@LeavingOnAJet Whether he was or not is irrelevant to the list in this video, which names people who supposedly interacted with a physically risen Jesus before he went back to heaven. No one includes Mark on that list.
The apostles did not believe Christ would die and resurect before the fact. Christ called Peter "Satan" because of this. Thomas became a true believer only when he saw and touch the risen Christ. So what is this cognitive dissonance all about? Christ's resurrection was not expected by the apostles. They were ready to go back to their previous lives before the resurrection. They were ready to accept the pain and reality of Christ's humiliating death before Christ's rose from the dead.
@csdr0 - Isn't the simple answer that Jesus, the disciples and the apostles all never existed? The New Testament is not history and none of this actually happened.
I mean, how can it be history when the ministry of Jesus is clearly based on the Jewish War and Titus. This means the entire religion of Jesus Christianity was invented by the Romans post 70 AD.
In the face of death of a love one could temporarily experience cognitive dissonance but time heals all pain & comes the acceptance of truth. The disciples would have accepted Christ's failure in time if indeed he did not resurrect from the dead. One of them would have told the world the truth and exposed the cognitice dissonance of his brothers. Look at the behavior of the Japanese when the Emperor surrendered to the US. They eventually accepted he was no God after all.
The argument presented here is very wrong. What makes a committed believer is not FAILURE or disappointment but earth shaking event like the resurrection. When a man is convinced that he married the wrong woman he divorces her & same is true with a woman. When an employer gets dissilusioned with an employee he fires him or when the employee if he is unhappy with his employer he resigns and finds anotheor job. They don't rationalize by continuing to hold on to a mistake!
Much powerful than cognitive dissonance is the TRUTH & the threat of PAIN from the Jews who persecuted them to disow their faith in Jesus. If indeed true that Jesus did not resurrect & there was constant threat of a painful death for holding onto their faith it would have been impossible for them to become true christian believers. Look what happened to Hitler & Germany. He committed suicide when the truth became clear he lost the war.The Germans did not become his followers. More on this.
If the disciples themselves needed to see, hear and eat with a living Jesus, how credulous are Christians of today, that they believe without a shred of tangible evidence?
Interesting thing about Paul's vision. When he describes it in Corinthians, he uses the Greek word Opthe, which according to Tom Harpur and other Greek translation specialists, means to see as in a vision/dream, not a physical sighting.
Paul also describes how the 12 disciples and the other 500 brethren saw Jesus, and he uses the same word, Opthe.
If one reads the passage, Paul makes no distinction between his vision of Jesus and the others. To all, the risen Christ is a mystical vision.
@ProfMTH Paul persecuted Christians. On the road to Damascus, he experienced the vision of Jesus Christ. He was greatly feared by the disciples, because he was so notorious and infamous for his executing of Christians. Until Peter saw that he had experienced Christ, Paul wasn't accepted among the other apostles. Why would a respected Roman official give everything up for a false belief? If he had gone insane, why would Peter accept him as a fellow apostle, rather than seeing through his madness?
@Tobikicksass First, as I explain in this series and elsewhere, Paul's purported "vision of Jesus Christ" on the road to Damascus portrayed in the Book of Acts both conflicts with Paul's description of his conversion experience (see, e.g., Galatians 1:15-17, where Paul describes experiencing an internal revelation of Jesus--"God...was pleased to reveal his son IN me") as well as with itself, i.e., there are several versions of it in Acts. So, your reliance on the full-of-sound-and-fury story...
(con't) @Tobikicksass ...(or, more correctly, storIES) told in Acts about Paul's conversion experience is, at best, misplaced. Second, even if one accepts the Acts story/ies of Paul's conversion, advocates of the "they wouldn't have died for a lie" argument pretty much never include Paul among those to whom the argument applies for the reasons I explained in the video. I excluded him here for the same reasons. Third, if you're going to rely on someone's making significant changes in the way...
(con't) @Tobikicksass ...s/he lives and in what s/he believes (often against his or her temporal and/or religious interests) in response to a religious conversion as evidence not just of the conversion but also of the veracity of its underlying claims--e.g., a particular god is real, the converted person actually saw / had a vision of an important figure in the religion--you're going to end up having to affirm a high number of religions that I suspect you regard as utterly false. So, you...
Ah I believe that Jesus rose from the dead because of the extraodinary evidence presented with the shroud of Turin. Thanks for the video... Blessings.
@ProfMTH Yeah, I just have spent some time studying the shroud of turin... That`s one item that has some supernatural qualities to it. It is Jesus Christ`s image that`s on it, and you can see the horrible lacerations, and many wounds he recieved from his captors... On his back you can tell he was really horribly hurt, hundreds of whip marks.
It`s an amazing piece of history. Plus, it`s one of a kind... If it was a fake, there would be a hundred shrouds of turin, but there`s only one shroud.
@TrunkMonkey3000 quote: "It`s an amazing piece of history. Plus, it`s one of a kind... If it was a fake, there would be a hundred shrouds of turin, but there`s only one shroud."
Whether you want to accept it or not, the shroud is a 14th century forgery. If the church is so sure of it, why have they banned all further tests on it after the last tests, which were arranged by them, showed it to be a forgery.
@cm8000000 Stephen is not part of the group to which the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument applies. I go through the criteria for inclusion in that group in lavish detail at the start of this series. Therefore it's entirely unclear to me why you regard my not talking about him as an "omission" and "odd" since, as you say, there's nothing about " Stephen eating with Jesus post-resurrection, or even witnessing a physical Christ on earth post-crucifixion."
@cm8000000 "Your "criteria for inclusion in that group" is YOUR criteria...."
Actually, they're the criteria set by proponents of the argument. Again, it seems you don't understand the argument I'm refuting & fervently wish that I'd refuted a different argument.
"...a direct witness who ate with the post-resurrection Jesus isn't the only type of believer who died for that belief."
Indeed. But that *is* "the only type of believer" to whom the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument applies.
@cm8000000 "So even though 'a direct witness who ate with the post-resurrection Jesus isn't the only type of believer who died for that belief' it is still 'the only type of believer' to whom the 'wouldn't die for a lie' argument applies?"
Correct. The argument exclusively pertains to a particular subset of Christians, i.e., those who are purported to have witnessed and interacted with the physically resurrected Jesus.
The "die for a lie" argument is that supposedly eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus were martyred. The argument is not that some early Christians were martyrs. No one disputes that.
@cm8000000 "You also have stripped the “lie” down to the physical resurrection only...."
Actually, the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument is only about the resurrection, i.e., that those who are purported to have witnessed the resurrected Jesus--those who, it is claimed, saw, touched, and interacted with a physically resurrected Jesus--would not have died as martyrs *unless* what it is claimed they had witnessed were true. It seems you don't understand the actual argument I'm refuting here.
Yes, to Christians who make the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument the salient aspect *is* that those who are purported to have witnessed the resurrected Jesus--those who, it is claimed, saw, touched, and interacted with a physically resurrected Jesus--would not have died as martyrs *unless* what it is claimed they had witnessed were true.
@cm8000000 "As long as you insist on presenting only a portion of Christian belief...."
This series deals with one argument that some Christian apologists use to bolster "a portion of Christian belief," i.e., the claim that Jesus was physically raised from the dead. Those who make this argument can (and do) concede, at least for the sake of argument, that every Christian believer who has died as a martyr could have been misled *EXCEPT* for those who witnessed and interacted with the...
(con't) ...physically resurrected Jesus. They are, as Lee Strobel (one of the proponents of the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument) says, in "a unique position" vis-a-vis the claim that Jesus was physically raised from the dead. I'm not sure how or why you have missed this, but somehow you have.
"I had started watching your videos with honest interest."
But, in light of what you've written here, not with a sufficient degree of attention or, perhaps, ability to understand. Unfortunate.
@cm8000000 I didn't attack you. In fact, I patiently went through the details of the actual argument with you several times. In response you merely stomped your rhetorical feet, asserting & insisting that the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument must be other than what it is & accussing me of creating a strawman that I could easily refute. The fact is you don't understand the argument. Whether that's because you're not paying enough attention OR you're incapable of understanding it, I don't know.
@ProMTH, Consider reading Lke 23;50-56 its obvious that this death scene is speaking in regards to John the Baptist's and not Jesus. Jhn 7;5 is a total lie. Lke's account is the only Gospel which has Magdalene place the fragrance in the tomb and rest on the Sabbath. All other Resurrection accounts admit that she never placed the fragrance in the tomb or rest on Sabbath. Consider reading Lke 9;7-8 and Mrk 6:16. The original story never involved Resurrection, because John was the messiah.
1. the believers faced with failed prophecy were not faced with death.
2. The apostles were not believers they were witnesses. Therefore your analogy is incorrect. If you could find witnesses that would face death for a false testimony that brought them poverty and exclusion, then you would have an argument. However, so far, you are shooting blanks.
Not only did they live in poverty, but they were persecuted to the point that they craved death. They could not turn away because they were witnesses not believers. Believers can be persuaded to alternate beliefs. Witnesses "know" what they have seen they do not merely believe it.
I understand what the author in When Prophecy Fails and Faith Persists is saying. I've had to contend with holding multiple conflicting beliefs in my head at the same time for some time now. While wanting to be a Christian, I've had to wrestle with not believing that the Bible is infallible or inerrant. I thought that joining a more liberal congregation would make this easier but it has actually made it more difficult as I now have to answer much tougher questions. I do enjoy your work.
@cpqarray Thanks a lot for the comment. And I totally understand what you men about the questions being tougher when one is is in a more liberal religious setting.
