Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[Tassman]

Of course Ehrman, being an atheist, would not believe in the empty tomb, we are discussing what Paul and the early Christians believed.

The point is that there is no reference to an empty tomb in the earliest Christian writings about the resurrection, i.e. Paul’s 1 Cor 15 etc. One would have thought that such an occurrence warranted a mention. It would be a pretty mind-blowing event even in that gullible, superstitious era of supernatural wonders.

In fact, it took c.40 years to rate a mention. First in Mark’s gospel and then the subsequent gospels. Perhaps it just slipped Paul’s mind. OR perhaps it is an example of the embellishment of the Jesus story, which simply grew in the telling as the tradition was passed on from mouth to mouth.

[JimL]

Good grief! Even if there were extra biblical references for these miracles they would not qualify as historical evidence.

Well, certainly not if they were written 40-50 years after the alleged events by believers with an agenda. Don't you think if Jesus expected people to either believe or perish he would have come up with something better than to send out a few of his followers to tell complete strangers this extraordinary story of a man god who died and was resurrected. Think about it. Would you have believed it under those circumstances?

[carpedm9587]

Good grief! Even if there were extra biblical references for these miracles they would not qualify as historical evidence.

For miracles - you are correct. For the other two things I have been citing, you are not correct.

And that still does not change that you have no methodology/basis for the claim "this event actually happened" with respect to these three things. What I am seeing, Seer, is a man who so desperately needs to hold on to his POV that he is willing to cling to contradictory claims and special pleading in order to do so, all the while denying that he is doing so.

What I still can't figure out is if you are doing this intentionally, or are truly blind to the phenomenon.

[seer]

The point is that there is no reference to an empty tomb in the earliest Christian writings about the resurrection, i.e. Paul’s 1 Cor 15 etc. One would have thought that such an occurrence warranted a mention. It would be a pretty mind-blowing event even in that gullible, superstitious era of supernatural wonders.

In fact, it took c.40 years to rate a mention. First in Mark’s gospel and then the subsequent gospels. Perhaps it just slipped Paul’s mind. OR perhaps it is an example of the embellishment of the Jesus story, which simply grew in the telling as the tradition was passed on from mouth to mouth.

First, this was not what we were discussing which was - did Paul and the early Christians believe that Christ's physical body was raised. According to Ehrman yes.

[seer]

For miracles - you are correct. For the other two things I have been citing, you are not correct.

And that still does not change that you have no methodology/basis for the claim "this event actually happened" with respect to these three things. What I am seeing, Seer, is a man who so desperately needs to hold on to his POV that he is willing to cling to contradictory claims and special pleading in order to do so, all the while denying that he is doing so.

What I still can't figure out is if you are doing this intentionally, or are truly blind to the phenomenon.

Carp, but the miracles, the resurrection and the claims to divinity are the central issues. If we were just taking about a man going around telling people to love one another. That he visited this town or that, most people would not have a problem seeing that as historically reasonable. And really Carp, don't call me desperate, and I won't call you a biased hypocritical hack. K?

[carpedm9587]

Carp, but the miracles, the resurrection and the claims to divinity are the central issues.

To you. The entire issue of "can we trust the NT as a historical source for information about the life of Jesus" is the central issue for me. There are three broad swaths of the NT claims about Jesus of Nazareth for which it is NOT an adequate resource for making historical claims, and they constitute the majority of what we think we know about Jesus of Nazareth.

If we were just taking about a man going around telling people to love one another. That he visited this town or that, most people would not have a problem seeing that as historically reasonable. And really Carp, don't call me desperate, and I won't call you a biased hypocritical hack. K?

Seer, I have long since abandoned any thought that you are going to do anything other than turn to poisoning the well in your exchanges, so I have no doubt that claims of hypocrite, disingenuous, and liar, as well as "nonsense," and "that's silly" and "that's ridiculous" will continue to flow from your typing fingers. It's what you do. You are in good company with MM, Sparko, Pix, Rogue, and Sean in that respect. It is your nom de plume.

