Question about the Resurrection

[seanD]

A lot of "Great minds" have also embraced Islam and Buddhism. Einstein was a Pantheist. Do you believe there's sufficient evidence for those world views, too?

ETA: Hey, Mitt Romney is a pretty smart guy! I guess we should all believe Joseph Smith was the greatest man that ever lived and that Native Americans are lost Jews, then.

The point I think MM was making is that we all have choice. Imagine a hypothetical scenario where we are all standing before God during judgment. There won't be any excuse for the unbeliever to use. If you try and argue that you were too intelligent to believe, then God will show you countless numbers that were just as intelligent who did believe. If you argue that he didn't provide enough evidence, once again, he'll show you the numbers of people who were convinced of the evidence, and even people who were convinced with even less evidence, and on and on.

[Mountain Man]

A lot of "Great minds" have also embraced Islam and Buddhism. Einstein was a Pantheist. Do you believe there's sufficient evidence for those world views, too?

ETA: Hey, Mitt Romney is a pretty smart guy! I guess we should all believe Joseph Smith was the greatest man that ever lived and that Native Americans are lost Jews, then.

Yeah, I didn't think you would answer the question. Predictable and stupid are not a flattering combination.

[Reality Check]

The point I think MM was making is that we all have choice. Imagine a hypothetical scenario where we are all standing before God during judgment. There won't be any excuse for the unbeliever to use. If you try and argue that you were too intelligent to believe, then God will show you countless numbers that were just as intelligent who did believe. If you argue that he didn't provide enough evidence, once again, he'll show you the numbers of people who were convinced of the evidence, and even people who were convinced with even less evidence, and on and on.

And there are even more intelligent Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims and Pantheists who thought that THEIR belief system provided the most and best evidence.

And condemning someone to eternal damnation because they demanded a higher standard of evidence is downright terrifying and tyrannical behavior. Is this the God you worship?

What I would really say though is "YOU made me so I could not believe." Don't you think there are people like that? They just aren't wired for it? Well, if God exists, he made them that way. Again, terrifying thought that the universe would be ruled by a monster like that.

[Andius]

PAUL!? Whatever. He's not exactly Philo of Alexandria, and it's pretty clear in his letters he's a rather disturbed individual that believes the end times are just around the corner.

Nice assertion. How is Paul a disturbed individual in the first place?

He can be considered an intellectual peer of Philo of Alexandria. Hailing from Tarsus, the city had a high status to constantly spew out learned men. Given how Paul is highly versed in Roman and Jewish Jurisprudence, he was the ancient equivalent of a lawyer of sorts, ergo, a scholar.

Not to mention his writing style actually matches the quality of someone like Philo, except that whilst Philo's strength was in philosophy, Paul was a master of Law, using lots of legal language. Henceforth, he IS a scholar. (Yes, even those involved in the trade of Jurisprudence can be scholars).

For that matter why not appear to Tacitus later on and dictate a Gospel to him? Why didn't God get a major historian to write a Gospel?

BAHAHAHAHA, Your actually citing a posteriori opinions as an argument, are you serious!? XD

What difference would a major historian would have made? Since when is the greatness of a historian a legitimate criteria to transmit historical truth? Your attempt to hide behind a populist excuse is laughable.

Your grasp in how scholars handle history is a joke. For starters, serious historians ultimately care for one thing only, was so so individual telling the truth? I, like them, will have little concern how great or small a historian is, except in their own subjective opinions. If you actually took history seriously, populist opinion of who's great, makes for a laughable criteria on who to trust in historic narrative.

So yeah, even if it was written by Tacitus, it would not have made it more or less credible. Only, one thing matters did, or did he not report the truth?

Then again, you are far too predictable. You would have found a way to discredit Tacitus himself if he did report the Resurrection of Christ.

[Reality Check]

PLEASE. Paul had some "issues" to put it lightly. He thought that the end of the world was near, for ***** sake. How is he any different from any other of the cult leaders that have predicted the same (as recently as May 22nd this year?) Not to mention his prejudice against those on the GLBT spectrum and women.

Want some more examples of Paul having a few screws loose? I can provide them.