OT question from someone who's never made a YT video: How long does it take you to produce 10 min piece like this one, on average? I love your videos. Thanks.
@drumrnva Thanks. It depends on the video, of course; and I don't do any of them in one sitting. From writing the script through to final editing and uploading, it probably takes a few hours for the lengthy ones.
tell me this why would numerous historical non christin authers mention it, I dont wana here those writings were made up or altered with, I could make the same clame on plato, ceaser, napolian,and many others, why did no one of the time discredit the diciples in all towns they went to preaching of christs miricles, dsurely someone would of came foward and said I was there that never happend
@ProfMTH mention jesus, the darkness the earthquake. Face it u dont know so u attack my spelling, excuse me you try typing all this from a touch screen phone that keeps freezing up
@billyrouth1 I merely asked if English was your first language. BTW, you don't have to type all this out. It *is* YouTube, after all. Make a video response.
Explain this the bible tells of a great flood, as more info is known scientists now believe the flood had to of happend, that explains why fossils of sea creatures r found on high mouantins or in the desert,
@billyrouth1 "as more info is known scientists now believe the flood had to of happend"
Please provide the names of 10 scientists who "now believe that the flood [i.e., the one in Genesis] had to have happened" and identify where they say that "the flood had to have happened." Thanks.
@billyrouth1 Actually, you didn't fulfill my request. Not even close. Don't waste my time or yours with nonsense and being evasive. I will simply ignore you. And if you keep it up, I'll block you. So either answer or don't answer, but don't pretend you have when you haven't. I trust I've made myself clear.
@ProfMTH I gave u four scientific groups and where it was published the pnas year 2006 go ahead block me. Youve never answer one of my questions bc you have none none
It also says beside himeself which could mean great joy, or a person under great stress which the verses before it talk about how the multitude was pressing against them so as they could not eat bread so yes his frieds wanted to get him away from there
@ProfMTH mark 3:21 and when his friends heard of it they went to lay hold of him for they said hi is beside himself kjv, whats the mater the kjv to hard for u so you rely on the nlt or niv or esv
Sure we do, you just choose to ignore the facts, while tryung to make up your own, u try and didcredit even non christian writings, while people take ceaser, plato, socreties as fact while there us much less writings of them, truth is bible says they will be hated bt all nations chrisianity is the most hated religion in the world bc people dont wana believe theres punishment for sins its not that they dont believe its there scared of the truth
No, we don't. For example, the attributions of authorship for the 4 canonical gospels are entirely traditional. The authors never identify themselves and we just don't know who they were. Perhaps you're not aware of this and other facts about your holy book. If that's the case, you should take some time to familiarize yourself with the facts rather than repeating false and misleading claims you've heard other apologists make.
@ProfMTH the proplem is I dont lisen to other people, I research myself, its what yall do is lisen to anyone who gives an arguement that supports what u wana believe and takes it as fact, just bc u say another non christian writing is false doesent mean it is, but one day you will come face to face with him weather you believve in him or not,
@ProfMTH call what u will, there are plenty o ft facts, u just refuse to lisen, you have no facts to back up your claim exept your own opionion, there is no scientific evidence that can disprove the existince of god,all u have is to try and say writings were made up then u mis qoute the text, prove that numerouse authers over the course of atleast 3000 yrs got together to make it up
Some books of the bible were wrote a mere 25 years after the fact, while people were still alive from that time. Why did no one come out to discredit it? Thats like writing a book saying jfk was burnt to death not shot, wouldnt people come out and say do what that never happend
@ProfMTH what do we no about the nt, we no it was written by people whoe either new him, had encountered him, or who were under the supervision of his diciples, hence it couldnt of been written no more than 50 years after the fact, the fact no gospel tells of the destruction of the temple, so we know it was written before 79 ad
@ProfMTH we now acts was written by luke as more of a historical document so the fact he doesent mention the destruction of jearuslem says it was written before 70 ad, we also no acts was the second book written by luke so the,book of luke was written even earlier than acts
@billyrouth1 "we no it was written by people whoe either new him, had encountered him, or who were under the supervision of his diciples"
Actually, we don't know that with respect to many of the books in the New Testament, including, without limitation, the gospels. May I ask what your point is here?
There r so many holes in your video I cant even type it all, I can meet all the requirements to b a doctor or a lawer or whatever that doesent mean I become one
@ProfMTH you r mistaken it says friends not kinsman,but I wont argue that point, to dicredit the bible u need to also believe that ceaser, plato, and didnt exist either theres no proof they did but someone else writings
@billyrouth1 No, it doesn't. It says "kinsmen" (AKA: family). I know that creates some problems for believers who take the Christian scriptures literally and regard them as inerrant, but that doesn't change what the text says.
Ok, I just finished reading Dawson's paper. His suggested adaptational strategies have nothing to do with followers making up physical events. Would we agree?
It is clear to me from the empty tomb account in Mark, and Paul's accounts of the resurrected Christ's appearance to Paul and others, that the early church believed in not only a spiritualized "internal" resurrection but also in a physical manifestation of Jesus. You have to assert that Paul is blatantly telling lies if you deny this.
@streetlightcollusion "His suggested adaptational strategies have nothing to do with followers making up physical events. Would we agree?"
First (and it's frustrating that you watched the series AND read Dawson's article but failed to make this connection) the CD management strategies that are probably most relevant to the earliest core group of Jesus' followers after his execution are...
..."spiritualization" (regarding something as an "invisible, spiritual occurrence, e.g., Jesus was "put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" (1 Peter 3:18)) and "reaffirmation" (engaging in processes of group building and reaching out to others). Second, Dawson presents several examples of religionists making up physical events.
... But this is irrelevant to the earliest core group of Jesus' followers. The resurrection-qua-physical-event stories came along later in the Jesus tradition, after the earliest core group of followers.
Third, contrary to what you've said here in your latest comment, I've not argued that "the early church believed in...a spiritualized 'internal' resurrection." Rather, I've argued that Jesus' earliest core group of followers, i.e.,
...the apostles, initially defeated by Jesus' execution began to reconceive the execution as the means by which God vindicated Jesus. Jesus was, as 1 Peter 3:18 says, put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit. The "made alive in the spirit" part wasn't an internal event, but rather an invisible one -- see the "spiritualization" strategy.
Fourth, what I have argued (and shown) to have been internal was Paul's earliest explanation of his revelation of Jesus, i.e., God revealed his Son IN Paul. A bit later on, as Paul seeks to connect himself more closely to the apostles and larger Jesus movement from which he was distancing himself in Galatians, he begins to describe his experience more in terms of what he was told the others had experienced, i.e., a vision of the post-mortem Jesus, who was, as Paul says, a spirit.
Fifth, there is nothing in the Pauline corpus that has Paul describing a physical resurrection of Jesus. Nothing. Not even in stories in Acts that purport to recount Paul's initial encounter with the post-mortem Jesus is it portrayed in physical terms, i.e., Paul saw and interacted with Jesus raised in the body that had been crucified. Rather, we're told that Paul saw a light (a blinding light) and heard a voice.
@ProfMTH I'm not arguing that Paul saw a physical human body in the flesh. "Rather, we're told that Paul saw a light (a blinding light) and heard a voice" Doesn't this suggest physicality, although not flesh and bones. It is clear to me that his vision was of something external and not of his imaginings. Acts describes the objectivity of his experience - his companions heard the voice.
@ProfMTH "Rather, we're told that Paul saw a light (a blinding light) and heard a voice" This suggests physicality to me, maybe not a human flesh physicality but physicality none the less.
"Paul seeks to connect himself more closely to the apostles and larger Jesus movement" Paul would have known if the accounts he relates in 1 Corinthians were false or not since he stayed with Peter and also saw James in Jerusalem. It seems to me that you must call Paul a liar if one is to agree with your point of view.
Your view would only make sense if we didn't have testimony like this from the early church members. "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." This what written BEFORE the book of Peter.
@streetlightcollusion " Doesn't this suggest physicality, although not flesh and bones."
"Heavenly light" and a voice? I suppose one could say so, but it's not even remotely like what the gospels claim the apostles saw. If, as it seems, your project is to verify the gospel accounts of the post-mortem Jesus' appearances, there's nothing in Paul's writings or the writings about what Paul says (i.e., the 3 tellings in Acts of what he saw on the road to Damascus) that will do the job for you.
Not even the stories in Acts agreet. Acts 9 says "they heard the sound"; Acts 22 says they heard sound but didn't understand it; Acts 26 says only that Paul heard a voice. In any case, none of this gets you where you want (need?) to be, i.e., with an account that confirms and comports with what the gospels claim the apostles saw after Jesus was raised from the dead. A multiplicity of conflicting stories is not the evidence you need.
"Paul would have known if the accounts he relates in 1 Corinthians were false or not since he stayed with Peter and also saw James in Jerusalem."
I'm tired of going around this mulberry bush with you. Paul claims to have had the same vision of Jesus that he was told other apostles, James, and 500 believers had. But his "vision" wasn't of a fish-eating, scar-bearing reanimated Jesus. Rather, in Acts it was light and sound; in Galatians it was an internal revelation. None of it adds up.
No. Go back and read the paper again and look for those parts. I don't have the paper in front of me right now and I don't have time to get it so I can spoon feed you the parts you missed.
@ProfMTH You should note that I have not claimed to be able to historically verify the gospel accounts of the physical flesh and bones Jesus. My "project" as you call it is to refute the position of your video as it relates to C.D and the early church's belief.I'm trying to show that there was a belief in a resurrected Jesus very early on, and that His appearance was believed to be objective.Note, by arguing this I am not saying that it was wholly physical.