And you will note I was speaking to the impression you leave. I do not know what is actually going on inside you. Only you can know that. But I can think of no reason for holding the contradictory positions you seem to hold quite easily, and then deny holding them. You are an intelligent person, AFAICT. But you are working so hard to avoid the reality of your position, while simultaneously acknowledging the reality of your position. It is...well...quite odd.

[seer]

To you. The entire issue of "can we trust the NT as a historical source for information about the life of Jesus" is the central issue for me. There are three broad swaths of the NT claims about Jesus of Nazareth for which it is NOT an adequate resource for making historical claims, and they constitute the majority of what we think we know about Jesus of Nazareth.



Seer, I have long since abandoned any thought that you are going to do anything other than turn to poisoning the well in your exchanges, so I have no doubt that claims of hypocrite, disingenuous, and liar, as well as "nonsense," and "that's silly" and "that's ridiculous" will continue to flow from your typing fingers. It's what you do. You are in good company with MM, Sparko, Pix, Rogue, and Sean in that respect. It is your nom de plume.

And you will note I was speaking to the impression you leave. I do not know what is actually going on inside you. Only you can know that. But I can think of no reason for holding the contradictory positions you seem to hold quite easily, and then deny holding them. You are an intelligent person, AFAICT. But you are working so hard to avoid the reality of your position, while simultaneously acknowledging the reality of your position. It is...well...quite odd.

Sorry Carp, I have been clear from the beginning. I take these writing at face value, and will do so until I have good evidence for doing otherwise. And as I explained I would do this for any ancient texts. Historically I don't think there is any question about what the early Christians believed about Christ. You even agreed. The only question is why they believed these things. Divine Sonship, miracle worker, resurrection, etc... Along with many ethical teachings that are found both in the Gospels and reflected in the Epistles. And these beliefs came out of the earliest known Christian community, populated by the original Apostles and disciples. So I see no good reason not to take these writing as generally accurate. And that is the reality of my position. Again, I'm done with you...

[carpedm9587]

Sorry Carp, I have been clear from the beginning. I take these writing at face value, and will do so until I have good evidence for doing otherwise.

Which is special pleading...as I've shown

And as I explained I would do this for any ancient texts.

If you do - then you defy the norm for classic historical methodology, where confidence in a claim is directly related to the number and quality of disparate, confirming, elements.

Historically I don't think there is any question about what the early Christians believed about Christ. You even agreed.

I do.

The only question is why they believed these things. Divine Sonship, miracle worker, resurrection, etc...

Which is exactly the question we lack the evidence to answer. All you have is assumptions.

Along with many ethical teachings that are found both in the Gospels and reflected in the Epistles. And these beliefs came out of the earliest known Christian community, populated by the original Apostles and disciples. So I see no good reason not to take these writing as generally accurate. And that is the reality of my position. Again, I'm done with you...

As you wish...

[Tassman]

First, this was not what we were discussing which was - did Paul and the early Christians believe that Christ's physical body was raised. According to Ehrman yes.

The early Christians believed in the resurrection of the body. Paul provided by far the earliest account of this belief - by c.20 years - in 1 Cor 15, where he stresses that Jesus rose from the dead in a “spiritual body” (which he considered “physical”) - as he personally experienced on the Damascus road. As well Jesus appeared to other people whom Paul recounts in the same passage. Namely: “He appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time…Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also”.

[seer]

The early Christians believed in the resurrection of the body. Paul provided by far the earliest account of this belief - by c.20 years - in 1 Cor 15, where he stresses that Jesus rose from the dead in a “spiritual body” (which he considered “physical”) - as he personally experienced on the Damascus road. As well Jesus appeared to other people whom Paul recounts in the same passage. Namely: “He appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time…Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also”.

