb narratives. This is easier to understand after reflection on the significance of Jesus' death. But if the belief in the resurrection was the impetus for the movement, then there wouldn't have been any passion narratives without the centrality of the resurrection/empty tomb accounts, which are less uniform. So if the passion narratives are virtually fixed, then we would imagine the resurrection accounts would be fixed even tighter than or at least equally tight as the passion narratives...and they are not. This indicates that Mark's empty tomb account is late. Its ending with the women saying nothing could be accounted for if Mark was introducing the story and the women's silence explained why no one had ever heard of it before.

To be continued.


Finis,
ELB

[lost_layman]

Next I'm going to tackle what both sides argued about the appearances and the hallucination theory. In my estimation what we have are both of them parroting what they've read secondhand on the psychology of hallucinations. There really no in-depth discussion, but what was on display favors neither of them in the end. The uneased tensions can be seen in Kabane52's careless exegesis of the NT writings and the dismissal of tehknologik's very valid point regarding a supposed 'skeptic' like James and his persuasion over to Christianity and linking with the appearances. I don't even find the basis of the alleged 'skepticism' of James to hold water from the start, and maybe Kabane52 will humor this skeptic with good arguments to that effect (what I've heard elsewhere is extremely unpersuasive); but on the other hand I don't feel tehknologik really addressed Paul's conversion. I don't consider a self-professed visionary (cf. 1Cor xii.1ff. // Ga i.12) a reliable resource about questions of dead men coming to life anyhow.

This all evoked an interesting discussion of the portrayed misunderstandings of the apostles about Jesus's passion predictions. However, these traditions are not consistent across the board. In Mark, Luke, and John no one ever understands (cf. Mk ix.32 // Lk ix.45 // Jn ii.19-22), although uniquely in John this owes to the cryptic casting of the predictions. (Jn ii.19-22; x.17-18; xii.7-8 & 23-36; xvi.16-22; cf. Lk xiii.32-3) It is in Matthew alone (there is an exception in Mark to be discussed momentarily) where all these misunderstandings are eliminated. (Mt xvi.21-2; xvii.23; xxviii.11-15, this last alluding back to xii.40) Matthew consciously needs the predictions to be understood because the Jewish authorities' impetus to prevent any hoax depends on it. They understood exactly what he meant. If Kabane52 had registered this information into his overall argument, he would not have made the ludicrous proposal that the Jewish authorities were ambivalent about Jesus's perspicuously stated prophecies. Even allowing the universal backdrop Kabane52 invokes--Second Temple Judaism, which in my view is a misleading, almost artificial category that's exaggerated in its influence; an attempt to narrow down the evidence to conveniently dovetail with our Western categorical schemata, or, on the apologists' behalf, to preempt the possibility of novelty to thrust the evidence in the direction they want it to go (i.e. 'Jesus is Lord, he rose from the dead!') --this doesn't accommodate the author. What he's doing with his depictions may be the result of his own designs thus making any comparison against a historical backdrop like Second Temple Judaism totally irrelevant. (I will return to the question of any sort of normative Judaism obtaining in this era) In fact, Kabane52 and tehknologik have confounded the details in the gospel narratives themselves with using the gospels as our interests of history. The question is what is historical and what should be reputed of the author? Did Jesus actually utter these passion predictions or are they a retrojection of the early Christian community tradition? If he did enunciate them, did the disciples understand or misunderstand them? Tehknologik tapped the possibility that the misunderstanding could be a common literary motif, an embellishment with which to contrast the climax. This has merit especially because of Mark's retaining the tradition that at least Peter understood. (Mk viii.31-3) Another point against Kabane52 is that Luke apparently took Jesus's predictions as straightforward, found the disciples' ignorance in his source inexplicable, and invented his own reason why they didn't understand--and it isn't because of the disciples' Second Temple Jewish mind frame. For Luke argues that it was 'concealed' from them by supernatural means so that they wouldn't understand. (Lk ix.45; xviii.34) This all plays out in Luke's resurrection narrative where he writes of the two disciples who were on the road to Emmaus that when they saw the risen Jesus: 'their eyes were kept from recognizing him'. Only after the spiritual veil was lifted from before their eyes did they recognize Jesus. (Lk xxiv.31) Therefore one can argue from Luke at least that this is no casual misunderstanding. Luke's version also presumes that Jesus made himself clear (see the wording in Lk ix.44: 'let these words sink into your ears') So if Jesus actually made these predictions I think the historical question supports the authenticity of the disciples properly construing what Jesus was saying. John's tradition where the predictions are misunderstood because they are purposefully couched riddles can be interpreted to be John's way of explaining away the tradition that the disciples didn't understand, or it could be evidence that the predictions were never actually made and that in retrospect the disciples looked back and reapplied Jesus's words so that they become riddles of his resurrection. This in turn might be substantiated by the otherwise vestigial and anomalous tradition in Mark, repeated in Matthew, where Jesus is accused at his trial facing the Sanhedrin of prophesying the destruction and rebuilding of the Temple three days thence. (see Mk xiv.58) John puts this prediction right on the lips of Jesus himself. (see Jn ii.19-22) It's baffling why this accusation doesn't turn up in Jesus's trial in John.