@streetlightcollusion "I'm trying to show that there was a belief in a resurrected Jesus very early on...."
You seem not to grasp that I agree that there was an early belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead. I've merely identified what that earliest belief actually was, i.e., that Jesus who had been put to death in the flesh was made alive in the spirit, becoming a life-giving spirit.
(con't) This earliest belief had nothing to do with an empty tomb story or tales of a fish-eating, scar-bearing, reanimated corpse with superpowers--all stuff that came along later. Do you believe those later stories? Do you believe what Matthew, Luke, and John say about the post-mortem Jesus? If so, then you *must* be trying to confirm them. If you don't believe them, then why are you arguing with me?
As for the gospel narratives, its hard to make a case for the historicity of the accounts - I remain agnostic to this belief that Jesus had a flesh and blood body that ate with the disciples etc. These things aren't so important to me, if I can see the early belief was that Christ rose and appeared physically and objectively to the disciples and it didn't come about through a psychological imagining (which it seems to me that you are arguing).
@ProfMTH I know your point quite well thanks..I think we disagree that it was purely a spiritualized event arising from C.D. I have tried to show that not only was Jesus referred to a "life giving spirit" but also he appeared as one who is in this physical world, see 1 Cor 15.
@ProfMTH Its worth keeping in mind that nowhere does Paul use the exact term "internal revelation". He actual description in Galatians is a "revelation from Jesus Christ" This doesn't discount a visual appearance. In any case, even if he did use the specific words "internal revelation" it wouldn't prove that he didn't have an accompanying vision...
@streetlightcollusion He talks about God revealing his Son in him. He says nothing about seeing Jesus, nothing that even remotely resembles what appears in Acts. And the stuff in Acts and Galatians seems quite different from what Paul says in 1 Cor 15. You've presented Paul as a bedrock of testimony re Jesus' resurrection. But scrutiny reveals that his testimony and the testimony put in his mouth in Acts are in combination far more akin to sand.
@streetlightcollusion I know what he says. And I've already explained why I believe it's quite different from what appears in 1 Cor 15. We agree it doesn't even remotely resemble what appears in Acts.
I don't think we quite agree in the same way. I will agree with you that Paul's testimony appears nowhere near the detail that it does in Acts. And I will not claim to be able to PROVE the historicity of the account in Acts. But so far your view that Paul's testimony itself is contradictory (Cor vs. Gal) fails to prove itself to me.
I can see us getting nowhere fast, probably mainly because we disagree on the starting premise that the bible is truthful. That, plus i think we both know how hard it is to articulate ourselves over a youtube comment box that limits responses to one paragraph. I appreciate your responses. I do not in anyway disagree with you as a person. merely the beliefs of the video. (i hope you would say the same about me). Thanks.
Ok,i see how you have come to your conclusion and i respect you for being able to defend your position in a decent manner. However, i have many objections. Some raised earlier. Another of which is to the cognitive dissonance theory as it applies to Paul.I fail to see that cognitive dissonance theory does anything to discredit Paul's visions - he was not a believer before he had them. His visions were the cause of his belief.He also states that they were after Jesus' appearances to the others.
@streetlightcollusion I never applied the cognitive dissonance argument to Paul. If you watched the series, then you know that I exclude Paul from the list of people to whom the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument applies. Most proponents of the argument do the same for many of the same reasons I set forth in the series. So your saying you disagree with " the cognitive dissonance theory as it applies to Paul" has nothing to do with any argument I've offered.
It's worth noting that in his own writings, Paul never claims to have had an encounter with a physical post-mortem Jesus. As I've already pointed out to you, in Galatians 1 he describes his initial encounter with Jesus as an internal reveleation. In 1 Corinthians 15 he talks about a vision. In the writing *about* Paul's conversion encounter with Jesus by the author of Acts, we're told that Paul saw a light and heard a voice.
@ProfMTH I have watched the whole series. My point is that Paul's testimony is crucial because it is an early account of the resurrection and therefore can give tremendous weight to the other accounts. His own experience could not be of cognitive dissonance, this gives even more credibility to his experience. In 1 Cor. 15:3-8 his description seems not to be of internal revelation but of a consensus reality appearance - (in the physical world).
@ProfMTH "Crucial to what exactly?" again i will state: crucial because it is an early account of the resurrection and therefore can give tremendous weight to the other accounts. His own experience could not be of cognitive dissonance, this gives even more credibility to his and the others experiences. In 1 Cor. 15:3-8 (Paul's own words) - He talks about a consensus reality appearance - more than 500 people at once.
Where does Paul give an "account of the resurrection"?
"His own experience could not be of cognitive dissonance...."
I've not said it was. You continue to talk about C.D. in reference to Paul despite my NOT arguing that it was his issue. Therefore I'm compelled to conclude that you're committed to a straw man version of the argument, one you find easier to reject than the actual argument presented.
@ProfMTH I am not attacking straw men. It is a part of the bigger picture. Paul's whole experience is one not tainted by C.D. Would we agree on that?
A fair point - I will retract what i said about "account of the resurrection" and say it is an early account of the resurrected Christ. If Paul's own experience isn't formed through C.D what then is it? I conclude it is a truthful and powerful event based on his 180 deg turnaround.
@streetlightcollusion So if Paul had a genuine experience, his testimony of the other disciples and of the 500 are important. He says some of them are still alive, in effect, you can question them about their experience too. If you choose to apply C.D to the resurrection story, you must take all testimony about the resurrection into account.
What do you make of Paul's conversion and the 500 seeing Christ? It seems like you don't think they are hallucinations? How do you assimilate it then?
@streetlightcollusion Cognitive dissonance theory applies to people with strongly held religious beliefs. Paul's beliefs were apparently opposite of the followers of The Way. Please address this.
That's your point NOW, but in your previous comment you said you objected to "the cognitive dissonance theory as it applies to Paul." Since I never applied it to Paul, your previous claim was nihil ad rem. In any case, you say "Paul's testimony is crucial." Crucial to what exactly? It's not crucial to the claim of a physical resurrection. Paul never testifies to that.
(con't) " His own experience could not be of cognitive dissonance...."
I haven't claimed that it was. I'm not sure why you continue to go on about this. It has nothing to do with any of the arguments I've made or the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument generally.
"In 1 Cor. 15:3-8 his description seems not to be of internal revelation but of a consensus reality appearance - (in the physical world)."
(con't) " Cognitive dissonance theory applies to people with strongly held religious beliefs. Paul's beliefs were apparently opposite of the followers of The Way. Please address this."
@ProfMTH "Crucial to what exactly?" again i will state: crucial because it is an early account of the resurrection and therefore can give tremendous weight to the other accounts. His own experience could not be of cognitive dissonance, this gives even more credibility to his and the others experiences. In 1 Cor. 15:3-8 (Paul's own words) - He talks about a consensus reality appearance - more than 500 people at once.
@ProfMTH Yes, that's my view also. he reports both internal revelation and a vision. I don't think you can argue that Paul believed it was solely an "internal revelation" not only for the reason of his testimony to the 500 people who saw Christ at the same time. How do you assimilate Paul's testimony of Christ's appearance more than 500 at the same time?
@streetlightcollusion "I don't think you can argue that Paul believed it was solely an 'internal revelation'...."
That's interesting. Clearly, he didn't feel more was necessary when writing to the Galatians. Of course in Galatians he's not trying to link himself to the other apostles and leaders who knew Jesus. In fact, he seems eager to do the opposite: he learned nothing from them, but got everything directly from God, including a direct, internal revelation of Jesus and the gospel.
... By contrast, in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is very much linking himself to the others and talking about what he had received from and with them. (See, e.g., 1 Cor 15:3-8.) In this context, Paul moves from talk about an internal revelation -- something quite different from what the others he mentions purportedly experienced -- and characterizes his experience with the post-mortem Jesus in precisely the same visionary terms as their experiences.
... I think it's fascinating how Paul shifts the details between the two texts for reasons that seem to have far more to do with his place in the Jesus movement rather than anything about Jesus' post-mortem state.
As for the 500 who had a vision of Jesus, it's worth noting that Paul says he "received" this information. He no more witnessed this "appearance" to 500 than he witnessed Jesus' "apperance" to Peter, to "the twelve" (even though there were only 11), or to James. However...
"I believe I did explain in this series how I believe the development of the resurrection story proceeded over time" From what I gather, please correct if wrong/ your position is that the gospels were probably much later than Paul's epistles etc. and the later they go the more elaborate they become that therefore the later gospels cannot be trusted? I wouldn't be so hasty. I think that arguments for the historicity of the empty tomb are compelling and must be taken into consideration.
@streetlightcollusion To be more precise, what I said was that the NT's earliest descriptions of the post-mortem state of Jesus refer to him as a spirit and that as time went on the terms of the desriptions became more and more physical. So, e.g., early on the post-mortem Jesus is said to have been a "life-giving spirit" (1 Cor 15:45) and then later the post-mortem Jesus is shown emphatically denying that he is a spirit at all (Luke 24:39)...
(con't) ...and even invites exploration of his physical body (John 20:27) -- interestingly enough, in that portion of John we're clearly meant to conclude that this is the same body that was nailed to the cross several days earlier because it has the scars of crucifixion (contrast that with, e.g., Paul's insisting in 1 Cor 15 that the body buried at death is not the same body that emerges from resurrection).