No Tass, according to Ehrman the "spiritual" body was the physical body transformed. The physical body was not discarded. Paul would have agreed that the tomb was empty.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Which is special pleading...as I've shown

I don't know that I would necessarily categorize this as special pleading. Rather, it seems that he's coming to this view from a different set of criteria for belief. I don't believe that Seer is simply saying he accepts what the gospels recount for no reason at all. Rather, it would seem that his prior commitment to Christian beliefs makes belief in these particular accounts more reasonable. I can absolutely understand that position, and while we might then pursue whether or not his prior commitment to Christianity is itself reasonable, it would not really constitute a fallacy of special pleading.

However, if someone wants to convince a person who is NOT committed to those Christian beliefs of the historicity of the Resurrection, then he is adopting an extra burden of proof. Either he needs to use standard historiological methodology-- including methodological naturalism-- or else he must first convince the other person to accept the other beliefs which make the Resurrection more reasonable when used in addition to historiology. Similarly, if I was trying to convince a person that an event did NOT occur based solely on historiography, that would not be very convincing to a person who had been convinced that the event occurred on the basis of something OTHER than historiology.

This, I think, is where we are at odds. I see no more reason to think that Yahweh empowered Jesus of Nazareth to heal the blind, for example, than to think that the god Serapis empowered Emperor Vespasian to heal the blind (as recounted in Tacitus' History, Book 4, Chapter 81). However, someone who is already committed to the idea that Yahweh exists, that Yahweh is the only god that exists, and that Jesus is Yahweh's son (in whatever sense) would have reasons to believe the former over the latter. Alternatively, someone who is convinced that Serapis is real but not convinced that Jesus stood in any special relationship to divinity might incline to Tacitus' account while rejecting the gospels. Finally, someone who was convinced of both Serapis and Jesus special relationship with divinity (for example, Christian syncretists living in Alexandria who identified Serapis with Yahweh) might be willing to accept both.

[carpedm9587]

I don't know that I would necessarily categorize this as special pleading. Rather, it seems that he's coming to this view from a different set of criteria for belief. I don't believe that Seer is simply saying he accepts what the gospels recount for no reason at all. Rather, it would seem that his prior commitment to Christian beliefs makes belief in these particular accounts more reasonable. I can absolutely understand that position, and while we might then pursue whether or not his prior commitment to Christianity is itself reasonable, it would not really constitute a fallacy of special pleading.

However, if someone wants to convince a person who is NOT committed to those Christian beliefs of the historicity of the Resurrection, then he is adopting an extra burden of proof. Either he needs to use standard historiological methodology-- including methodological naturalism-- or else he must first convince the other person to accept the other beliefs which make the Resurrection more reasonable when used in addition to historiology. Similarly, if I was trying to convince a person that an event did NOT occur based solely on historiography, that would not be very convincing to a person who had been convinced that the event occurred on the basis of something OTHER than historiology.

This, I think, is where we are at odds. I see no more reason to think that Yahweh empowered Jesus of Nazareth to heal the blind, for example, than to think that the god Serapis empowered Emperor Vespasian to heal the blind (as recounted in Tacitus' History, Book 4, Chapter 81). However, someone who is already committed to the idea that Yahweh exists, that Yahweh is the only god that exists, and that Jesus is Yahweh's son (in whatever sense) would have reasons to believe the former over the latter. Alternatively, someone who is convinced that Serapis is real but not convinced that Jesus stood in any special relationship to divinity might incline to Tacitus' account while rejecting the gospels. Finally, someone who was convinced of both Serapis and Jesus special relationship with divinity (for example, Christian syncretists living in Alexandria who identified Serapis with Yahweh) might be willing to accept both.

Unfortunately, BP, his "prior commitment to Christian beliefs" is, according to him, rooted in the NT. So now we are into a somewhat circular argument, n'est ce pas?

[Tassman]

No Tass, according to Ehrman the "spiritual" body was the physical body transformed. The physical body was not discarded.

For Paul the resurrected Jesus was a ‘spiritual body’, it did not consist of material particles, so it matters little whether the original corpse still existed or not.