Returning to the original point, I see no reason why the appearances can't be explained as hallucinations and the hearsay induced by them, ergo multiplying the number of appearance claims. This hearsay is reflected in the contradictions between the appearance accounts. When Kabane52 attempts to refute tehknologik's point about the disciples incredulity in Mt xxviii.17, he cites Michael Wilkins (with no page number given) and appeals to Gary Habermas (no documentation at all) arguing that the doubt was historical rather than a literary motif. (post #6) I would agree with Kabane52 against tehknologik but for different reasons. (pending discussion) But the exegesis of these scholars is astoundingly abysmal. Wilkins is cited as saying:

The eleven, who had received at least two or three appearances from the risen Jesus prior to this in Jerusalem, are prepared to worship him. However, those disciples in Galilee who have not yet seen the risen Jesus (cf. “brothers” in 28:10), much like Thomas prior to his experience with the risen Jesus, doubt until Jesus appears to them bodily

This both conflates the texts of the gospels uncritically and simultaneously ignores how their respective narratives actually read. Matthew clearly narrates the eleven disciples went to Galilee to see Jesus according to the angelic command the women received in verse 7. He also records a subsequent appearance of Jesus commanding the women the exact same thing in verses 9-10. This is inconsequential. It is obviously a superfluous embellishment of Mark's account where only the angel appears and should be dismissed. At any event, there is no trace of any Jerusalem appearances, and there are no disciples already 'in Galilee' to be contrasted with the eleven who already saw him in Jerusalem as Wilkins asserts. Anyone reading Matthew's gospel would come to the conclusion that the sequence of events ran as follows: (a) The women arrive at the tomb. (b) An angel commands them to remind the disciples to go to Galilee where Jesus predicted he would meet them after his resurrection. (c) The eleven disciples go to Galilee to see Jesus, but some (of the eleven!) are doubtful. The chasmic hiatus to be filled in with Jerusalem appearances that Wilkins imagines is not presupposed in the narrative or even allowed by the narrative flow and structure. Wilkins is making contextual mincemeat of this gospel and not allowing it to speak for itself. There would be no need for the eleven to go to Galilee to see Jesus if he already visited them in Jerusalem.

Once again pesky Luke makes an ingress to confirm this analysis and debar Kabane52's appeal to conflation. In Mk xvi.7 (likewise in the parallel account in Matthew) the angel at the tomb instructs that the disciples should go to Galilee to see Jesus, as Jesus himself earlier instructed before his death. (see Mk xiv.28) In Lk xxiv.6, however, these words are unscrupulously altered so that Jesus merely said this in Galilee. The result of Luke doing this to his source just so happens to allow Luke's appearances to take place in Jerusalem, where in fact his narrative explicitly sets them...any of the Galilean appearances one gathers from reading the plain text of Mark and Matthew being totally omitted. If the Galilean appearances anticipated in Mark (assuming the gospel ended at xvi.8) and actually narrated in Matthew in compliance with the angel's instructions were consistent with Luke's account of Jerusalem appearances, he wouldn't have changed Mark's wording. He would have left them the way he found them--but he didn't, and evidently the reason why he didn't is because he wanted to preclude their implications. He consciously diverged from Mark, so evidently he didn't want any Galilean appearances to harmonize with his Jerusalem appearances. Ergo there is no place in the Matthew narrative of doubting disciples for a critic to read Jerusalem appearances between the lines. In the words of Kabane52, that 'Gary Habermas draws a connection with this appearance and the appearance to the 500' is irrelevant and merely superimposes something found in Paul onto Matthew where it doesn't belong. Matthew says the eleven went to Galilee to see Jesus and some doubted, not the eleven and 500 other people.