(con't) So my point was not so much that the story becomes untrustworthy over time (I don't regard the story as credible at any point in its development), but rather that it changed over time. Among the things the "die for a lie" primarily depends upon is the apostles having an encounter with a physically resurrected Jesus, but the Jesus tradition didn't always present a physical resurrection. That was a later development and it's one that not all Christians even today accept.
@ProfMTH (con't) This gives us insight into how Jesus' apostles, the people who were with him when he was alive, actually came to understand his death, how they ascribed meaning to it (an exercise in cognitive dissonance management), i.e., Jesus' death was not the end for him because God vindicated or raised Jesus to himself. It was a spiritual, invisible event. As time went on, the story became more elaborate and, quite apart from the original apostles, morphed into a physical event.
If you apply the same reasoning to an example of Jesus, then if Jesus never rose from the dead, the disciples would probably not have asserted that he had, but would have come up with some other way to justify their belief that he was God.
It would make more sense for them to say that he didn't rise but for some reason or another he is still God wouldn't it?
The examples of Jehova's witnesses still being believers of their religion after their prophecies didn't come through is not illustrating the point. > i.e they didn't go on believing that the prophecies actually happened. Instead, they adjusted their beliefs to fit the actual events.
@streetlightcollusion Actually, they found a way, in a number of cases, to say that the prophecies *did* happen, just not in the way they had anticipated they would happen.
@ProfMTH That's kind of what I'm saying though. They adjusted their beliefs to the actual events. Not the events to their belief. I guess my point is on the physical resurrection. They wouldn't make it up they would have adjusted their beliefs to fit the events. And Paul is another story but look at the guys transformation and conviction. If you believe his words then something profound must have happened to him. Also Marks gospel could have been contemporary with the thinking of Paul's epistles
@streetlightcollusion "Mark's gospel could have been contemporary with the thinking of Paul's epistles."
And if it is, it's worth nothing that it's the only one of the four gospels that does not describe a physical resurrection. The earliest belief about Jesus being raised after death was that it was a spiritual and invisible event.
@ProfMTH Hey man, thanks for your replies. It's a good change from a lot of youtube bashing that goes on. Paul's visions do seem to be ethereal but he also talks about Jesus appearing to the disciples, and more than 500 others. Also, even if you discount Mark 16:9-20 as being a later addition. What about the empty tomb account, I believe many contemporary scholars recognize the empty tomb as likely. doesn't that suggest a physical resurrection?
(con't) ... One of the most interesting (and I think most overlooked) aspects of this is that Paul links the post-mortem Jesus' appearance to him to the appearances to the disciples and others. In other words, Paul basically says that he saw what the others saw. The question, then, is what did Paul see? Well, in the two instances where he writes about it, i.e., Galatians 1 and 1 Cor 15, he talks about it as an internal revelation ("God was pleased to reveal his Son in me") and a vision. ...
(con't) ... In Acts, the descriptions of Paul's encounter with the post-mortem Jesus talk about Paul's seeing a light and hearing a voice. Again, nothing there about Paul encountering Jesus' in a reanimated physical body. So if, as Paul seems to invite one to do, one understands what the apostles encountered in terms of what Paul claims to have encountered, it's spiritual and visionary rather than physical.
(con't) "Also, even if you discount Mark 16:9-20 as being a later addition. What about the empty tomb account, I believe many contemporary scholars recognize the empty tomb as likely. doesn't that suggest a physical resurrection?"
A few things. First, there's no question that Mark 16:9-20 should be discounted. Second, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "many contemporary scholars recognize the empty tomb as likely." ...
(con't) ... Do you mean that scholars don't question that the empty tomb was an original component of Mark's resurrection narrative? If so, quite right. But that doesn't get us very far vis-a-vis early belief in a bodily resurrection. It seems to me the most that can be said for Mark on this point is that it has the seed of the bodily resurrection story. The fact that someone came along later and added to the text to make a bodily resurrection an explicit component...
@ProfMTH I bring up the empty tomb to illustrate that the disciples' early belief would have been affected by this event. Would they have believed it was a completely spiritual resurrection when they had no body to point to? The appearance of Jesus to Paul may be a vision. However, it is not certain whether the appearance to others was of the same nature. Paul's testimony of appearance to more than 500 men at once seems to be attesting to something more than just a subjective vision.
@streetlightcollusion "Paul's testimony of appearance to more than 500 men at once seems to be attesting to something more than just a subjective vision."
1st, what do you mean by "subjective vision"? 2d, why does Paul's claim about the 500 point to something other than a vision? He uses the exact same word in reference to them, himself, and the apostles. 3d, as for the empty tomb, I believe that's a story that came along later in the Jesus movement. Did you watch the entire series?
1. by subjective vision, I mean some kind of hallucination or vision that is not and can not be experienced by others.
2.If the 500 had a vision at the same time, it seems to be describing something in consensus reality.
3.The empty tomb appears in the earliest account in Mark. If you believe it is just an added story, then you are going against most biblical scholars. What are your reasons for believing that the empty tomb is just an added story?
To reiterate my point, I'm saying that it seems that Paul did not believe in a purely physical resurrection, but more along the lines of belief in a transformation of the physical body into a spiritual body. The empty tomb would be just one of the reasons for this. Also, the appearance to the 500 at one time suggests that we are not dealing with possible hallucinations etc.
@streetlightcollusion 1st, I did not say "the empty tomb is just an added story" in Mark. Rather, my contention is that the empty tomb came along later in the Jesus tradition. (I don't share your view about Mark being contemporaneous with the composition of the Pauline corpus.) 2nd, Paul never mentions an empty tomb, but rather, talks about the post-mortem Jesus as a spirit (1 Cor 15:45) whom he first encountered via internal revelation (Galatians 1:15-16) and vision (1 Cor 15:8).
(con't) "Paul did not believe in a purely physical resurrection, but more along the lines of belief in transformation of the physical body into a spiritual body."
I don't see any evidence for the claim that Paul believed in some hybrid resurrection body, part physical and part "spiritual." He quite clearly says that Jesus became "a life-giving spirit."
@ProfMTH Paul also talks about what the "Resurrection Body" is in 1 Cor 15:35. He calls the raised body a spiritual body, not just a life giving spirit. I come to my conclusion that Paul believes in both a physical/spiritual resurrection from said point coupled with the empty tomb.
@LeavingOnAJet Oh, yes, Peter is included in the series.
ProfMTH 2 months ago
@LeavingOnAJet Whether he was or not is irrelevant to the list in this video, which names people who supposedly interacted with a physically risen Jesus before he went back to heaven. No one includes Mark on that list.
Good luck with the debate.
ProfMTH 2 months ago
I find it quite an enigma that people expend so much time debating non existant personages.
dirtydonki 3 months ago
The apostles did not believe Christ would die and resurect before the fact. Christ called Peter "Satan" because of this. Thomas became a true believer only when he saw and touch the risen Christ. So what is this cognitive dissonance all about? Christ's resurrection was not expected by the apostles. They were ready to go back to their previous lives before the resurrection. They were ready to accept the pain and reality of Christ's humiliating death before Christ's rose from the dead.
csdr0 5 months ago
@csdr0 ProfMTH explains this in Part 4.
Discern4 4 months ago
@csdr0 - Isn't the simple answer that Jesus, the disciples and the apostles all never existed? The New Testament is not history and none of this actually happened.
I mean, how can it be history when the ministry of Jesus is clearly based on the Jewish War and Titus. This means the entire religion of Jesus Christianity was invented by the Romans post 70 AD.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
In the face of death of a love one could temporarily experience cognitive dissonance but time heals all pain & comes the acceptance of truth. The disciples would have accepted Christ's failure in time if indeed he did not resurrect from the dead. One of them would have told the world the truth and exposed the cognitice dissonance of his brothers. Look at the behavior of the Japanese when the Emperor surrendered to the US. They eventually accepted he was no God after all.
csdr0 5 months ago
The argument presented here is very wrong. What makes a committed believer is not FAILURE or disappointment but earth shaking event like the resurrection. When a man is convinced that he married the wrong woman he divorces her & same is true with a woman. When an employer gets dissilusioned with an employee he fires him or when the employee if he is unhappy with his employer he resigns and finds anotheor job. They don't rationalize by continuing to hold on to a mistake!
csdr0 5 months ago
Much powerful than cognitive dissonance is the TRUTH & the threat of PAIN from the Jews who persecuted them to disow their faith in Jesus. If indeed true that Jesus did not resurrect & there was constant threat of a painful death for holding onto their faith it would have been impossible for them to become true christian believers. Look what happened to Hitler & Germany. He committed suicide when the truth became clear he lost the war.The Germans did not become his followers. More on this.
csdr0 5 months ago
If the disciples themselves needed to see, hear and eat with a living Jesus, how credulous are Christians of today, that they believe without a shred of tangible evidence?
TheSmackerlacker 5 months ago
Interesting thing about Paul's vision. When he describes it in Corinthians, he uses the Greek word Opthe, which according to Tom Harpur and other Greek translation specialists, means to see as in a vision/dream, not a physical sighting.
Paul also describes how the 12 disciples and the other 500 brethren saw Jesus, and he uses the same word, Opthe.
If one reads the passage, Paul makes no distinction between his vision of Jesus and the others. To all, the risen Christ is a mystical vision.
ninjamojo711 5 months ago
@ProfMTH Paul persecuted Christians. On the road to Damascus, he experienced the vision of Jesus Christ. He was greatly feared by the disciples, because he was so notorious and infamous for his executing of Christians. Until Peter saw that he had experienced Christ, Paul wasn't accepted among the other apostles. Why would a respected Roman official give everything up for a false belief? If he had gone insane, why would Peter accept him as a fellow apostle, rather than seeing through his madness?