[nightbringer]

lol

[Reality Check]

lol

That's probably how you would respond today to a cult leader proclaiming that he saw a risen dead man, and who was proclaiming the end of the world and damnation for everyone but those in his cult, right? Just another crazy cult!

Well, that's pretty much Paul.

[Scrawly]

And there are even more intelligent Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims and Pantheists who thought that THEIR belief system provided the most and best evidence.

And condemning someone to eternal damnation because they demanded a higher standard of evidence is downright terrifying and tyrannical behavior. Is this the God you worship?

What I would really say though is "YOU made me so I could not believe." Don't you think there are people like that? They just aren't wired for it? Well, if God exists, he made them that way. Again, terrifying thought that the universe would be ruled by a monster like that.

I think you might be lashing out at a caricature of hell - a fiery pit in which people are scrambling to get out of whilst God is laughing and pointing down at them. The Biblical view is quite the opposite, indeed, C.S Lewis seemed to have grasped this when he stated: "The doors of hell will be locked from the inside."

[Mountain Man]

For that matter why not appear to Tacitus later on and dictate a Gospel to him? Why didn't God get a major historian to write a Gospel?

"Tacticus? A reliable historian? You're serious. The guy who claimed that his gospel was dictated to him by an invisible sky-daddy? LOL!"

Please, tell me that idiot skeptics wouldn't be making that exact argument if things had happened as you suggest.

[Mountain Man]

And condemning someone to eternal damnation because they demanded a higher standard of evidence is downright terrifying and tyrannical behavior.

You still haven't answered my question: What is your basis for demanding that God provide you with evidence other than what he has provided to the majority of humans throughout history?

[Andius]

PLEASE. Paul had some "issues" to put it lightly. He thought that the end of the world was near, for ***** sake.

Self-censorship, desire to use explicitly hatefull language. I think I may have struck a chord.

End of the world? Son, English is my second language, yet I can't help the feeling my grasp of English reading comprehension is far superior to yours (and your comprehension of other languages no doubt will be most lax).

First of all. There is not one single verse that declares an end of the world in Paul's writ, at least, not in the sense of the destruction of this World (Get your nose out of those 2012 hypes). Paul expected more an end of the skema (greek word, for theme, pattern), and end of the current age if you will. And in the case of a preterist such as yours truly, such time did come to an end precisely at 70 A.D. marked by the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.

Secondly. Ever heard of, language of imminence? Paul did not have the expectation that Jesus would return at a fixed time, it was more a matter of "He may come at any moment". It is no different from when my Patron Board of Directors tell me that an Auditor is on his way to inspect my work and results in administering their property. That's language of imminence for you.

How is he any different from any other of the cult leaders that have predicted the same (as recently as May 22nd this year?)

The same?? BAHAHAHAHA, yeah... sure... and apple and oranges are now identical. I wouldn't be surprised if you used to believe the same thing those nutcases believed.

See above. Language of Imminence, and difference of Eschatological Nature (The May 22 nut cases were expecting a huge holler with the sound of trumpets. Paul's expectative was more in the lines of THEME and TIME).

Not to mention his prejudice against those on the GLBT spectrum and women.

What on Earth is GLBT, don't you mean LGBT? (thanks for demonstrating your inferior handling of the English language... )

Firstly, on what objective basis can you even say homosexuality is a permissive thing in the first place? Far too attached to the irrational dogmas perhaps? You as a libertarian, of all people, should comprehend that in organizations of any kind, they reserve the right as to what to love and what to hate, ergo, a right to be whatever it is you please to be prejudiced against. You as a libertarian, have no basis or ground to tell another person or organization on what they can or can't hold a prejudice. So much for being a lover of freedom, I would not be surprised if you actually resorted to the Nanny State as a pretext to lobby your own vaunted morality, since you are so fond in telling people what is right and wrong.

Secondly. You fail in comprehending ancient Roman rhetoric. The so called misogynist verses of Paul, are in truth, Paul citing opponents that fought to deny women in ecclesiastical functions. In truth, Paul actually sought to end such prejudices (why else in other verses, he places men and women on equal footing?). Once again, you fail in reading comprehension. But do try to show me these so called verses where Paul discriminates women, your charge first, your evidence please.

Want some more examples of Paul having a few screws loose? I can provide them.

I am just dying to see them sweetheart.

[seanD]

And there are even more intelligent Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims and Pantheists who thought that THEIR belief system provided the most and best evidence.

And condemning someone to eternal damnation because they demanded a higher standard of evidence is downright terrifying and tyrannical behavior. Is this the God you worship?

What I would really say though is "YOU made me so I could not believe." Don't you think there are people like that? They just aren't wired for it? Well, if God exists, he made them that way. Again, terrifying thought that the universe would be ruled by a monster like that.

Neither of the above apply to you, going by your Tweb identification.

If you believe God is a monster, and whether Christianity turns out to be true or not, you won't have deal with him for all eternity, so problem solved?

[Tassman]

If you want to claim that there not being "overwhelming" or maximal evidence for the resurrection counts against there even being sufficient evidence then you need to put forward an argument as to why that it is so. Lay it out, it would be a delight to behold.

Re the bolded, there is NO “overwhelming or maximal evidence”. As well, there is confusion in the NT re what is actually meant by “resurrection” in the first place.

The earliest accounts are not congruent with the later gospel accounts. Paul, the earliest, never records the gospel version. Paul only says Jesus was “crucified for the sins of mankind” and he “rose from the dead”. For Paul there were no empty tomb and no physical body which could eat fish and, after a bit, ascend into heaven. Paul indicates nothing of an ascension that was separate from Jesus' resurrection. Apologists argue that it is implied, but it is not specified.

What IS specified is that for Paul the body of Jesus who died was a weak, perishable one, whereas the Jesus who rose from the dead was imperishable, glorified, and spiritual. The notion of Jesus’ “physical resurrection” developed over a period of time.

Thus, Paul contradicts the gospels on the core event of Christianity, namely the resurrection. And, given that Paul is the earlier writer, we can reasonably assume he is relaying the earliest tradition, and that the later gospel accounts comprise an evolving, non-eyewitness, embellished oral tradition.

[RBerman]

Re the bolded, there is NO “overwhelming or maximal evidence”. As well, there is confusion in the NT re what is actually meant by “resurrection” in the first place.

The earliest accounts are not congruent with the later gospel accounts. Paul, the earliest, never records the gospel version. Paul only says Jesus was “crucified for the sins of mankind” and he “rose from the dead”. For Paul there were no empty tomb and no physical body which could eat fish and, after a bit, ascend into heaven. Paul indicates nothing of an ascension that was separate from Jesus' resurrection. Apologists argue that it is implied, but it is not specified.

What IS specified is that for Paul the body of Jesus who died was a weak, perishable one, whereas the Jesus who rose from the dead was imperishable, glorified, and spiritual. The notion of Jesus’ “physical resurrection” developed over a period of time.

Thus, Paul contradicts the gospels on the core event of Christianity, namely the resurrection. And, given that Paul is the earlier writer, we can reasonably assume he is relaying the earliest tradition, and that the later gospel accounts comprise an evolving, non-eyewitness, embellished oral tradition.

You overstate the case to say that, "For Paul there was no empty tomb" and "Paul thus contradicts the gospel." Paul doesn't address the empty tomb either way, so it's not accurate to say that for him "there was no empty tomb." Similarly, nothing Paul says contradicts the details of the gospel resurrection accounts. He addresses the meaning of the resurrection rather than the history. That's not contradiction; it's explanation.

[nightbringer]

Re the bolded, there is NO “overwhelming or maximal evidence”.

I never said there was. There certainly isn't maximal evidence for the resurrection and whether or not the evidence is overwhelming is probably person-specific.

My point was that RC shouldn't fool himself into thinking that it being weird that the risen Jesus didn't appear to X or do Y somehow demonstrates that there isn't sufficient evidence for the historian qua historian to believe in the resurrection. To make that sort of link he needs to argue that the claim "Jesus rose from the dead" or "God rose Jesus from the dead" entails, or makes highly probable, these occurrences that he thinks are importantly lacking. He hasn't made such a case, and I doubt he can.