When Matthew is read and interpreted on its own without foisting other elements from other gospels into it (the task of the exegete, afterall, is to interpret whatever literature is given by staying faithful to that literature as closely as possible) one encounters another conflict, this time between Matthew and John. John also assumes initial Jerusalem appearances on two occasions. (the Galilean appearance in Jn xxi is the third appearance; see verse 14) But between these two occasions (Jn xx.19-23 & 26-9) it is Thomas alone who is in doubt. (Jn xx.24-5) Everyone else believes, and at the second appearance Thomas finally comes to the faith. Jesus performs more miracles to assure them. (Jn xx.30-1) Ergo their later reservations about the risen Jesus in Galilee according to Matthew are phenomenally unprecedented...inconceivable rather. (needless to say, John contradicts Luke as well) But since such obstinate and lingering unbelief on the part of 'some' of the eleven is such an embarrassment to early Christianity, it probably has historical roots. Not all of the closest companions of Jesus were faithful to belief in his resurrection (or at least the appearances) confirming the hearsay nature of many of the reported appearances. It's easy to understand why this would be suppressed, forgotten or ignored in early Christian tradition, only to wiggle its ignominious way into Matthew's account. Lastly on this point, I would contend the 'hidden Jesus' appearance narratives also support the reality of wildfire hearsay about Jesus' appearances rather than the hallucination hypothesis.

To be continued.


Finis,
ELB

[tehknologik]

In post #7 of the debate tehknologik lifts material ad litteram from Carrier on the number of unknown sects of Judaism without crediting him.

For someone so knowledgeable I'm surprised that you didn't realize that I did this in virtually every post. I am an engineer - not a historian, so anything I have to say on these subjects comes straight from what I've read, and I've found that historians like Carrier have expressed many of these ideas far better than I ever could. I didn't credit Carrier because most of my side of the debate was a streamline of chopped up quotes from a few authors, Carrier being the most influential (as you've also noticed). Some sections consist of one author's material pulled together from several sources, and bouncing back and forth between them. Just think of how choppy my presentation would have been if I had quoted each author separately every single time, providing citation - it would have made up my entire format! I hope that conveys, even if only somewhat, the struggle I had in meshing the material together in a way that would make it more readable and thus enjoyable.

Looking back, I had figured that most (yourself included) would quickly discover my sources upon searching for online material on these subjects, but now I think that at the very least I should have left a footnote somewhere at the bottom of my first post stating as much. I apologize.

Regarding the rest of your discussion ( for example, of Kabane's argument for a Pre-Markan passion narrative ), I've categorized this as a kind of counter-apologetic approach which I'd best describe as that of an objective historian sniffing out truth. But having the mind of an engineer, I'm more interested in taking the path of least resistance. As I've stated earlier in this commentary:

I did argue that there are better explanations for the evidence than 'Jesus rose' - but they're only better in the sense that they are less ad hoc, and so they cannot stand as established truths (C). Nevertheless, since the methods of history cannot possibly provide us with an exhaustive view of the ancient past, we don't have sufficient ground to conclude that a miracle occurred (A). To these ends, I did call the reliability of the gospels into question, but only on points where the story is clearly inconsistent with what we know about the ancient world or with itself (B).

Needless to say, I do think that the gospels are unreliable (for the same reason that the majority of scholars do, namely because they exhibit a different authorial intent than recording fact), but I chose not to approach Kabane this way because I wanted to show how even if Kabane is granted his assumptions regarding authorship and intent, that his case is not as strong as he thinks it is. But the fact remains that we really don't know who wrote the gospels or where they got any of their sources.