Tobikicksass 7 months ago
@Tobikicksass First, as I explain in this series and elsewhere, Paul's purported "vision of Jesus Christ" on the road to Damascus portrayed in the Book of Acts both conflicts with Paul's description of his conversion experience (see, e.g., Galatians 1:15-17, where Paul describes experiencing an internal revelation of Jesus--"God...was pleased to reveal his son IN me") as well as with itself, i.e., there are several versions of it in Acts. So, your reliance on the full-of-sound-and-fury story...
ProfMTH 6 months ago
(con't) @Tobikicksass ...(or, more correctly, storIES) told in Acts about Paul's conversion experience is, at best, misplaced. Second, even if one accepts the Acts story/ies of Paul's conversion, advocates of the "they wouldn't have died for a lie" argument pretty much never include Paul among those to whom the argument applies for the reasons I explained in the video. I excluded him here for the same reasons. Third, if you're going to rely on someone's making significant changes in the way...
ProfMTH 6 months ago
(con't) @Tobikicksass ...s/he lives and in what s/he believes (often against his or her temporal and/or religious interests) in response to a religious conversion as evidence not just of the conversion but also of the veracity of its underlying claims--e.g., a particular god is real, the converted person actually saw / had a vision of an important figure in the religion--you're going to end up having to affirm a high number of religions that I suspect you regard as utterly false. So, you...
ProfMTH 6 months ago
(con't) @Tobikicksass ...might want to take some time to think this one through a bit more.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@Tobikicksass quote: "Why would a respected Roman official [or anyone for that matter - (my words)] give everything up for a false belief?
Simple answer? Jonestown.
HonestMan395 6 months ago
Ah I believe that Jesus rose from the dead because of the extraodinary evidence presented with the shroud of Turin. Thanks for the video... Blessings.
TrunkMonkey3000 7 months ago
@TrunkMonkey3000 " I believe that Jesus rose from the dead because of the extraodinary evidence presented with the shroud of Turin."
And precisely what "extraordinary evidence" is that?
"Thanks for the video."
You're welcome.
ProfMTH 7 months ago
@ProfMTH Yeah, I just have spent some time studying the shroud of turin... That`s one item that has some supernatural qualities to it. It is Jesus Christ`s image that`s on it, and you can see the horrible lacerations, and many wounds he recieved from his captors... On his back you can tell he was really horribly hurt, hundreds of whip marks.
It`s an amazing piece of history. Plus, it`s one of a kind... If it was a fake, there would be a hundred shrouds of turin, but there`s only one shroud.
TrunkMonkey3000 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TrunkMonkey3000 quote: "It`s an amazing piece of history. Plus, it`s one of a kind... If it was a fake, there would be a hundred shrouds of turin, but there`s only one shroud."
Whether you want to accept it or not, the shroud is a 14th century forgery. If the church is so sure of it, why have they banned all further tests on it after the last tests, which were arranged by them, showed it to be a forgery.
HonestMan395 6 months ago
Maybe James isn't Jesus' actual, biological brother. Paul uses "brother" a lot, and most of the time he isn't talking about biological siblings.
KayBeeEee1983 8 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 "Maybe James isn't Jesus' actual, biological brother."
Certainly possible.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
Comment removed
cm8000000 1 year ago
@cm8000000 Stephen is not part of the group to which the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument applies. I go through the criteria for inclusion in that group in lavish detail at the start of this series. Therefore it's entirely unclear to me why you regard my not talking about him as an "omission" and "odd" since, as you say, there's nothing about " Stephen eating with Jesus post-resurrection, or even witnessing a physical Christ on earth post-crucifixion."
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Comment removed
cm8000000 1 year ago
@cm8000000 "Your "criteria for inclusion in that group" is YOUR criteria...."
Actually, they're the criteria set by proponents of the argument. Again, it seems you don't understand the argument I'm refuting & fervently wish that I'd refuted a different argument.
"...a direct witness who ate with the post-resurrection Jesus isn't the only type of believer who died for that belief."
Indeed. But that *is* "the only type of believer" to whom the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument applies.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Comment removed
cm8000000 1 year ago
@cm8000000 "So even though 'a direct witness who ate with the post-resurrection Jesus isn't the only type of believer who died for that belief' it is still 'the only type of believer' to whom the 'wouldn't die for a lie' argument applies?"
Correct. The argument exclusively pertains to a particular subset of Christians, i.e., those who are purported to have witnessed and interacted with the physically resurrected Jesus.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Comment removed
cm8000000 1 year ago
@cm8000000
It seems you have completely missed the point.
The "die for a lie" argument is that supposedly eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus were martyred. The argument is not that some early Christians were martyrs. No one disputes that.
You are being quite silly.
UnBeguiled 1 year ago
Comment removed
cm8000000 1 year ago
@cm8000000 "You also have stripped the “lie” down to the physical resurrection only...."
Actually, the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument is only about the resurrection, i.e., that those who are purported to have witnessed the resurrected Jesus--those who, it is claimed, saw, touched, and interacted with a physically resurrected Jesus--would not have died as martyrs *unless* what it is claimed they had witnessed were true. It seems you don't understand the actual argument I'm refuting here.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Comment removed
cm8000000 1 year ago
@cm8000000 "Not to a Christian."
Yes, to Christians who make the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument the salient aspect *is* that those who are purported to have witnessed the resurrected Jesus--those who, it is claimed, saw, touched, and interacted with a physically resurrected Jesus--would not have died as martyrs *unless* what it is claimed they had witnessed were true.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Comment removed
cm8000000 1 year ago
@cm8000000 "As long as you insist on presenting only a portion of Christian belief...."
This series deals with one argument that some Christian apologists use to bolster "a portion of Christian belief," i.e., the claim that Jesus was physically raised from the dead. Those who make this argument can (and do) concede, at least for the sake of argument, that every Christian believer who has died as a martyr could have been misled *EXCEPT* for those who witnessed and interacted with the...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) ...physically resurrected Jesus. They are, as Lee Strobel (one of the proponents of the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument) says, in "a unique position" vis-a-vis the claim that Jesus was physically raised from the dead. I'm not sure how or why you have missed this, but somehow you have.
"I had started watching your videos with honest interest."
But, in light of what you've written here, not with a sufficient degree of attention or, perhaps, ability to understand. Unfortunate.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Comment removed
cm8000000 1 year ago
@cm8000000 I didn't attack you. In fact, I patiently went through the details of the actual argument with you several times. In response you merely stomped your rhetorical feet, asserting & insisting that the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument must be other than what it is & accussing me of creating a strawman that I could easily refute. The fact is you don't understand the argument. Whether that's because you're not paying enough attention OR you're incapable of understanding it, I don't know.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Comment removed
cm8000000 1 year ago
@cm8000000 "...but you don't explain how you arrived at the conclusion that these would be the only ones to die for the “lie.”"
Actually, I explain it in great detail. If you missed it, you should go back to watch the series from the start again.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Comment removed
cm8000000 1 year ago
@cm8000000 "No, you actually don't."
Yes, I do.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProMTH, Consider reading Lke 23;50-56 its obvious that this death scene is speaking in regards to John the Baptist's and not Jesus. Jhn 7;5 is a total lie. Lke's account is the only Gospel which has Magdalene place the fragrance in the tomb and rest on the Sabbath. All other Resurrection accounts admit that she never placed the fragrance in the tomb or rest on Sabbath. Consider reading Lke 9;7-8 and Mrk 6:16. The original story never involved Resurrection, because John was the messiah.
beholdtheageofold 1 year ago
1. the believers faced with failed prophecy were not faced with death.
2. The apostles were not believers they were witnesses. Therefore your analogy is incorrect. If you could find witnesses that would face death for a false testimony that brought them poverty and exclusion, then you would have an argument. However, so far, you are shooting blanks.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "The apostles were not believers they were witnesses."
That merely assumes the ground in controversy.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@mejc2 How do you know that the apostles lived in poverty?
KayBeeEee1983 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983
Not only did they live in poverty, but they were persecuted to the point that they craved death. They could not turn away because they were witnesses not believers. Believers can be persuaded to alternate beliefs. Witnesses "know" what they have seen they do not merely believe it.
mejc2 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mejc2 Can you read? I asked "How do you know that the apostles lived in poverty?"
KayBeeEee1983 8 months ago
@mejc2 Is it in the bible? I know they talk about sharing possessions in Acts, but that doesn't mean they lived in poverty.
KayBeeEee1983 8 months ago
I understand what the author in When Prophecy Fails and Faith Persists is saying. I've had to contend with holding multiple conflicting beliefs in my head at the same time for some time now. While wanting to be a Christian, I've had to wrestle with not believing that the Bible is infallible or inerrant. I thought that joining a more liberal congregation would make this easier but it has actually made it more difficult as I now have to answer much tougher questions. I do enjoy your work.
cpqarray 1 year ago
@cpqarray Thanks a lot for the comment. And I totally understand what you men about the questions being tougher when one is is in a more liberal religious setting.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Thanks for that document by Dawson, it made for very good reading.
cpqarray 1 year ago
@cpqarray I'm glad you found it useful.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
OT question from someone who's never made a YT video: How long does it take you to produce 10 min piece like this one, on average? I love your videos. Thanks.
drumrnva 1 year ago
@drumrnva Thanks. It depends on the video, of course; and I don't do any of them in one sitting. From writing the script through to final editing and uploading, it probably takes a few hours for the lengthy ones.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
tell me this why would numerous historical non christin authers mention it, I dont wana here those writings were made up or altered with, I could make the same clame on plato, ceaser, napolian,and many others, why did no one of the time discredit the diciples in all towns they went to preaching of christs miricles, dsurely someone would of came foward and said I was there that never happend
billyrouth1 1 year ago
@billyrouth1 "tell me this why would numerous historical non christin authers mention it"
Mention what?
