Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

I am not your friend; your use of the word renders it practically meaningless. Try matching up your earlier post with the passage, and see if you can figure out why they don't match. And he "opened their minds" by explaining the Old Testament prophecies concerning himself - verse 46 should clue you in on that. No "supernatural" mind-opening required!

"And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.[b] 41 While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering..."

What part of the English language am I not understanding in this passage, my non-friend? He appeared to them in the flesh. He spoke to them. He showed them his wounds, but still they were "disbelieving"?

[Sparko]

I have given my understanding of what the experts have said. I may not be as educated as you, that's very possible. Do you refuse to speak with everyone who disagrees with you and requests you to back up your assertions?

Just when they don't bother to know the subject they are arguing about. It is a waste of my time and your time.

[Sparko]

This is just false. For the most part, it's generally agreed they were written well after the destruction of the temple. What's stranger than anything else is that Paul never uses the gospels in his arguments with Jews or Gentiles, when it would have come in handy when trying to settle arguments. You'd think that if Paul had access to these documents or the traditions had started, he would have uses them as evidence. Not at all. None of the gospel elements are found in his early teachings, which is the reason most historians - including a lot of Christians - put them later than that.

When do you think Paul wrote his letters???

In the 50s and 60s. And Luke, his companion, wrote his gospel late, after Matthew and Mark. And he wrote Acts at about the same time. He never mentions the temple destruction in his gospel either, so it was written before 70AD.

Maybe Paul didn't have access to the gospels - it wasn't like you could run out to kinkos and make a copy. Or maybe he didn't bother mentioning them because those churches he wrote to already had them.

[Adrift]

I'm being 100% serious. Saul, Peter, John, Andrew, and the rest did not believe the evidence for the Resurrection, including the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances, even when they saw the evidence with their own eyes, yet you seem to believe that your "cumulative" evidence for this alleged 2,000 years old event should be believed by any reasonable person today!

No.

You either believe this claim using a huge leap of faith (otherwise known as "superstition") or you believe it because you want to since the belief makes you feel safe, at peace, and hopeful for the future. Bottom line: natural evidence did not convince Saul. Natural evidence and even supernatural evidence did not convince the apostles. It took extra-heavy duty "mind opening" powers to finally get these 12 guys to believe that a dead man had walked out of his grave.

I've already stated that a reasonable person can disbelieve the evidence based on their presuppositions, so I'm not sure where you're getting that I think otherwise. Furthermore, Paul did not have all of the evidence. If he did, he would not have been directed to Ananias' house after being blinded. He would not have spent several days with the disciples at Damascus, he would not have had to spend 15 days with Peter. And so what if the disciples had to see the resurrected Jesus to believe? They obviously didn't understand the scriptures or Jesus' own words concerning his resurrection to come. An early resurrection of a crucified man would have been the very last thing their religious and cultural upbringing would have prepared them for. Thanks to their testimony of the risen Jesus, the modern believer is not in that predicament.

[Sparko]

Wow!

I have shown that Saul had all the evidence Nick gave to me and yet did not find it convincing. Yet Nick and the rest of the Christians on this site think that I and other non-believing skeptics are close-minded for NOT believing the very same evidence that a Bible-literate, educated, first century Jew did not find convincing. And Nick's only explanation for Saul's nonbelief is that Saul knew MORE Jewish beliefs and customs than the average first century Jew converting to Christianity in his day!

So let me get this straight: If you knew MORE about the beliefs of ancient Judaism in the early days of Christianity, you were less likely to believe the Christian claims???

In other words then: ignorance is bliss!

My goodness, my Christian friends. Don't you see a massive problem with this argument??

Yes, I see a problem with your argument.

Who says Paul was there when Jesus was resurrected? Paul worked for the Jews as basically a bounty hunter. He had a bias all right. A bias to ignore the Christians and arrest them. He didn't sit down and let them preach to him. He had his mind set that they were heretics and a cult. His mind was made up just like yours is. He wasn't about to listen to them or convert. It took a vision from Jesus to convince him.

