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

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Does lying make you feel good Sparky? If there were an actual "refutation" then why don't you give a specific link to the page instead of just
linking to a thread over 200 pages long? You expect the person to sift through all that for a refutation?

[Sparko]

If there were an actual "refutation" then why don't you give a specific link to the page instead of just
linking to a thread over 200 pages long? You expect the person to sift through all that for a refutation?

Why so you can drag the argument into this thread? Juice refuted you several times as I recall. The reason there are over 200 pages is because you (and Gary) basically kept "resurrecting" the same old argument no matter what. You can't accept a refutation and just started a new thread. If your argument was so persuasive, why didn't you convince even one Christian in over 200 pages????

[The Pixie]

Aside from the refusal to acknowledge what words actually signify, do you mean? Or disallowing the evidence available from any source other than those that he approves? And even then, he hasn't been able to demonstrate that "he was raised" "he lives" "he recovered" mean anything other than what they say (except by dint of the aforementioned refusal.) His entire argument relies on disallowing even evidence available from within the scant body of text that he does acknowledge.
The only evidence (so called) that he can provide in support of his position is "Paul saw Christ in a vision therefore everyone who saw Christ saw him in a vision." The claim is irrational ... "I saw Richard Dawkins on television, therefore everyone who saw Richard Dawkins saw him on television." Even if his argument had a skerrick of validity, it would fail to support the contention that Christ was not raised bodily from the dead.
Even if he could demonstrate that the words don't mean what they say, there remains the fact that Paul's experience was not only post resurrection but post ascension. At least some of the other experiences were post resurrection and pre-ascension. Paul saw the resurrected Christ in heaven, others saw the resurrected Christ on Earth (and the TV analogy holds even more thoroughly because of it). But that evidence will be disallowed because Paul doesn't mention them in his letters to people who are well familiar with the basics. It is as if people are expected to rehash basic information that they know is well familiar to their audience in letters that are not relevant to the basics.

The claim was made that RhinestoneCowboy had been "soundly refuted". I asked for links to where that happened. Why did you bother to reply, but fail to provide those links?

[Sparko]

The claim was made that RhinestoneCowboy had been "soundly refuted". I asked for links to where that happened. Why did you bother to reply, but fail to provide those links?

I gave you a link to the combined thread of all of Rhinestone's threads on the topic where he was refuted over and over and over and over and over for hundreds of pages - happy hunting.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Why so you can drag the argument into this thread? Juice refuted you several times as I recall. The reason there are over 200 pages is because you (and Gary) basically kept "resurrecting" the same old argument no matter what. You can't accept a refutation and just started a new thread. If your argument was so persuasive, why didn't you convince even one Christian in over 200 pages????

If there were an actual "refutation" then you could actually explain it in your own words instead of just link dropping. Juice tried and failed and your posts were just an immature embarrassment.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Here is an updated version of the argument along with responses to common objections:

In the earliest witness to the Resurrection, 1 Cor 15:5-8, Paul basically says "Jesus appeared to them and he appeared to me, too." No distinction in nature is provided. Paul's is just last in sequence. The verb for "appeared" Paul uses is ὤφθη Greek ōphthē which was commonly used in the Septuagint and other Greek writings to refer to "spiritually" seeing/experiencing something. It did not necessarily denote a physical sighting with the eyes.

Interestingly enough, Paul says his experience was an "inner revelation" in Gal. 1:12-16, implies that the Risen Jesus was experienced through "visions and revelations" in 2 Cor 12:1, was "known through revelation and the scriptures" - Rom. 16:25-26, and his "mystery was made known through revelation" - Eph. 3:3-5. Paul's notion of the Risen Jesus seems to be purely spiritual/mystical. "Visions" and "revelations" are the only ways Paul says the Risen Jesus was experienced. The later author of Acts calls Paul's experience a "vision from heaven" involving a bright light and a voice - Acts 26:19.