BTW, is English your first language?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH mention jesus, the darkness the earthquake. Face it u dont know so u attack my spelling, excuse me you try typing all this from a touch screen phone that keeps freezing up
billyrouth1 1 year ago
@billyrouth1 I merely asked if English was your first language. BTW, you don't have to type all this out. It *is* YouTube, after all. Make a video response.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Explain this the bible tells of a great flood, as more info is known scientists now believe the flood had to of happend, that explains why fossils of sea creatures r found on high mouantins or in the desert,
billyrouth1 1 year ago
@billyrouth1 "as more info is known scientists now believe the flood had to of happend"
Please provide the names of 10 scientists who "now believe that the flood [i.e., the one in Genesis] had to have happened" and identify where they say that "the flood had to have happened." Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH better thana name ill give you the groups, NASA, national defence science,,the national science fondation, youl find it in (pnas 2006)
billyrouth1 1 year ago
@billyrouth1 Please provide the names of 10 scientists who say "that the flood had to have happened" and identify where they say it. Thank you.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH allready did you just dont like the answer, cause it goes against your con
billyrouth1 1 year ago
@billyrouth1 Actually, you didn't fulfill my request. Not even close. Don't waste my time or yours with nonsense and being evasive. I will simply ignore you. And if you keep it up, I'll block you. So either answer or don't answer, but don't pretend you have when you haven't. I trust I've made myself clear.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I gave u four scientific groups and where it was published the pnas year 2006 go ahead block me. Youve never answer one of my questions bc you have none none
billyrouth1 1 year ago
It also says beside himeself which could mean great joy, or a person under great stress which the verses before it talk about how the multitude was pressing against them so as they could not eat bread so yes his frieds wanted to get him away from there
billyrouth1 1 year ago
Once again mark 3:21 says friend, maybe u need to loook at the origanal texts or the kjv not these modern bibles that miss translate
billyrouth1 1 year ago
@billyrouth1 "Once again mark 3:21 says friend"
And, once again, you're wrong.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH mark 3:21 and when his friends heard of it they went to lay hold of him for they said hi is beside himself kjv, whats the mater the kjv to hard for u so you rely on the nlt or niv or esv
billyrouth1 1 year ago
Sure we do, you just choose to ignore the facts, while tryung to make up your own, u try and didcredit even non christian writings, while people take ceaser, plato, socreties as fact while there us much less writings of them, truth is bible says they will be hated bt all nations chrisianity is the most hated religion in the world bc people dont wana believe theres punishment for sins its not that they dont believe its there scared of the truth
billyrouth1 1 year ago
@billyrouth1 "Sure we do."
No, we don't. For example, the attributions of authorship for the 4 canonical gospels are entirely traditional. The authors never identify themselves and we just don't know who they were. Perhaps you're not aware of this and other facts about your holy book. If that's the case, you should take some time to familiarize yourself with the facts rather than repeating false and misleading claims you've heard other apologists make.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH the proplem is I dont lisen to other people, I research myself, its what yall do is lisen to anyone who gives an arguement that supports what u wana believe and takes it as fact, just bc u say another non christian writing is false doesent mean it is, but one day you will come face to face with him weather you believve in him or not,
billyrouth1 1 year ago
@billyrouth1 "but one day you will come face to face with him weather you believve in him or not"
Ah, the threat of divine judgment: one of the last refuges of a believer who doesn't actually have facts and an argument.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH call what u will, there are plenty o ft facts, u just refuse to lisen, you have no facts to back up your claim exept your own opionion, there is no scientific evidence that can disprove the existince of god,all u have is to try and say writings were made up then u mis qoute the text, prove that numerouse authers over the course of atleast 3000 yrs got together to make it up
billyrouth1 1 year ago
Some books of the bible were wrote a mere 25 years after the fact, while people were still alive from that time. Why did no one come out to discredit it? Thats like writing a book saying jfk was burnt to death not shot, wouldnt people come out and say do what that never happend
billyrouth1 1 year ago
@billyrouth1 "Some books of the bible were wrote a mere 25 years after the fact...."
Name those books and your source for this claim. Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH what do we no about the nt, we no it was written by people whoe either new him, had encountered him, or who were under the supervision of his diciples, hence it couldnt of been written no more than 50 years after the fact, the fact no gospel tells of the destruction of the temple, so we know it was written before 79 ad
billyrouth1 1 year ago
@ProfMTH paul died in 64 ad so we no his were written before that time
billyrouth1 1 year ago
@ProfMTH we now acts was written by luke as more of a historical document so the fact he doesent mention the destruction of jearuslem says it was written before 70 ad, we also no acts was the second book written by luke so the,book of luke was written even earlier than acts
billyrouth1 1 year ago
@billyrouth1 "we no it was written by people whoe either new him, had encountered him, or who were under the supervision of his diciples"
Actually, we don't know that with respect to many of the books in the New Testament, including, without limitation, the gospels. May I ask what your point is here?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
There r so many holes in your video I cant even type it all, I can meet all the requirements to b a doctor or a lawer or whatever that doesent mean I become one
billyrouth1 1 year ago
@billyrouth1 "There r so many holes in your video I cant even type it all."
Make a video. It is YouTube after all.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH you r mistaken it says friends not kinsman,but I wont argue that point, to dicredit the bible u need to also believe that ceaser, plato, and didnt exist either theres no proof they did but someone else writings
billyrouth1 1 year ago
Mark 3:21 says his friends not his familly, u need to get your facts straight
billyrouth1 1 year ago
@billyrouth1 No, it doesn't. It says "kinsmen" (AKA: family). I know that creates some problems for believers who take the Christian scriptures literally and regard them as inerrant, but that doesn't change what the text says.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
ahhhh, the brothers knew he was wacko!!!! there is the proof, jezuz was a previous version of John Smith.
lapiz1969 1 year ago
@lapiz1969 "ahhhh, the brothers knew he was wacko!!!!"
Or at least feared he was--as, it seems, did his entire family (including his mother) at some point.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Paul's mention of Jesus appearing to James is a direct quotation from The Gospel of the Hebrews.
see Jerome.
smartwarlord 1 year ago
@smartwarlord Your point?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
omg! i loved carmen san diego!
pbhs07 1 year ago
Ok, I just finished reading Dawson's paper. His suggested adaptational strategies have nothing to do with followers making up physical events. Would we agree?
It is clear to me from the empty tomb account in Mark, and Paul's accounts of the resurrected Christ's appearance to Paul and others, that the early church believed in not only a spiritualized "internal" resurrection but also in a physical manifestation of Jesus. You have to assert that Paul is blatantly telling lies if you deny this.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion "His suggested adaptational strategies have nothing to do with followers making up physical events. Would we agree?"
First (and it's frustrating that you watched the series AND read Dawson's article but failed to make this connection) the CD management strategies that are probably most relevant to the earliest core group of Jesus' followers after his execution are...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
..."spiritualization" (regarding something as an "invisible, spiritual occurrence, e.g., Jesus was "put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" (1 Peter 3:18)) and "reaffirmation" (engaging in processes of group building and reaching out to others). Second, Dawson presents several examples of religionists making up physical events.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
... But this is irrelevant to the earliest core group of Jesus' followers. The resurrection-qua-physical-event stories came along later in the Jesus tradition, after the earliest core group of followers.
Third, contrary to what you've said here in your latest comment, I've not argued that "the early church believed in...a spiritualized 'internal' resurrection." Rather, I've argued that Jesus' earliest core group of followers, i.e.,
ProfMTH 1 year ago
...the apostles, initially defeated by Jesus' execution began to reconceive the execution as the means by which God vindicated Jesus. Jesus was, as 1 Peter 3:18 says, put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit. The "made alive in the spirit" part wasn't an internal event, but rather an invisible one -- see the "spiritualization" strategy.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Fourth, what I have argued (and shown) to have been internal was Paul's earliest explanation of his revelation of Jesus, i.e., God revealed his Son IN Paul. A bit later on, as Paul seeks to connect himself more closely to the apostles and larger Jesus movement from which he was distancing himself in Galatians, he begins to describe his experience more in terms of what he was told the others had experienced, i.e., a vision of the post-mortem Jesus, who was, as Paul says, a spirit.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Fifth, there is nothing in the Pauline corpus that has Paul describing a physical resurrection of Jesus. Nothing. Not even in stories in Acts that purport to recount Paul's initial encounter with the post-mortem Jesus is it portrayed in physical terms, i.e., Paul saw and interacted with Jesus raised in the body that had been crucified. Rather, we're told that Paul saw a light (a blinding light) and heard a voice.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I'm not arguing that Paul saw a physical human body in the flesh. "Rather, we're told that Paul saw a light (a blinding light) and heard a voice" Doesn't this suggest physicality, although not flesh and bones. It is clear to me that his vision was of something external and not of his imaginings. Acts describes the objectivity of his experience - his companions heard the voice.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@ProfMTH "Rather, we're told that Paul saw a light (a blinding light) and heard a voice" This suggests physicality to me, maybe not a human flesh physicality but physicality none the less.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
"Paul seeks to connect himself more closely to the apostles and larger Jesus movement" Paul would have known if the accounts he relates in 1 Corinthians were false or not since he stayed with Peter and also saw James in Jerusalem. It seems to me that you must call Paul a liar if one is to agree with your point of view.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
Your view would only make sense if we didn't have testimony like this from the early church members. "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." This what written BEFORE the book of Peter.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@ProfMTH "Second, Dawson presents several examples of religionists making up physical events." I missed these, please point them out.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion " Doesn't this suggest physicality, although not flesh and bones."