[One Bad Pig]

"And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.[b] 41 While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering..."

What part of the English language am I not understanding in this passage, my non-friend? He appeared to them in the flesh. He spoke to them. He showed them his wounds, but still they were "disbelieving"?

Have you ever had something so incredible happen to you that you wondered if were dreaming? If not, I feel sad for you.

ETA: You seem to be magnifying the word "disbelieving" while ignoring the surrounding words. That's not the correct way to evaluate a text.

[Sparko]

I'm being 100% serious. Saul, Peter, John, Andrew, and the rest did not believe the evidence for the Resurrection, including the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances, even when they saw the evidence with their own eyes

What??? Where the heck do you get that? They didn't believe UNTIL they saw the post-resurrection Jesus. They were not idiots. They thought someone had stolen Jesus' body at first, but then Jesus appeared to them and they believed.

sheesh. How ignorant ARE you? And by the way, are you and William friends? You show up at the same time, both claim to be agnostics, both make the same arguments, and both show you don't have any background on the subject.

[William]

Yeah, I caught on later, and edited my reply accordingly.



Scholars have all sorts ideas about whether or not Jesus was buried or where he was buried. Generally scholars seem to agree that he was either buried in Arimathea's tomb, or a common criminal grave in keeping with 1st century Jewish custom.



The sources are the Gospels and Paul's writings, and are precisely the sort of sources a historian would expect to have about Jesus' death and burial. There are no other sources a historian would expect to have about an itinerant Rabbi from Galilee with a relatively small cult following in 1st century Israel. The fact that these sources even exist, and exist until modern times is astounding. Most literary sources for ancient persons that have made it to present times come long after anyone who knew the person was dead and buried.



Here are the 12 historical facts that Habermas has pointed out that most critical scholars accept:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

Furthermore, most critical scholars accept that Jesus taught in parables, that he preached the Kingdom of God, that he was somehow affiliated with John the Baptist, that he was baptized by John, that he taught on the Son of Man, that he caused a ruckus at the temple, that he instituted the eucharist, that he had brothers, that he was from Galilee, and a number of other things besides.

All this aside, I just want to make it clear to you William that I'm not posting here to convince you to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I'm primarily posting to inform you what scholars accept as historical (and occasionally what apologists sometimes argue). I find the evidence for Christ's resurrection convincing. If you do not, then that's fine with me. Well, it's not fine with me. I'd rather you come to a reasonable faith, but I'm not at all interested in convincing someone to convert when it's clear they've more or less already made their mind up.

thanks. This will likely be my last comment, but I want to thank you and the others for letting me join you in the discussion. I greatly appreciate your tone and care with your responses - it is appreciated.

This comment is necessarily on topic, but i wanted to address your last remark, the one about already having my mind made up. This is something I think on a lot now, and I did when i was a christian. Let me say that several, if not all, believers here come across that way to me here and I only point that out as something for to all consider.

I hope I do not close my mind off to points, but from my perspective, what has been offered here is nothing I haven't heard or looked into before. This isnt a criticism or jab by any means, but i only say it to say this, that my mind is often made up when I look at things I've looked at before, and I'd suspect most of us are that way - but that doesn't mean that my mind is closed or that I am stubbornly refusing to look at simple truths.

I am not convinced by these things and that neither makes me wrong or right. However, let me say again that even if I'm wrong and you're right, it should should still make sense to every rational person why someone is not convinced by things in regard to the resurrection. Maybe I should believe it, maybe it's true (I think in no way that it is), but skepticism over such grandiose claims isn't and shouldn't be hard to fathom.

But, let me leave you with thanks again for the dialogue. It just seems we may have reached our limit of what we each have to offer, and i'd rather this not turn into an argument so I will leave you guys to it.

Peace and progress,

William

[Adrift]

I'm being 100% serious. Saul, Peter, John, Andrew, and the rest did not believe the evidence for the Resurrection, including the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances, even when they saw the evidence with their own eyes

What??? Where the heck do you get that? They didn't believe UNTIL they saw the post-resurrection Jesus.