So since the appearance to Paul was some sort of a "spiritual vision" and he places it in the same list as the other "appearances" without a distinction in 1 Cor 15:5-8, it can be inferred the others had spiritual visions as well. These were not the physical encounters that the later Gospels describe. Paul nowhere corroborates an empty tomb or anything like what Luke and John depict in their resurrection reports. Since Paul is trying to convince the Corinthians that there was "a resurrection of the dead" - 1 Cor 15:12-13 and explain "with what type of body do they come?" - v. 35, it's significant that he doesn't mention the empty tomb as that would have greatly helped his argument. This is striking because Paul is the earliest and only firsthand source so any attempt to read in the later physical appearances from the Gospels into Paul's letters is necessarily anachronistic and thus a fallacious way to reconstruct history. The gospels are not firsthand reports nor do they contain eyewitness testimony.

To provide a good overview of the majority opinion about the Gospels, the Oxford Annotated Bible (a compilation of multiple scholars summarizing dominant scholarly trends for the last 150 years) states (pg. 1744):

https://celsus.blog/2013/12/17/why-s...f-the-gospels/

Now let's compare the earliest and only firsthand source (Paul) with how the story evolves over time. Here are the sources in order according to consensus dating:

Paul c. 50 CE says the Risen Jesus was experienced through visions and revelations. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't.

Mark c. 70 CE introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one.

Matthew c. 80 CE has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other source from the time period.

Luke 85-95 CE has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while they all watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports.

John 90-110 CE Jesus can now walk through walls and has the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus gets poked. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development.

As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as a legend that grew in the telling rather than actual history. None of the resurrection reports in the Gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are nowhere even hinted at in the earliest ones. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! So upon critically examining the evidence we should conclude that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and not the ever changing stories in the gospels.

I would argue that the tendency of depicting Jesus more "physical" can be explained by Greco-Roman influence. After Paul's mystical/spiritual Jewish Jesus made it's way to the gentiles, they took the story and ran with it, turning him into an immortal Greco-Roman god over time. Pages 141-181 give a good overview https://books.google.com/books?id=tQ...page&q&f=false

Common objections:

1. "Hallucinations don't explain the resurrection."

It's important to note here that the word "hallucination" isn't found in our Biblical texts. That is a modern word that we import on ancient culture. The Biblical texts use the words "vision" and "revelation." "Second Temple Judaism was a visionary culture, in which people believed that people saw appearances of God and angels, and had visions and dreams in which God and angels appeared to them." https://bulletin.equinoxpub.com/2011...-resurrection/ There are famous visions in Ezekiel, Isaiah, Daniel, 1 Enoch, etc that would have been well known to the Jews in Jesus' day so calling the appearances of Jesus "visions" would not be foreign considering the cultural background. Even in the NT there are plenty of visions mentioned. Of course, these days it's quite difficult to take anyone's spiritual visionary experience seriously. This becomes immediately obvious when apologists vehemently argue against the notion that the appearances of Jesus were just mere visions (obviously they don't take visions seriously either which is ironic considering both the OT and NT have numerous passages where people experience "visions"). Unfortunately, that's what the earliest source for Jesus' resurrection says they were and the Jewish background provides a foundation for these type of beliefs to arise.

2. "Resurrection was always physical, meaning it involved bringing corpses back to life."

This is false. Jewish belief in resurrection was actually quite diverse. A resurrection had no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty. Upon actually investigating the Jewish sources that mention resurrection it becomes immediately apparent that:

(a) There are very few sources that even mention it.

and

(b) There are some sources which exclude the resurrection of the body - Jubilees 23:31, 1 Enoch 103-104 and some that are ambiguous in regards to what happens to the physical body - Daniel 12.

See pages 31-40 for an overview of the sources.
https://books.google.com/books?id=z-...page&q&f=false

3. "Paul says Jesus had a body."