Ehrman’s blog says “it is frequently overlooked by casual observers of the early Christian tradition, that even though it was a universal belief among the first Christians that Jesus had been raised from the dead, there was not a uniformity of belief concerning what, exactly, that meant. In particular, early Christians had long and heated debates about the nature of the resurrection, specifically, the nature of the resurrected body”.

Paul would have agreed that the tomb was empty.

So, you believe but probably not. The earliest record is from Paul and he simply refers to the resurrected body as a ‘spiritual body’. It was physical certainly, but specifically not material in any sense. There is no reference to an empty tomb nor any of the other accounts of the resurrection event as described in the gospels - ALL of which date 20+ years after Paul and 40 years after the fact.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

For Paul the resurrected Jesus was a ‘spiritual body’, it did not consist of material particles

Actually, for Paul, it did. The transformed, resurrected body was a physical, material thing, in Paul's eyes. It just wasn't made up of the same stuff that makes up mortal bodies.

So, you believe but probably not. The earliest record is from Paul and he simply refers to the resurrected body as a ‘spiritual body’. It was physical certainly, but specifically not material in any sense.

The idea that something could be "physical certainly, but specifically not material" would have been entirely alien to anybody at that time. In fact, I'm not sure that I even understand what it's supposed to mean. Paul absolutely thought that the body of pneuma was material.

There is no reference to an empty tomb nor any of the other accounts of the resurrection event as described in the gospels - ALL of which date 20+ years after Paul and 40 years after the fact.

As Seer clarified later, whether or not Jesus was buried in a tomb, Paul certainly believed that Jesus had been buried. It is absolutely reasonable, therefore, to say that Paul would have expected that Jesus' body was no longer in this burial spot after the Resurrection.

[seer]

For Paul the resurrected Jesus was a ‘spiritual body’, it did not consist of material particles, so it matters little whether the original corpse still existed or not.

Ehrman’s blog says “it is frequently overlooked by casual observers of the early Christian tradition, that even though it was a universal belief among the first Christians that Jesus had been raised from the dead, there was not a uniformity of belief concerning what, exactly, that meant. In particular, early Christians had long and heated debates about the nature of the resurrection, specifically, the nature of the resurrected body”.
So, you believe but probably not. The earliest record is from Paul and he simply refers to the resurrected body as a ‘spiritual body’. It was physical certainly, but specifically not material in any sense. There is no reference to an empty tomb nor any of the other accounts of the resurrection event as described in the gospels - ALL of which date 20+ years after Paul and 40 years after the fact.

Please give a link to the Ehrman quote and is he contradicting himself?



My guess it that Paul does not talk about any traditions that indicated that women went to the tomb and found it empty because he had not heard these tradition. Paul certainly thought, and would have said, if asked, that the tomb was empty, because he definitely thought Jesus was physically raised from the dead. That is his entire argument in 1 Corinthians 15. His Corinthian opponents maintained that the resurrection of believers was a past spiritual event, and they had already experienced it. Paul’s purpose in 1 Corinthians is NOT, decidedly not, to argue that Jesus really was raised from the dead physically. That is the view that he accepts as OBVIOUS and AGREED UPON between himself and the Corinthians. I say this because some people have claimed that 1 Corinthians 15 is the chapter where Paul tries to prove Jesus resurrection. That’s not true at all. He USES the belief in Jesus’ physical resurrection – a belief he shares with his readers – in order to argue a different point, about their OWN resurrection. His point is that since Jesus’ resurrection was a bodily resurrection (which the Corinthians agree on), then their own resurrection will as well be bodily. Which means it is not simply spiritual. Which means they have not experienced it yet, whatever they may be saying or thinking. The entire argument, in other words, is predicated on an understanding that Jesus was physically raised from the dead. So why doesn’t Paul mention the empty tomb? Probably because he doesn’t know of the stories later found in the Gospels about it. Would he have said the tomb was empty? Certainly yes. But that would have been out of logical necessity, not because he had heard stories about Mary Magdalene going there on the third day.

https://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-view-of...n-for-members/