Oh wow. Yeah. I didn't catch that skimming through his post when I replied to it.

[William]

What??? Where the heck do you get that? They didn't believe UNTIL they saw the post-resurrection Jesus. They were not idiots. They thought someone had stolen Jesus' body at first, but then Jesus appeared to them and they believed.

sheesh. How ignorant ARE you? And by the way, are you and William friends? You show up at the same time, both claim to be agnostics, both make the same arguments, and both show you don't have any background on the subject.

uh, I have run across Gary on another blog, but we don't know each other. There's no need to insult anyone. I was leaving the discussion, but I'm afraid I'm just not sure where I am lacking on background knowledge of the subject. I just don't agree with your conclusion. Doesn't mean I'm and idiot and doesn't necessarily mean that you are either.

Regardless of what the apostles finally saw to convince them, that same bit of evidence isn't here for any of us now, so really i find it moot, and not worth arguing over. Out of the stuff that's left, i personally find lacking and unconvincing. you find it compelling. at this point we've established there's really nothing else.

Take care and cheer up.

[Sparko]

William,

Thank you for being polite and I apologize if I sounded rude. It was not meant to be personal.

No one says you HAVE to believe the evidence. If that were the case, then there would be no unbelievers. I do hope you decide to study the evidence more closely and read a few books on the topic as Nick and Adrift have suggested and referenced.

God bless.

Sparko

[Adrift]

thanks. This will likely be my last comment, but I want to thank you and the others for letting me join you in the discussion. I greatly appreciate your tone and care with your responses - it is appreciated.

This comment is necessarily on topic, but i wanted to address your last remark, the one about already having my mind made up. This is something I think on a lot now, and I did when i was a christian. Let me say that several, if not all, believers here come across that way to me here and I only point that out as something for to all consider.

I hope I do not close my mind off to points, but from my perspective, what has been offered here is nothing I haven't heard or looked into before. This isnt a criticism or jab by any means, but i only say it to say this, that my mind is often made up when I look at things I've looked at before, and I'd suspect most of us are that way - but that doesn't mean that my mind is closed or that I am stubbornly refusing to look at simple truths.

I am not convinced by these things and that neither makes me wrong or right. However, let me say again that even if I'm wrong and you're right, it should should still make sense to every rational person why someone is not convinced by things in regard to the resurrection. Maybe I should believe it, maybe it's true (I think in no way that it is), but skepticism over such grandiose claims isn't and shouldn't be hard to fathom.

But, let me leave you with thanks again for the dialogue. It just seems we may have reached our limit of what we each have to offer, and i'd rather this not turn into an argument so I will leave you guys to it.

Peace and progress,

William

Okay, well it sounded to me that a bit of what was discussed was news to you, but I'll take your word for it that it wasn't.

Peace to you too William.

[Gary]

Adrift: So what you are saying is that the Resurrection story needed to mature before it became believable?

Just how much maturing? Enough maturing so that all the people who knew that there were no guards at the tomb (as only Matthew-the-whopper-teller claimed) are dead?

[Gary]

Yes, I see a problem with your argument.

Who says Paul was there when Jesus was resurrected? Paul worked for the Jews as basically a bounty hunter. He had a bias all right. A bias to ignore the Christians and arrest them. He didn't sit down and let them preach to him. He had his mind set that they were heretics and a cult. His mind was made up just like yours is. He wasn't about to listen to them or convert. It took a vision from Jesus to convince him.

Exactly! Educated people should not believe this supernatural tale unless we see Jesus in a vision first.

[Gary]

Have you ever had something so incredible happen to you that you wondered if were dreaming? If not, I feel sad for you.

ETA: You seem to be magnifying the word "disbelieving" while ignoring the surrounding words. That's not the correct way to evaluate a text.

If you cannot comprehend that even after seeing their dead friend talk to them and point out his wounds, they were still not believing that he wasn't a ghost (hallucination), I question your mastery of the English language.