"Heavenly light" and a voice? I suppose one could say so, but it's not even remotely like what the gospels claim the apostles saw. If, as it seems, your project is to verify the gospel accounts of the post-mortem Jesus' appearances, there's nothing in Paul's writings or the writings about what Paul says (i.e., the 3 tellings in Acts of what he saw on the road to Damascus) that will do the job for you.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
"his companions heard the voice"
Not even the stories in Acts agreet. Acts 9 says "they heard the sound"; Acts 22 says they heard sound but didn't understand it; Acts 26 says only that Paul heard a voice. In any case, none of this gets you where you want (need?) to be, i.e., with an account that confirms and comports with what the gospels claim the apostles saw after Jesus was raised from the dead. A multiplicity of conflicting stories is not the evidence you need.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
"Paul would have known if the accounts he relates in 1 Corinthians were false or not since he stayed with Peter and also saw James in Jerusalem."
I'm tired of going around this mulberry bush with you. Paul claims to have had the same vision of Jesus that he was told other apostles, James, and 500 believers had. But his "vision" wasn't of a fish-eating, scar-bearing reanimated Jesus. Rather, in Acts it was light and sound; in Galatians it was an internal revelation. None of it adds up.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
"I missed these, please point them out."
No. Go back and read the paper again and look for those parts. I don't have the paper in front of me right now and I don't have time to get it so I can spoon feed you the parts you missed.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
You made the truth claim, I'm asking you to provide evidence for it. What is wrong with that?
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@ProfMTH You should note that I have not claimed to be able to historically verify the gospel accounts of the physical flesh and bones Jesus. My "project" as you call it is to refute the position of your video as it relates to C.D and the early church's belief.I'm trying to show that there was a belief in a resurrected Jesus very early on, and that His appearance was believed to be objective.Note, by arguing this I am not saying that it was wholly physical.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion "I'm trying to show that there was a belief in a resurrected Jesus very early on...."
You seem not to grasp that I agree that there was an early belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead. I've merely identified what that earliest belief actually was, i.e., that Jesus who had been put to death in the flesh was made alive in the spirit, becoming a life-giving spirit.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) This earliest belief had nothing to do with an empty tomb story or tales of a fish-eating, scar-bearing, reanimated corpse with superpowers--all stuff that came along later. Do you believe those later stories? Do you believe what Matthew, Luke, and John say about the post-mortem Jesus? If so, then you *must* be trying to confirm them. If you don't believe them, then why are you arguing with me?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
As for the gospel narratives, its hard to make a case for the historicity of the accounts - I remain agnostic to this belief that Jesus had a flesh and blood body that ate with the disciples etc. These things aren't so important to me, if I can see the early belief was that Christ rose and appeared physically and objectively to the disciples and it didn't come about through a psychological imagining (which it seems to me that you are arguing).
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I know your point quite well thanks..I think we disagree that it was purely a spiritualized event arising from C.D. I have tried to show that not only was Jesus referred to a "life giving spirit" but also he appeared as one who is in this physical world, see 1 Cor 15.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Its worth keeping in mind that nowhere does Paul use the exact term "internal revelation". He actual description in Galatians is a "revelation from Jesus Christ" This doesn't discount a visual appearance. In any case, even if he did use the specific words "internal revelation" it wouldn't prove that he didn't have an accompanying vision...
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion He talks about God revealing his Son in him. He says nothing about seeing Jesus, nothing that even remotely resembles what appears in Acts. And the stuff in Acts and Galatians seems quite different from what Paul says in 1 Cor 15. You've presented Paul as a bedrock of testimony re Jesus' resurrection. But scrutiny reveals that his testimony and the testimony put in his mouth in Acts are in combination far more akin to sand.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH "nothing that even remotely resembles what appears in Acts." you have no argument from me there.
"He says nothing about seeing Jesus"
Please read the passage again- it says"I received it [the gospel] by revelation from Jesus Christ"
I'm sorry but I just don't see a contradiction in Paul's testimony - an absence of details in Galatians does not prove your point.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion I know what he says. And I've already explained why I believe it's quite different from what appears in 1 Cor 15. We agree it doesn't even remotely resemble what appears in Acts.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I don't think we quite agree in the same way. I will agree with you that Paul's testimony appears nowhere near the detail that it does in Acts. And I will not claim to be able to PROVE the historicity of the account in Acts. But so far your view that Paul's testimony itself is contradictory (Cor vs. Gal) fails to prove itself to me.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
I can see us getting nowhere fast, probably mainly because we disagree on the starting premise that the bible is truthful. That, plus i think we both know how hard it is to articulate ourselves over a youtube comment box that limits responses to one paragraph. I appreciate your responses. I do not in anyway disagree with you as a person. merely the beliefs of the video. (i hope you would say the same about me). Thanks.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
Ok,i see how you have come to your conclusion and i respect you for being able to defend your position in a decent manner. However, i have many objections. Some raised earlier. Another of which is to the cognitive dissonance theory as it applies to Paul.I fail to see that cognitive dissonance theory does anything to discredit Paul's visions - he was not a believer before he had them. His visions were the cause of his belief.He also states that they were after Jesus' appearances to the others.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion I never applied the cognitive dissonance argument to Paul. If you watched the series, then you know that I exclude Paul from the list of people to whom the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument applies. Most proponents of the argument do the same for many of the same reasons I set forth in the series. So your saying you disagree with " the cognitive dissonance theory as it applies to Paul" has nothing to do with any argument I've offered.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
It's worth noting that in his own writings, Paul never claims to have had an encounter with a physical post-mortem Jesus. As I've already pointed out to you, in Galatians 1 he describes his initial encounter with Jesus as an internal reveleation. In 1 Corinthians 15 he talks about a vision. In the writing *about* Paul's conversion encounter with Jesus by the author of Acts, we're told that Paul saw a light and heard a voice.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I have watched the whole series. My point is that Paul's testimony is crucial because it is an early account of the resurrection and therefore can give tremendous weight to the other accounts. His own experience could not be of cognitive dissonance, this gives even more credibility to his experience. In 1 Cor. 15:3-8 his description seems not to be of internal revelation but of a consensus reality appearance - (in the physical world).
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@ProfMTH "Crucial to what exactly?" again i will state: crucial because it is an early account of the resurrection and therefore can give tremendous weight to the other accounts. His own experience could not be of cognitive dissonance, this gives even more credibility to his and the others experiences. In 1 Cor. 15:3-8 (Paul's own words) - He talks about a consensus reality appearance - more than 500 people at once.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion "crucial because it is an early account of the resurrection"
Where does Paul give an "account of the resurrection"?
"His own experience could not be of cognitive dissonance...."
I've not said it was. You continue to talk about C.D. in reference to Paul despite my NOT arguing that it was his issue. Therefore I'm compelled to conclude that you're committed to a straw man version of the argument, one you find easier to reject than the actual argument presented.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I am not attacking straw men. It is a part of the bigger picture. Paul's whole experience is one not tainted by C.D. Would we agree on that?
A fair point - I will retract what i said about "account of the resurrection" and say it is an early account of the resurrected Christ. If Paul's own experience isn't formed through C.D what then is it? I conclude it is a truthful and powerful event based on his 180 deg turnaround.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion So if Paul had a genuine experience, his testimony of the other disciples and of the 500 are important. He says some of them are still alive, in effect, you can question them about their experience too. If you choose to apply C.D to the resurrection story, you must take all testimony about the resurrection into account.
What do you make of Paul's conversion and the 500 seeing Christ? It seems like you don't think they are hallucinations? How do you assimilate it then?
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion Cognitive dissonance theory applies to people with strongly held religious beliefs. Paul's beliefs were apparently opposite of the followers of The Way. Please address this.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion "My point is that Paul's testimony is crucial...."
That's your point NOW, but in your previous comment you said you objected to "the cognitive dissonance theory as it applies to Paul." Since I never applied it to Paul, your previous claim was nihil ad rem. In any case, you say "Paul's testimony is crucial." Crucial to what exactly? It's not crucial to the claim of a physical resurrection. Paul never testifies to that.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) " His own experience could not be of cognitive dissonance...."
I haven't claimed that it was. I'm not sure why you continue to go on about this. It has nothing to do with any of the arguments I've made or the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument generally.
"In 1 Cor. 15:3-8 his description seems not to be of internal revelation but of a consensus reality appearance - (in the physical world)."
We've covered this territory already.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) " Cognitive dissonance theory applies to people with strongly held religious beliefs. Paul's beliefs were apparently opposite of the followers of The Way. Please address this."
Address it? I haven't a clue what it means.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH "Crucial to what exactly?" again i will state: crucial because it is an early account of the resurrection and therefore can give tremendous weight to the other accounts. His own experience could not be of cognitive dissonance, this gives even more credibility to his and the others experiences. In 1 Cor. 15:3-8 (Paul's own words) - He talks about a consensus reality appearance - more than 500 people at once.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion "If Paul's own experience isn't formed through C.D what then is it?"