Paul says there are different "types" of bodies in 1 Cor 15:40-44, 2 Cor 5:1-4. There are those that are earthly/natural and those that are heavenly/spiritual. Josephus tells us that the Pharisees believed their souls would be "removed" into "other" bodies Jewish War 2.162. These "other/spiritual bodies" were in heaven which would explain why Paul says Jesus was experienced through visions and not physical interactions with a formerly dead corpse that had returned to life on earth. So even if the Resurrected Jesus "had a body" of some sort it does not follow that this body was believed to have been on earth at all. When Paul says "Jesus was raised" he meant "raised straight to heaven" regardless of bodily form.

[Sparko]

Rhinestone, please drop it. Besides, even if your argument was correct, how is that an argument for ATHEISM? Which is the topic of this thread. You are arguing for a spiritual resurrection which still involves the supernatural and God. utter fail.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Rhinestone, please drop it. Besides, even if your argument was correct, how is that an argument for ATHEISM? Which is the topic of this thread. You are arguing for a spiritual resurrection which still involves the supernatural and God. utter fail.

Because visions are more plausibly explained by natural means. I suppose a gnostic view is still compatible with the argument though but I doubt anyone here would seriously consider taking that view.

[Sparko]

Because visions are more plausibly explained by natural means. I suppose a gnostic view is still compatible with the argument though but I doubt anyone here would seriously consider taking that view.

but you are arguing that Paul was just fine with a spiritual resurrection in a culture that believed in a physical one and went on to teach a spiritual resurrection.

Now if you argued that Paul (and everyone else who say Jesus after the resurrection) was hallucinating but THOUGHT they saw a physical body, that would at least make sense as an argument for atheism, (but still would not explain a mass hallucination.) But yours doesn't.

Your dumbass argument has not convinced even ONE person. Yet you persist. I can safely say that your argument is not among the "best" arguments for atheism.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

but you are arguing that Paul was just fine with a spiritual resurrection in a culture that believed in a physical one and went on to teach a spiritual resurrection.

Now if you argued that Paul (and everyone else who say Jesus after the resurrection) was hallucinating but THOUGHT they saw a physical body, that would at least make sense as an argument for atheism, (but still would not explain a mass hallucination.) But yours doesn't.

Your dumbass argument has not convinced even ONE person. Yet you persist. I can safely say that your argument is not among the "best" arguments for atheism.

Gosh, you aren't very familiar with the argument or Jewish views at all. I have an updated version which takes your objections into account on the previous page.

You're being very rude to me. It's fine if you don't agree with the argument but you really shouldn't let the Internet affect you like this. Take a chill pill.

[Sparko]

Gosh, you aren't very familiar with the argument or Jewish views at all. I have an updated version which takes your objections into account on the previous page.

You're being very rude to me. It's fine if you don't agree with the argument but you really shouldn't let the Internet affect you like this. Take a chill pill.

I don't mean to be rude but after 200 pages of the same thing, over and over, with you not getting anywhere at all in convincing anyone, I am getting a bit frustrated seeing you continue on like a blind bull. I don't want to get into it again.

Your argument is horrible and is NOT worthy of "best" argument for atheism.

[JonathanL]

Your argument is horrible and is NOT worthy of "best" argument for atheism.

Understatement of the year right here.

[Sparko]

Can anyone else, after reading my updated version, actually explain why the argument fails? Surely there's something that can be said other than "it's horrible" or "you're argument hasn't convinced anyone" which aren't actual critiques at all, but rather, sound like lazy insults.

maybe nobody wants to be dragged back into that rabbit hole knowing nothing they say will change your mind?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Can anyone else, after reading my updated version, actually explain why the argument fails? Surely there's something that can be said other than "it's horrible" or "your argument hasn't convinced anyone" which are just lazy insults.

[The Pixie]

I gave you a link to the combined thread of all of Rhinestone's threads on the topic where he was refuted over and over and over and over and over for hundreds of pages - happy hunting.

Right, so a link to a thread with over 2000 posts. I am going to take that as a no then.