Knowing how little I know of history, I chose to stay as close to Kabane's alleged "facts" as possible, straying only when absolutely necessary - conceding him points, and using what levers he already has against him. If in this way, I can humiliate an apologist to doubt the clout of his argument and the veracity of his methods, I've succeeded as far as I'm concerned. I believe a door may have been opened - even if the door bears signs of having been pried.

Having said that, I find your comment,

tehknologik made his case for the plausibility of theft

beyond flattering, considering it coming from someone of a much more critical approach.

[lost_layman]

Well, my discovering the quote from Carrier on the sects was just serendipity. I didn't bother to go over all of it. (or Kabane's quotes) But I was just trying to be fair as possible by criticizing both sides because in the end I think Kabane's case, while demonstrating a relatively impressive verisimilitude of sophistication, is mostly hollow, and that you stuck it to him on most of the points. (and I think these could be modified) I don't think you were being deceitful with my criticism of 'plagiarism' or anything. But since most of my criticisms are focused on dismantling Kabane's case, I tried to balance everything out by collecting some kind of dirt on you, lol.

I'll go back and check, but I don't recall Kabane responding to the excellent point you raised on the conflicting interests between trusting the miracle claims of the gospels and the disciples' later skepticism and misunderstandings about Jesus's passion predictions. Does Kabane accept the essential historicity of the gospel miracles? If so then the fact that Jesus worked the amazing wonders he is credited with in the gospels, and even endowed the apostles with the same powers for themselves, infinitely trumps any appeal to 'Second Temple Judaism' to explain the paradox of their behavior before and after Jesus's death. No one could have put it any better when you said this was 'utterly ridiculous'.

I was going address one point about the two disciples at the empty tomb in the Johannine gospel and what it is they 'believed' in one of my upcoming posts continuing my assessment of the debate, but I can just sneak it in here briefly. Kabane is misreading the passage. It seems they did believe in the resurrection after they saw the empty tomb, just as you argued. But they had to see the empty tomb first to believe because as the following verse says they didn't understand the scripture that prophesies Jesus's resurrection. The implication is had they understood the scriptures they wouldn't have needed the corroboration of the empty tomb. Kabane52 will have to revise his beliefs about whether a first-century Jew would come to believe in a resurrection on the basis of an empty tomb if he regards this passage as historical.


Finis,
ELB

[lost_layman]

Resurrections, Resuscitations, Rumors, and the Righteous

One point tehknologik made was that the disciples were preconditioned for a hallucination of the resurrected Jesus because he had explicitly foretold it. The gospels (with the exception of Matthew, as seen above) claim the disciples did not understand the foretellings because the resurrection language Jesus deployed would have been understood as reference to the 'vindication of Israel'...that's the contention of Kabane52 anyway. Tehknologik countered that when John the Baptist was killed a rumor spread embroiling Herod also that he was the revivificated Jesus performing miracles. So the disciples understood or would have understood historically the language of resurrection Jesus used to foretell his coming back to life three days after being executed by the authorities. At this juncture Kabane52 cited the heavyweight N. T. Wright, arguing that a Second Temple Jew would have understood Jesus merely as a resuscitated John, not as the transformed, immortal body of John that would arise at the end of the world in the general resurrection. Even if this were true it entirely misses the point. The point is the disciples would have leastways comprehended Jesus's predictions of his resurrection as his resuscitation, (I allow this distinction only for argument's sake) and as tehknologik said, nothing so remote as the 'vindication of Israel'. Jesus makes himself the referent of his own prophecies. (But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee) There's simply no chance they could have interpreted it any vaguer. But read this excerpt from what Wright says as quoted by Kabane52:

We should not, I think, regard Herod and his court as the most accurate indicators of mainstream second-Temple Jewish belief, even if it is true that the Pharisees and Herodians made common cause on a couple of occasions, we may assume that they did not sit down and discuss the finer points of proto-rabbinic theology.

Granting that such a thing we can call 'second-Temple Jewish belief' pervaded this era and that Wright can pinpoint what the makeup of this 'belief' is, Herod only caught wind of this from popular will-o-the-wisp, if the gospels are believed. He did not deduce this himself, and more pertinently, among those promulgating the rumor were doubtlessly no less than Second Temple Jews themselves. That Herod wouldn't have espoused the 'finer points of proto-rabbinic theology' is a righteous observation, but this would also hold true for the general populace, including and especially the low-caste rabble who were Jesus's companions. (cf. Ac iv.13 // Jn vii.15 & 49) When tehknologik mentions the many obscure sects in the Judaism of the period, Kabane52 uncharitably derides him for supposedly assuming that Jesus selected his twelve disciples from the same obscure sect. That doesn't seem to have been the point, but ironically Kabane52 himself implies he assumes instead that all of Jesus's disciples were trained automata of Pharisaism for whom it was impossible to depart a jot from whatever fictive idea of 'normative' Jewish belief he is presupposing. As an aside, whether John the Baptist's 'resuscitation' as Jesus was somatic instead of spiritual, (a point Wright makes) it is still perplexing for the defender of rigid categories of resurrection or other tenets of 'normative Judaism' that Herod had ready access to the Baptist's head, that his corpse was buried by John's own disciples in a presumably known location (Mk vi.29), and yet Herod was still swept away in the hearsay. Strikingly, there is no record of anyone exhuming the body and bringing it forward to contain and ultimately quell the rumor. Kabane52 must acknowledge this or otherwise disregard the account as non-historical.

When approaching the issue of Jesus's death, Kabane52 paraphrases Wright saying: 'when your messiah died, you either abandoned any messianic aspirations or you got yourself a new messiah'. This was in response to tehknologik's contention that Jesus would have been seen as an innocent man put to death who would be (in order to preserve and perpetuate his teachings) subsequently vindicated by God, a notion which, despite Kabane's disapproval, Wright already conceded when addressing Herod in Kabane52's quote (post #4) was a feasible, current idea in Judaism. Granting Jesus's messianic self-consciousness for argument's sake, tehknologik's argument respecting Jesus's moral teachings stands to reason...notwithstanding Kabane52's objections. Again summoning Wright's authority, Kabane52 demurs: 'the focus of his ministry was that he was going to usher in the Kingdom of God.' This is true, but an absolutely essential component to 'ushering in the kingdom of God' was the requisite morality to be admitted into it on the day of judgment. One need only read the Sermon on the Mount, and that should be enough for proof. Kabane52 also neglects the overriding factor of the content Jesus's and John the Baptist's apocalyptic preaching. Their worldview declared complete social upheaval and transposition: the first--the worldly authorities, the rich, etc., all ruled by Satan (cf. Mt iv.8-9)--would be last, and the last--men like the disciples--would be first. (see Mk x.31) But the downcast and marginalized might suffer first. (e.g. Mk xiii.9) The disciples' fidelity to these teachings would help dissolve any despondency over the manner of Jesus's death, and this blasts Kabane52's sweeping generalization of the unfortunate fate of all would-be messiahs.


Finis,
ELB

[Mansoor_ali]

Did Jesus rise from the dead?

From the historical point of view i donot think so.Jewish writer Philo is completely silent on Jesus’ resurrection.Philo lived during Jesus’ mission, he was alive when Jesus was crucified, he was alive when Jesus resurrected.

He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place -- when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. (John Remsburg, The Christ)

The resurrection is a hoax because the historians failed to mention it. Surely, if the resurrection of Jesus occurred, the writer Philo Judaeus (50 C.E.) and others would have recorded it.

[Makarios]

Did Jesus rise from the dead?

From the historical point of view i donot think so.Jewish writer Philo is completely silent on Jesus’ resurrection.Philo lived during Jesus’ mission, he was alive when Jesus was crucified, he was alive when Jesus resurrected.

He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place -- when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. (John Remsburg, The Christ)

The resurrection is a hoax because the historians failed to mention it. Surely, if the resurrection of Jesus occurred, the writer Philo Judaeus (50 C.E.) and others would have recorded it.

Maybe they didn't know about it, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. This is just an argument from silence, and as such is worthless.

[tehknologik]

Maybe they didn't know about it, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. This is just an argument from silence, and as such is worthless.

You may be interested in what Peter Kirby has to say regarding arguments from silence:

I would maintain that there are better arguments from silence and worse arguments from silence. Why do I think that there are some better than others? I will give two examples. Suppose I claim that I sneezed at 5:03 pm PST on December 1, 2000 while in the kitchen of my Orange County home. You search the New York Times for December 2 and find no record of this incident. That is a very bad argument from silence. Now suppose instead I claim that the sky appeared hot pink from any point on Earth for a full minute at 5:03 pm PST on December 1, 2000. You search two hundred newspapers for December 2 and find no record of this incident. That is a very good argument from silence.

So not all arguments from silence are "worthless" as you say. While arguments from silence don't always prove the negative, they often can provide sound foundation for reasonable doubt.

[Hooks]

So not all arguments from silence are "worthless" as you say. While arguments from silence don't always prove the negative, they often can provide sound foundation for reasonable doubt.

I went to the park. They were executing someone who friends of mine had supper with. This dude, I'm telling you, was set up! Those people think they are so high and mighty. Later his tomb was empty. . . .

Oh yeah, some people saw him walking around after he died. I forgot to mention that.

I forgot because I was helping to clean up the mess at the graveyard where the zombies were flying around. . . I did mention that, right? I didn't. What about the earthquake? No. Wow! I keep forgetting stuff. Oh, and I forgot to the angels too, but that's no big deal, since everyone has seen an angel at one time or another. How about those flame hats at the Pentacost? Well I had to get the Gospel to press before that, sop you cannot blame me for that. Oh wait, it was years later? Okay, sue me. I didn't mention he went to Gallilee too? Who cares, it makes more sense if our stories don't match.


-
-
-
In this case, perhaps you might want to consider changing your statement to :

While arguments from silence don't always prove the negative, they often can provide sound enough foundation to conclude that certain belief is foolish, and not based in reason and evidence.

[disciple100]

I went to the park. They were executing someone who friends of mine had supper with. This dude, I'm telling you, was set up! Those people think they are so high and mighty. Later his tomb was empty. . . .

Oh yeah, some people saw him walking around after he died. I forgot to mention that.

I forgot because I was helping to clean up the mess at the graveyard where the zombies were flying around. . . I did mention that, right? I didn't. What about the earthquake? No. Wow! I keep forgetting stuff. Oh, and I forgot to the angels too, but that's no big deal, since everyone has seen an angel at one time or another. How about those flame hats at the Pentacost? Well I had to get the Gospel to press before that, sop you cannot blame me for that. Oh wait, it was years later? Okay, sue me. I didn't mention he went to Gallilee too? Who cares, it makes more sense if our stories don't match.


-
-
-
In this case, perhaps you might want to consider changing your statement to :

While arguments from silence don't always prove the negative, they often can provide sound enough foundation to conclude that certain belief is foolish, and not based in reason and evidence.

Wow bro, so, like, everyone was a stoned surfer dude back then? Far out, man......

[Hooks]

Wow bro, so, like, everyone was a stoned surfer dude back then? Far out, man......

I would have a much easier time believing Christian claims if we knew first century palestinians were all stoned. After all, how else do you explain all but one Gospel writer neglecting to mention the zombies flying around, which Matthew reported? How did Mark forget to mention that people saw Jesus in the flesh after his tomb was found empty? Etc. etc.

[Mikhail]

I would have a much easier time believing Christian claims if we knew first century palestinians were all stoned. After all, how else do you explain all but one Gospel writer neglecting to mention the zombies flying around, which Matthew reported? How did Mark forget to mention that people saw Jesus in the flesh after his tomb was found empty? Etc. etc.

Who were the palestinians in the first century?

[papas]

I would have a much easier time believing Christian claims if we knew first century palestinians were all stoned. After all, how else do you explain all but one Gospel writer neglecting to mention the zombies flying around, which Matthew reported? How did Mark forget to mention that people saw Jesus in the flesh after his tomb was found empty? Etc. etc.

He didn't, resurrection appearances are clearly expected in Mark 16:7. He didn't mention the appearances for the literary effect of 16.8; that's how he wanted to end the story with the well known to his audience Resurrection and appearances.