We can only go by what Paul himself tells us. And what he tells us is that he had an internal revelation of Jesus and a vision.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Yes, that's my view also. he reports both internal revelation and a vision. I don't think you can argue that Paul believed it was solely an "internal revelation" not only for the reason of his testimony to the 500 people who saw Christ at the same time. How do you assimilate Paul's testimony of Christ's appearance more than 500 at the same time?
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion "I don't think you can argue that Paul believed it was solely an 'internal revelation'...."
That's interesting. Clearly, he didn't feel more was necessary when writing to the Galatians. Of course in Galatians he's not trying to link himself to the other apostles and leaders who knew Jesus. In fact, he seems eager to do the opposite: he learned nothing from them, but got everything directly from God, including a direct, internal revelation of Jesus and the gospel.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
... By contrast, in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is very much linking himself to the others and talking about what he had received from and with them. (See, e.g., 1 Cor 15:3-8.) In this context, Paul moves from talk about an internal revelation -- something quite different from what the others he mentions purportedly experienced -- and characterizes his experience with the post-mortem Jesus in precisely the same visionary terms as their experiences.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
... I think it's fascinating how Paul shifts the details between the two texts for reasons that seem to have far more to do with his place in the Jesus movement rather than anything about Jesus' post-mortem state.
As for the 500 who had a vision of Jesus, it's worth noting that Paul says he "received" this information. He no more witnessed this "appearance" to 500 than he witnessed Jesus' "apperance" to Peter, to "the twelve" (even though there were only 11), or to James. However...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
...unlike in Galatians, Paul is eager here to have his experience of the post-mortem Jesus line up with what he has been told others experienced.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
"I believe I did explain in this series how I believe the development of the resurrection story proceeded over time" From what I gather, please correct if wrong/ your position is that the gospels were probably much later than Paul's epistles etc. and the later they go the more elaborate they become that therefore the later gospels cannot be trusted? I wouldn't be so hasty. I think that arguments for the historicity of the empty tomb are compelling and must be taken into consideration.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion To be more precise, what I said was that the NT's earliest descriptions of the post-mortem state of Jesus refer to him as a spirit and that as time went on the terms of the desriptions became more and more physical. So, e.g., early on the post-mortem Jesus is said to have been a "life-giving spirit" (1 Cor 15:45) and then later the post-mortem Jesus is shown emphatically denying that he is a spirit at all (Luke 24:39)...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) ...and even invites exploration of his physical body (John 20:27) -- interestingly enough, in that portion of John we're clearly meant to conclude that this is the same body that was nailed to the cross several days earlier because it has the scars of crucifixion (contrast that with, e.g., Paul's insisting in 1 Cor 15 that the body buried at death is not the same body that emerges from resurrection).
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) So my point was not so much that the story becomes untrustworthy over time (I don't regard the story as credible at any point in its development), but rather that it changed over time. Among the things the "die for a lie" primarily depends upon is the apostles having an encounter with a physically resurrected Jesus, but the Jesus tradition didn't always present a physical resurrection. That was a later development and it's one that not all Christians even today accept.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH (con't) This gives us insight into how Jesus' apostles, the people who were with him when he was alive, actually came to understand his death, how they ascribed meaning to it (an exercise in cognitive dissonance management), i.e., Jesus' death was not the end for him because God vindicated or raised Jesus to himself. It was a spiritual, invisible event. As time went on, the story became more elaborate and, quite apart from the original apostles, morphed into a physical event.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
If you apply the same reasoning to an example of Jesus, then if Jesus never rose from the dead, the disciples would probably not have asserted that he had, but would have come up with some other way to justify their belief that he was God.
It would make more sense for them to say that he didn't rise but for some reason or another he is still God wouldn't it?
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
The examples of Jehova's witnesses still being believers of their religion after their prophecies didn't come through is not illustrating the point. > i.e they didn't go on believing that the prophecies actually happened. Instead, they adjusted their beliefs to fit the actual events.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion Actually, they found a way, in a number of cases, to say that the prophecies *did* happen, just not in the way they had anticipated they would happen.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH That's kind of what I'm saying though. They adjusted their beliefs to the actual events. Not the events to their belief. I guess my point is on the physical resurrection. They wouldn't make it up they would have adjusted their beliefs to fit the events. And Paul is another story but look at the guys transformation and conviction. If you believe his words then something profound must have happened to him. Also Marks gospel could have been contemporary with the thinking of Paul's epistles
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion "Mark's gospel could have been contemporary with the thinking of Paul's epistles."
And if it is, it's worth nothing that it's the only one of the four gospels that does not describe a physical resurrection. The earliest belief about Jesus being raised after death was that it was a spiritual and invisible event.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Hey man, thanks for your replies. It's a good change from a lot of youtube bashing that goes on. Paul's visions do seem to be ethereal but he also talks about Jesus appearing to the disciples, and more than 500 others. Also, even if you discount Mark 16:9-20 as being a later addition. What about the empty tomb account, I believe many contemporary scholars recognize the empty tomb as likely. doesn't that suggest a physical resurrection?
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion "Hey man, thanks for your replies. It's a good change from a lot of youtube bashing that goes on."
My pleasure. And the same to you.
"Paul's visions do seem to be ethereal but he also talks about Jesus appearing to the disciples, and more than 500 others."
Indeed. And, as I note at some point in this series (I don't recall precisely when), he describes it in terms of a vision. ...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) ... One of the most interesting (and I think most overlooked) aspects of this is that Paul links the post-mortem Jesus' appearance to him to the appearances to the disciples and others. In other words, Paul basically says that he saw what the others saw. The question, then, is what did Paul see? Well, in the two instances where he writes about it, i.e., Galatians 1 and 1 Cor 15, he talks about it as an internal revelation ("God was pleased to reveal his Son in me") and a vision. ...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) ... In Acts, the descriptions of Paul's encounter with the post-mortem Jesus talk about Paul's seeing a light and hearing a voice. Again, nothing there about Paul encountering Jesus' in a reanimated physical body. So if, as Paul seems to invite one to do, one understands what the apostles encountered in terms of what Paul claims to have encountered, it's spiritual and visionary rather than physical.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) "Also, even if you discount Mark 16:9-20 as being a later addition. What about the empty tomb account, I believe many contemporary scholars recognize the empty tomb as likely. doesn't that suggest a physical resurrection?"
A few things. First, there's no question that Mark 16:9-20 should be discounted. Second, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "many contemporary scholars recognize the empty tomb as likely." ...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) ... Do you mean that scholars don't question that the empty tomb was an original component of Mark's resurrection narrative? If so, quite right. But that doesn't get us very far vis-a-vis early belief in a bodily resurrection. It seems to me the most that can be said for Mark on this point is that it has the seed of the bodily resurrection story. The fact that someone came along later and added to the text to make a bodily resurrection an explicit component...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) ...suggests how that story developed over time.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I bring up the empty tomb to illustrate that the disciples' early belief would have been affected by this event. Would they have believed it was a completely spiritual resurrection when they had no body to point to? The appearance of Jesus to Paul may be a vision. However, it is not certain whether the appearance to others was of the same nature. Paul's testimony of appearance to more than 500 men at once seems to be attesting to something more than just a subjective vision.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion "Paul's testimony of appearance to more than 500 men at once seems to be attesting to something more than just a subjective vision."
1st, what do you mean by "subjective vision"? 2d, why does Paul's claim about the 500 point to something other than a vision? He uses the exact same word in reference to them, himself, and the apostles. 3d, as for the empty tomb, I believe that's a story that came along later in the Jesus movement. Did you watch the entire series?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH finishd watching
re your points.
1. by subjective vision, I mean some kind of hallucination or vision that is not and can not be experienced by others.
2.If the 500 had a vision at the same time, it seems to be describing something in consensus reality.
3.The empty tomb appears in the earliest account in Mark. If you believe it is just an added story, then you are going against most biblical scholars. What are your reasons for believing that the empty tomb is just an added story?
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
To reiterate my point, I'm saying that it seems that Paul did not believe in a purely physical resurrection, but more along the lines of belief in a transformation of the physical body into a spiritual body. The empty tomb would be just one of the reasons for this. Also, the appearance to the 500 at one time suggests that we are not dealing with possible hallucinations etc.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion 1st, I did not say "the empty tomb is just an added story" in Mark. Rather, my contention is that the empty tomb came along later in the Jesus tradition. (I don't share your view about Mark being contemporaneous with the composition of the Pauline corpus.) 2nd, Paul never mentions an empty tomb, but rather, talks about the post-mortem Jesus as a spirit (1 Cor 15:45) whom he first encountered via internal revelation (Galatians 1:15-16) and vision (1 Cor 15:8).
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) "Paul did not believe in a purely physical resurrection, but more along the lines of belief in transformation of the physical body into a spiritual body."
I don't see any evidence for the claim that Paul believed in some hybrid resurrection body, part physical and part "spiritual." He quite clearly says that Jesus became "a life-giving spirit."
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH "...we are not dealing with possible hallucinations...."
Note well that I have never said a thing about hallucinations.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Comment removed
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
"Note well that I have never said a thing about hallucinations. "
well noted. i apologize for misunderstanding, i was not asserting that you had, i was merely stating my position.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Paul also talks about what the "Resurrection Body" is in 1 Cor 15:35. He calls the raised body a spiritual body, not just a life giving spirit. I come to my conclusion that Paul believes in both a physical/spiritual resurrection from said point coupled with the empty tomb.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@ProfMTH hey prof its hard to keep up with the points of arguments like this on youtube is there some other forum where we can discuss? Thanks
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago