The best explanation for the empty tomb is that Jesus indeed resurrected from the dead. Otherwise the disciples would have gone through the five stages of grief: 1. Denial, 2.Depression, 3. Bargaining, 4.Anger, 5. Acceptance. These stages always comes to a normal human being. Failure to accept leads to psychological problems. The disciples did not show any psychological problems but transformation to changed characters: Coward to Brave, Defeated to Victorious & Hiding to Bold Preaching.
to say it in layman's terms, If a group of very smart people in ancient times plotted a great conspiracy and knew how to entertain the future , so that it became an obsession. The Future, if it has no fixed limits, the value of the chasing of the Wind of Intelligent Notions. Some future people, reached a goal and so they are servicing Faith, to attend to the raising of their Messiah, reaching through a veil of mystery in time and space. The Future holds the Winning Hand. Jesus !
Simply, the Resurrection of Christ, is a conundrum of the past being overwhelmed by what is possible out of any future which for it's own reason , changes the material events of the past. It is one proof, that Intelligence is superior to all concepts of a limited Materialism. What is the Universe now, does not commit itself to always have all the same presumptions. If the future has a critical breaking away from all known laws, then anything can be preempted, forever is not forever.
When a truly intelligent view of reality holds that , if we have one event of interest that takes place in the dimension of time, then theoretically, we have all the eternity past, pointing forward to one event, and we have all the eternity of future time, from which to point to the event in the opposite direction. When there is a will, there is a way. And so Jesus said " With God, nothing will be impossible" The Future , as a product of the past, may yet overrule the Past.
1.) Paul is not an eyewitness to the Resurrection, the empty tomb or any of the purported post resurrection sightings of Jesus. Further, according to Paul's own testimony, Galations 1:18-20,he couldn't have been an eye witness to any agreement between, Peter, James and John. So the response to Habermas' idea that if Paul can do it..., is that he can't. He can only testify to his first hand knowledge of Peter and James beliefs five years after the crucifixion if we use Habermas' own time table
@sp1ke0kill3r I would assume you would use this objection to one of my comments I just made. Paul is certainly an eyewitness to what he believed to be the Jesus, a person whom Paul knew to be dead! An empty tomb is not needed to know that someone who was dead is now seen alive - I personally would not really care where they were buried bc I have now SEEN them alive.
@sp1ke0kill3r I.e. if my sister died and then I saw her physically a few days later, I would not need to go to the morgue to verify what I saw. Moreover, an empty tomb, or morgue, by itself does not mean that someone is now alive anyway.
I think you are also misunderstanding the argument for Ga. as it is that Paul has provided/presented eyewitness material in 1 Cor. 15. Thus, he says in 1Co 15:11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. They were preaching the same.
@CapsHockey100 I mention the empty tomb because it was one of the ees offered by Habermas et al.
No I understand the argument perfectly, Habermas wishes to use Paul as an eyewitness to prove the ressurection and the summary Paul offers. Habermas wanted to know what was wrong with the summary. PLENTY. There weren't 12 disciples to witness any post resurrection appearances. Judas was dead and not yet replaced. As to the five hundred, he may as well said 5000 or 5....cont...
@sp1ke0kill3r Paul specifically cites those who witnessed the risen Jesus, along with himself, as do the Gospels and other sources. That the disciples believed to have experiences of the resurrected Christ is one of the most firm facts there is...If you are referring to Judas' death as making the number of disciples no longer 12 I would say that is being a bit rediculous. Look at the names of NCAA football conferences, PAC 10 and so on, most of the time these divisions do not actually have 10
@CapsHockey100 The disciples weren't a football team and it's pure speculation to suggest that they were named the 12 instead of being referred to as 12 witnesses. Even if we grant you this, All we have is that Paul was told by Peter and James what the others believed. Even if we grant that they all believed to have seen Jesus resurrected, it proves nothing
@sp1ke0kill3r I mean if that is really your argument against the 12, the fact that Judas died and there were no longer exactly 12, it is really pretty weak but your right, we need not spend more space writing on it bc you say that Paul's reporting is still irrelevant. Is it bc you think he is reporting hearsay?
@sp1ke0kill3r Btw, we are in agreement thought that Paul, at the least was an eyewitness to his own experience, what that experience was is a different question.
@sp1ke0kill3r teams in them, but it is just a title. Similarly so was the 12. It referred to Jesus' closest disciples as there were certainly other disciples of Jesus during His lifetime, but they were not as close to Him as the 12.
@CapsHockey100 2 None of their testimony is available. Again Paul didn't witness ANY of the post ressurection.appearances. and can not testify to what was seen. His testimony boils down to what Peter and James believed they saw, but all that amounts to is he was in an excellent position to know what Peter and James claim, years later, to have seen. This does absolutely nothing to prove the Resurrection.
@sp1ke0kill3r We don't need the 500's testimony, the people Paul was writing to could have verified what Paul was saying, and it appears as though Paul anticipates this and is why he states that some of them are still alive. Additionally, we already have two other groups listed by Paul as having seen the risen Jesus.
Essentially you are arguing that Paul's reference is hearsay, correct?
@CapsHockey100 but the people Paul was writing to, namely, the Corinthians, could not verify what Paul said. How would they know who to talk to? Were the 500 crashing at Peter's waiting for Corinthians to verify their testimony? How were the Corinthians supposed to know who they were? Even if they could, that does nothing for us Habermas isn't trying to prove his case to Corinthians. No i'm saying Paul's summary proves very little and it may prove he can't count.
@sp1ke0kill3r Those are good questions certainly Paul referred to them when he was their in Corinth personally, he could have been reminding them about the 500 in order for them to be verified (he was reminding them in fact about the res.) But if you are putting something false together, you want to include fewer verifiable details, telling them to check with the 500 regarding the appearances does just that. In any event, we still have the others mentioned so one is not off the hook even w/o 500
That was awful. All Habermas did was try to prove claims. How does proving someone believing something happening help the case of it actually happening? You know what, I have an invisible spacecraft that you can't touch. This statement is being made immediately during the time in which I believed it. Guess you have to believe it's true. History cannot prove a miracle.
@TheBowsersMario What do you mean history cannot prove a miracle? Don't skeptics often ask for a person to regrow a limb as proof for a miracle? Wouldn't that be historical proof that a miracle has occurred? If not, why do skeptics as for it as evidence? Just some things I have been thinking about with respect to the historian's ability to say a miracle has or has not occurred. I think that they could say one has occurred.
@CapsHockey100 a regrown limb happening today or at least in recent times is different. If someone doesn't have a limb one day, which is confirmed, then one day that person has the limb again, then yes, it occured. and there are much better ways of confirming this should that happen now then maybe 2000 years ago.
@TheBowsersMario Well just to be clear you said, "History cannot prove a miracle." It seems then that you would agree that if someone had a limb that grew back we could conclude historically that a miracle has occurred?
@CapsHockey100 yes, but the difference is if the limb grew back and was documented here and now, that's one thing. retroactively going back and using history to prove a resurrection we weren't there to see, is far more problematic.
@TheBowsersMario Well, that's fine, but like I said, I was interested in the topic ,can a historian say a miracle has occurred. It seems like if a limb grew back then you would say that a miracle happened and a historian can draw that same conclusion. But to question something you said, if the limb is documented as regrowing now by eyewitnesses, wouldn't people 2000 years from now be skeptical of the claim? Or would eyewitness testimony be a strong indicator (esp. if they were willing to suffer)
@CapsHockey100 a limb being grown back now would be documented in every way imaginable, and would change the world forever.anyone who could know would find out, fairly quickly. i dont have to explain why the resurrection did not enjoy such luxury. A limb growing back today wouldnt be by just eyewitness testimony, either.
@TheBowsersMario Right, but when you say documented everyway imagineable we also need to be cautious. I am assuming you mean video and photos, but we can easily find videos and photos on the internet that attest to aliens or bigfoot or etc. Now if someone witnessed someone's limb grow back and was willing to suffer and die for that claim that would be strong eyewitness support that it actually occurred if, say, you were not fortunate enough to witness it grow back, right?
@TheBowsersMario Related to a historian and miraclesYou said, all Habs does is try to prove his claims. It seems he is trying to prove a historical event that he believes occurred, like anyone does with any event they believe occurred, using the data to, like you said, prove his claim.
To contrast it to your claim, which is unfalsifiable, the resurrection claim could be falsified. A body easily could have been found, a witness could have recanted, etc. Its nobodys fault that data doesnt exist
@CapsHockey100 A body easily could have been found? I wouldnt be so sure. By the time any of this would have become an issue, his body would have been unrecognizable. Maybe a witness did recant. He wouldn't be considered part of the christian movement and of course, we would hear nothing from him. The fact is, the idea that the creator of the universe would have such shoddy evidence for his "son" is quite telling.
@TheBowsersMario I meant that these would have been ways to falsify the claim of the disciples. Finding of the body would certainly have falsified the claim, unlike your invisible spacecraft scenario. In any event, I don't think the body would have been unrecognizable for various reasons, but even if it was, it would have been better to present that body than to say the disciples stole the body (as was done).
@TheBowsersMario Well, which is better, present a body that is unrecognizable or concede that the tomb Jesus was buried in is actually empty, but the disciples stole the body (and subsequently died for a lie). Additionally, in making this claim those guarding the body were put in a poor light bc it makes it look like they were unable to do the job they were supposed to do. Moreover, all of this assumes that the body would be unrecognizeable, which is highly debatable.
@CapsHockey100 Why does it have to be the disciples who stole the body? How do you know there were guards? It's interesting to think that a crucified enemy of the state who carried no respect would, not only deserve a tomb, but guards watching his body. isn't this something only nobility enjoyed? And what kind of body would be recognizable after days of decay after already being flogged thoroughly?
@TheBowsersMario Well it doesn't, I was just using the data that one claim that was made (as someone else stealing the body there is no evidence for). The guards are reported, but even if they aren't there and say the disciples came back to an empty tomb, that alone would not lead them to think that Jesus was resurrected! Jews were expecting everyone to be resurrected together.
@CapsHockey100 Look, this could go on forever. I do plan on doing further study of the resurrection. As is stated in the bible, Christianity rises or falls with the resurrection, and the circumstances are interesting. But this has to end somewhere. I will take some of your points into consideration.
@TheBowsersMario Fair enough. Good talk. I wrote a thesis on the resurrection and you are right, Christianity rises and falls on it. I think the evidence for it is INCREDIBLY strong after a few years of study. But you asked a question I have currently been looking into regarding the historians ability to say a miracle has occurred.
@TheBowsersMario I don't think Jesus was much an enemy of the state, otherwise the disciples would have been sought out by Pilate as was done with other Jewish rebels, I learned that from reading liberal scholars oddly enough (Crossan).
I think if there was a body, preserved in a tomb it would have been recognizable, by the time everyone was preaching Jesus soon after. The appearances to Paul and James would still need explanation as they may have thought the body was stolen prior to their con
@CapsHockey100@CapsHockey100 Paul did not see a physical Jesus as portrayed in 1 Corinthians. He talks about flesh and blood not entering the kingdom of God. The body that is sown is not the body that is raised, jesus became a life giving spirit, etc etc. Contrast this with much later embellished gospels like Luke and John where they are explicitly trying to make Jesus's body seem far more physical. It all seems like a legendary addition.
@TheBowsersMario Comeon now, context is everything. Those words refer to life lived in sin and life lived in Christ. Additionaly, the words anastasis and egiero were 99.9% of the time used to refer to a physical resurrection. Furthermore, Paul was a pharisee = physical resurrection. Even further more, Paul says that he is preaching the same message as the earliest disciples according to Ga 1 -2 as Habermas states in the video. So Peter, James, John, and Paul are all preaching the same message.
@TheBowsersMario The argument Habermas presents in the video is the exact problems facing the legend theory. We have early, eyewitness testimony from friends, skeptics, and enemies. Legend theory to me seems to be a wussy way out, no offense, bc it shows one is not really willing to engage the evidence. It is also why many critical scholars might go the hallucination route (which has its own set of problems).
@CapsHockey100 perhaps i misunderstand your comments, but there isn't really any eyewitness testimony. Their are claims of eyewitness testimony, but very few of these witnesses are identified; worse yet their testimony isn't even available for examination, leaving a great deal of room for legend theory. That is to say the evidence can't really be engaged because there is so very little.
@sp1ke0kill3r Sorry if I was not clear. (1) At the very LEAST Paul is considered an eyewitness to an 'experience he believed to have been the risen Jesus', even very skeptical scholars agree with this - whether they think Paul was hallucinating or telling the truth is a different issue. (2) The argument Habs presents in the video is one that shows that Paul also received material from other eyewitnesses and key witnesses at that - Peter, James, and John. (3) Scholarship is discovering how
@CapsHockey100 1.)If your referring to his conversion experience, Paul was not in fact an eyewitness here. He was blinded, remember? The biblical accounts don't even claim he saw anything except a bright light. You can either believe "very skeptical scholars " or the bible. 2.) Again, according to Paul's own account in Galatians 1: 18-20, he did not meet John and could not therefore have received any "data" from him unless you think Paul was lying. Though he specifically said he wasn't.
@sp1ke0kill3r 1) You well clearly Paul was a witness to his own experience, now how one classifies that as I said, is going to be the question. You say he was blinded, where does Paul say he was blinded? Paul says he has seen the Lord in 1 Cor. 9:1, also the Freek words he used for resurrection, anastasis and egiero, were only used to refer to physical bodies. Additional, the only place I know that refers Paul being blinded and if you are willing to grand Luke/Acts historical, then there is ...
@CapsHockey100 Why do i need to grant the historicity of Acts? Acts is offered as evidence all the time. Are you saying I can't refer to certain testimony without accepting its validity?. Our court rooms would grind to a halt. If you accept the historical accuracy of Acts, then you need to accept that Paul was lying in ga. In which case we can toss out his testimony. And if Peter and James "added nothing to his Gospel" then we can toss their testimony as well. Q.E.D
@sp1ke0kill3r What do you mean that you cannot refer to a testimony without accepting its validity. I am saying the only text that refers to Paul's blindness is in Acts, and if you are using that to substanstiate your claim that Paul did not see the risen Jesus but was blinded, then you are granting that Acts is historical. And if this is the case Acts and Luke provide more ammunition to the case of the resurrection. Otherwise I would need to have some criteria for how you know Acts is only
@CapsHockey100 historically accurate where you need him to be with respect to Paul being blinded. In other words how do you know that he is right there and not other places (i.e. where Luke/Acts refers to others who witnessed the risen Jesus.) What lie/contradiction are you talking about in Ga. and Acts? What texts specifically? Are they anymore a contradiction than the 3 accounts of Paul's conversion given in Acts by the same author.
@CapsHockey100" if you are using that to substanstiate your claim that Paul did not see the risen Jesus but was blinded, then you are granting that Acts is historical" WRONG I only need to accept that it is testimony offered. In this context the testimony says Paul was blinded. I don't need to accept its historical validity to question its consistency. I don't know if Paul was blind and don't care if he was, but the testimony is CONTRADICTORY. Either Paul was blind or he lied. Take yr pick
@sp1ke0kill3r First you did not present any texts. 2 Your are saying either Paul was blind or lied makes no sense. What did he lie about as I asked? If you are saying there is a difference between Paul's account and Luke's account in Acts, you seem to think we should go with Acts, why should we choose a secondhand source over against the actual recipient Paul?
@CapsHockey100 I don't need to present text. I did refer to text and we both know what the text is. Yes the reference to Paul being blind or a liar was wrong. It should be either Paul was blind or Acts is wrong. If Acts is wrong there goes yr added evidence. But if Acts is right, then indeed Paul was a liar.
@sp1ke0kill3r Well you can't claim a contradiction without citing which texts are contradictory now can you? If we don't let Christians get away with making claims without presenting the texts why should we let you in this case?
@sp1ke0kill3r even more evidence that one could use in support of the resurrection, espescially a physical one! So I can believe the Bible, and the critical scholars who grant these areas of historicity. 2) Right, but Paul does say in Ga. 2 that he made another trip to Jerusalem where John was present along with Peter and James and that they added nothing to his Gospel. So we have at least 2 trips to Jerusalem where Paul meets with eyewitnesses and is himself an eyewitness - poss. 3 trips
@sp1ke0kill3r Sorry I was not clear. 1-At the very LEAST Paul is an eyewitness to a 'an experience he claims of the Jesus.' This is something that scholars accept, but whether or not he was hallucinating, telling the truth, or fill in the blank is a different question. 2. The data Habs presents in this video shows clearly that Paul was also teaching others what he received and that he received it from prominent eyewitnesses, namely Peter, James, and John. 3. Scholarship has discovered
@sp1ke0kill3r 3. Scholarship has/is discovering ways in which historians can recognize sources within ancient texts. Richard Bauckham has written a book on this that has been highly credited called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. The book is at least worth looking at online to find reviews or summaries. 4. As Habs also mentioned in the video, Paul received this information very early within 3-5 years after the cross, but it was developed even earlier so that brings it even closer to the event.
@sp1ke0kill3r 4. cont'd Some scholars place the creed that Paul cites as being developed within MONTHS of the crucifixion, James Dunn for example. 5. Legend can occur even within eyewitnesses, so we must ask what evidence would falsify the Legend theory? If it is a legitimate hypothesis it should be falsifiable. All the evidence seems to indicate to me that it is not. We have noted 4 eyewitnesses, Peter, James, Paul, and John. Three of which were martyred and one exiled. The data is also early.
@CapsHockey100 Even if the creed were developed within days of the crucifixion, it proves nothing. All you have is an early date and some people who believe they saw Jesus alive. Are you also willing to grant UFO abductions and that Elvis is alive too?
@sp1ke0kill3r Do you have to resort to a caricature already? You were bringing up some good points, why resort to the "all you have is 1 and 2"? that is clearly not all Christians have and I think you know it. i.e. Habermas has presented 12 facts related to the resurrection that virtually everyone grants and these facts prove problomatic for naturlistic theories. So if 'all we have' are facts and failed nat. explanations and the most unique Person in the world making very unique claims, yes!
@CapsHockey100 What are 1 and 2? Who's relying on caricature? Did I say that's all Christians have or did I say they have very little? I'm not sure how things like enthusiasm, belief are problematic for naturalistic theories. Their probably was a historical Jesus. He was probably crucified. It's probable that the disciples believe they saw him alive after the crucifixion, but that doesn't prove very much.
@sp1ke0kill3r Lol, Yes did say that is all they have, "All you have is an early date and some people who believe they saw Jesus alive."
"Their probably was a historical Jesus. He was probably crucified. It's probable that the disciples believe they saw him alive after the crucifixion, but that doesn't prove very much." Dont forget enemies and skeptics too, but what do you mean that doesn't prove very much!?!? That is HUGE!! Certainly if Jesus was dead and raised it is confirms Christianity.
@CapsHockey100 Enemies and Sceptics such as? Are you saying enemies and sceptics accept the ressurection?. Believing You saw a ressurected Jesus and actually seeing that are two very different things. Eyewitness testimony is certainly valuable, but it's only significant IF its is internally consistent etc. There are first hand witnesses to alien abductions, People who claim to have seen Elvis alive after his funeral, Children who believe they saw Santa Many of these can be questioned...cont
@sp1ke0kill3r "Believing You saw a ressurected Jesus and actually seeing that are two very different things" That's true but when a former enemy such as Paul converts based on what he experienced regarding the risen Jesus and then dies for that belief it shows that he was (1) not in the frame of mind to accept a risen Jesus whatsoever, (2) was an eyewitness to what he experienced and (3) that he eventually suffered and died for this claim. Liars make poor martyrs. Liars recant when it get tough
@CapsHockey100 2 Probably all of them sincerely believe in their testimony. In contrast we don't have the original gospels or for that matter the actual testimony of the individuals in question. Not only do we not have the autographs, but we don't have the original copies or copies of copies of copies of them. Merely claiming so and so is a first hand witness is meaningless without their testimony. Even you conceded that the testimony of Peter, James. and John contributed nothing ...cont...
@sp1ke0kill3r We don't have the original of any ancient work, so to say we don't have the original Gospel doesn't really do much imo. We have been looking at Paul anyway. But if you are attacking the sources in this textual nature, is it bc what the texts says provide a very strong argument for the resurrection?
@CapsHockey100 3 to Paul's gospel. This is very curious. And Paul makes a point of separating himself from the disciples. Could that be because their own testimony wasn't credible to their contemporaries? Now you still haven't explained how enthusiasm and conviction are problematic for "naturalistic explanations" Indeed, it's likely that IF his tomb was empty, Jesus body was moved. This is certainly much more likely than resurrection.
@sp1ke0kill3r It is a good question, Western Mich. Univ. Professor Tim McGrew writes, “It is one thing to devote one’s time, even one’s life, to a cause. . . . It is another to be willing to die a grisly death for the truth of an empirical claim. Among the labors, dangers and sufferings endured by the early Christians, martyrdom is unique and has, from an evidential point of view, the greatest force.”
@sp1ke0kill3r We should be sure to account for the evidence that has the “greatest force” and the high value assigned to the eventual outcome of the disciples. Certainly, if the disciples would have ended their lives in wealth, prosperity, and power, then how we would evaluate their claims would be considered in a new light. If that is the case, then we to should equally take into account that the disciples were willing to be exiled, tortured, or even killed.
@sp1ke0kill3r Paul was also an enemy who converted, James was similarly a skeptic, Peter accused the women of 'legend' in that he thought they were telling stories when they reported the empty tomb. So we have three of the witnesses here who all believed one way and were transformed by what they believed to be the risen Jesus (don't forget Peter also denied Jesus in order to save his life). It is details such as these that mark against legend and they don't even include incurred beatings, etc.
@CapsHockey100 Wrong the belief of 3 ppl is not a mark against legend. Transformation only proves conviction, it doesn't prove anything else. Do you believe Elvis is alive? Do you believe in Alien abductions? Peter's denial proves nothing except he is willing to lie and as you pointed out earlier an empty tomb proves nothing. so peter accuses the women of "legend" and then goes and finds the empty tomb . What beatings?
@sp1ke0kill3r Sorry for the late response, but it is not just an argument of 3 people against legend. The argument against legend is a cumulative one - after all legend can develop within one's own lifetime. But the fact that these people who claimed to experience the risen Jesus were willing to suffer and die certainly elevates them far above elvis and alien citings, additionally their are reported appearances to groups that are difficult for nat. theories as well.
@CapsHockey100 But that is precxisely the question.The fact that they were martyred doesn't mean they were given the choice to gove up their beliefs or die. Even if we can establish they did. This only proves conviction. As to group sightings, we really don't know how this happened. Many years ago I went to see Crosby, Stills and Nash. After the show as we were walking to the car, a chopper goes flying past us. My Friend says, hey that was David Crosby. I told lots of ppl....cont
@CapsHockey100 2 Did I actually see David Crosby ride his chopper past us? No. Did my friend? Perhaps. Did I tell ppl I saw him? Yes, I believed my friend saw him and since I did see the chopper drive by, I "saw" David Crosby" Then you can add in the embarrassment factor. What do you mean you didn't see him? He was right there! How could you not see him? I thought you said something else, I saw him. The thing is we have no direct details of those group sightings. All we have is the claims.
@sp1ke0kill3r Someone flying overhead in a chopper is much different than groups of people witnessing Jesus and speaking with Him. Moreover, the most important part of the analogy is that the disciples were willing to suffer for this claim, I doubt you guys would be willing to do that for Crosby, Stills, and Nash. Like you said, their suffering proves their conviction. This conviction argues against an invention that would only lead to suffering.
@CapsHockey100 Flying overhead? Oh I get it! No A chopper is a motorcycle. Usually has an extended fork and small tire in the front. Believing you saw Jesus is not the same as really seeing him. You're arguments are too cookie cutter. I never claimed they invented anything. I didn't invent the CSN story. That doesn't mean it was actually David Crosby driving BY us. Further whether the disciples ACTUALLY died for their beliefs is open to question. where is the evidence that this was the case?
@sp1ke0kill3r Lol, my bad. I agree that believing and actually seeing are two different things, but are you suggesting that they had hallucinations of some sort with no actual external referent? Or more like they saw something and thought it was Jesus?
Still a drive by is a lot different, you would say you met Crosby if he talked to you, wouldn't you? What if you saw him die a few days before? Would you believe your eyes or would you want to touch and talk to him too?
@CapsHockey100 Disciples evidence...We have good evidence of suffering and martydom in Acts. Josephus mentions James, the brother of Jesus' death. Clement of Rome writes about Paul and Peter's death. These are the most prominent members of the movement who suffered and eventually died for it.
@CapsHockey100 Funny, I never mentioned or alluded to hallucinations. Anyway, ppl at that time barely understood death. Among other things they had no understanding of grief and it's "5 stages" -btw there's no reason anyone necessarily passes through each stage- this is why they believed in resurrections, ghosts etc. Now as to whether Jesus appeared to, spoke to or touched anyone, the evidence is incredibly thin: Each gospel increasingly relies on a longer oral tradition. CONT...
@sp1ke0kill3r lol, well I am just trying to understand what you are thinking as you are being somewhat vague. It seems you are describing hallucinations.
I can't see how the 5 stages relate at all. With a avg. life span of around 40 years old and constant failed rebellions and being under Roman rule and not having modern medicine and etc. I am sure they were much more familiar with grief! People today believe in ghosts, simply turn on the discovery channel (!).
@CapsHockey100 No I was quite specific. David Crosby was not a hallucination and could in no way be described as one. My friend may have been absolutely correcdt that Crosby drove past us. He may have seen him; yet I couldn't saqy either way. I can understand that you want to talk about hallucinations and what you heard are its problems. Familiarity with grief and feeling it are not quite the same as understanding it.
ppl today may believe in ghosts but was that what the question was? CONT...
@sp1ke0kill3r Crosby - Believing you saw Crosby and actually seeing him are two different things (as you have said). You have no reason to believe that your friend didn't see him unless he says 'Man I missed him!' Otherwise if he says he saw him too, you could be very confident that you actually saw him (like the disciples).
Of course the hallucination theory is highly problomatic, as you appear to agree, but what do you think happened? (you may have answered this below I haven't read all yet)
@CapsHockey100 The problem is my friend may have been mistaken. Who knows what he actually saw. And if we add in the idea that Crosby died before the concert then it becomes less likely that my friend ACTUALLY saw him. Now as to my "suggestion" that death is permanent., it's not a suggestion. Christians believe this as well.with only one exception. It's a fact. And NO I can't be confident I "saw him too" because, I didn't see him. . Asking others to base their lives on this would require more
@CapsHockey100 The problem is my friend may have been mistaken. Who knows what he actually saw. And if we add in the idea that Crosby died before the concert then it becomes less likely that my friend ACTUALLY saw him. Now as to my "suggestion" that death is permanent., it's not a suggestion. Christians believe this as well.with only one exception. It's a fact. And NO I can't be confident I "saw him too" because, I didn't see him. . Asking others to base their lives on this would require more
@CapsHockey100 The problem is my friend may have been mistaken. Who knows what he actually saw. And if we add in the idea that Crosby died before the concert then it becomes less likely that my friend ACTUALLY saw him. Now as to my "suggestion" that death is permanent., it's not a suggestion. Christians believe this as well.with only one exception. It's a fact. And NO I can't be confident I "saw him too" because, I didn't see him. . Asking others to base their lives on this would require more
@CapsHockey100 2 Or was it that because ppl had little understanding of grief etc that they did not understand its affects. Time was incidental here. Its significance lies in its relation to the events in question. That ppl today believe in ghosts only makes my point about UNDERSTANDING how death affects us.
@sp1ke0kill3r I don't understand how 1) ancient people's understanding of grief can possibly affect what they are experiencing I might not understand love, but that doesn't prevent me from marrying. 2) you certainly would bear a burden of proof to demonstrate that ancients do not understand grief which seems to boast of a modernistic arrogance.
@CapsHockey100 An understanding of grief might help them understand their experience. But experience is partly subjective and grief-especially in the form of denial can affect our experiences. Throw in a case of mistaken identity and ppls willingness to believe their friends claims and you could have a full fledged sighting.
@sp1ke0kill3r LOL (sorry ahead of time if I am mistaken), Right so you are saying they had a hallucination or saw someone they mistakenly thought was Jesus :) Or am I mistaken here?
The event you describe is much like the one in Acts 12 where the Christians think Peter is dead and when they hear his voice they think it is his ghost. But when they see him they realize he is alive (we also notice they don't claim him to be resurrected).
@sp1ke0kill3r Additionally, if these are grief hallucinations, it obviously would fall into the category of hallucinations (hence I keep asking about them)
@CapsHockey100 And again I've been very clear about hallucinations. You might want to grab a dictionary Hallucinations are not as problematic as Haberma's evidence suggests, but there is absolutely no definition defining them as a case of mistaken identity.
Hallucinations - seeing something with no objective referent in time or space (similar to a dream).
Illusion - seeing something, with an objective referent, but mistaking it for something else (i.e. seeing a rope on the ground at night and thinking it is a snake).
@sp1ke0kill3r Hmm. its been awhile, but it looks like we were talking about the reported appearances by the disciples and you were saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that they truly believed that they had these experiences with the risen Jesus, but that they were somehow mistaken in a manner that was consistent with hallucinations. But you were referring to Crosby and Nash which would have been illusions with external referents (while hallucinations have no external referent).
@CapsHockey100 You're very desparate to argue the hallucination angle. I'm not biting. Clearly I am, if anything-and accepting your definitions for now, arguing it could have been a case of mistaken identity among other things. No claim at all about hallucinations. I do like how you ignored my more substantive argument sent as a message in favor of arguing the hallucination angle yet again.
@sp1ke0kill3r The belief in the resurrection was something distinctly Jewish and anticipated death, an indetermediate period, then being raised physically back to life. That is what resurrection meant in Judaism, and no such beliefs were held by anyone else. Ghosts are categorically different from the resurrection and or the hope of the future resurrection.
@CapsHockey100 YAWN and Jewish thought about resurrection relate to to the question of whether Jesus was resurected, how?What does that prove except that Jews held certain beliefs?
@sp1ke0kill3r Your speaking of ghosts, ghosts are not physical in the same sense as a human being is and which is the exact way Jews spoke of resurrection - bodily raised from the dead. Thus, when they said Jesus was resurrected in was in a bodily form, not ghostly. They had language for ghostly, they did not use it nor was it in there eschatology.
@CapsHockey100 NO I'm speaking about the BELIEF in ghosts. Since no one has ever been able to document an actual sighting of one, I doubt you can make assertions about their purported physicality. Again speaking of something and it actually happening are different. Beliefs abt resurrection or have little to do with how it would actually take place, if it even happened. Jewish belief in resurrection was not based on experience with it.
@CapsHockey100 Again how do Jewish ideas about resurrection relate to whether there actually was one. Further, Jesus "resurrection" was beleieved to be the beginning of the end so to speak. That is that Jesus "resurrection was just the first leading to a general ressurection. I think you'll find many Romans believed Caeser was resurrected. Also You shd not depend so much on what others claim. There's no substitute for having yr own knowledge and understanding.
@sp1ke0kill3r Oh I am simply saying that when the Jews claimed a resurrection it was bodily and would not have been some sort of ghost experience. However, all of this is moot if you think that the disciples saw someone and were mistaken about who it was.
BTW, the Romans did NOT believe Caesar was resurrected. I wish we could talk about that, but we have enough other topics going to keep us busy at the moment :)
Even Luke ,"the historian's" "infallible proofs" don't amount to much.Even Paul's first hand account is a bit sketchy. Did his companions hear a voice? If they heard it, did they understand it? It depends on which gospel you read! Why,after sharing in Paul's experience, did his companions disappear? Not a whisper from either Paul, himself, never mentions them. Why is that? Precisely, where Paul could have been invaluable, he is silent: If the remaining disciples recounted..CONT
@sp1ke0kill3r What do you mean it depends on which Gospel you read? I don't know ANY Gospel that depicts Paul's conversion. Paul states three times that he has seen the Lord. Galations 1; 1 Cor. 9; 1 Cor. 15. Paul also states that the disciples and him are preaching the same message Ga. 1-2 and 1 Cor 1,15.
@CapsHockey100 Perhaps I shd have said which version of the gospel you read. King James or one of the many others. Nice way to side step the more pertinent question about whether Paul's companions witnessed anything. Again Did they hear a voice or not? If they heard something, did they understand it? Why do Paul's companions disappear. If they witnessed his experience, why didn't they convert as well. If they didn't
@sp1ke0kill3r Asking which version won't do much of anything. I still am trying to find which Gospel reports Paul's conversion. You are trying to sound like Ehrman here with this type of questioning, but you are missing all of the key points (which is why Ehrman drops this line of questioning after his opening line in debates).
@sp1ke0kill3r We could just cut to it, no Gospel reports Paul's conversion. Acts reports it three seperate times and unless the same writer is likely to contradict himself three times in one work (let alone the fact he told the story three times is beyond repetitive) then there is other more probable explanations. I.e. that it is a literary device used to draw attention on vision in one point, hearing in another, etc. These types of literary devices are common especially among Gentile audiences
@CapsHockey100 3 their experiences to Paul, he doesn't mention them. But certainly if the gospels weren't accurate, the disciples would have said so. Yet what evidence do we have that they even knew about the gospels or what was in them? If any of them wrote a gospel, it remains to beCONT
Your point about communism is a distinction without difference. The point was ppl were willing to die for something they believed in; that conviction doesn't prove anything
@sp1ke0kill3r Well that is exactly the point isnt it? These people truly believed that they had seen the risen Jesus (or Crosby in your case) and in doing so the suffered persecution and eventual martrydom (as we noted this is different from a Christian dying martrys death today). They claimed to see Jesus, if you are going to doubt this claim we would need to know why. Hallucinations? Suggesting that people do not come back to life rejects this event a priori, which would be evidence for it
@CapsHockey100 NO AGAIN. In order for the "They died for their beliefs" argument to make sense, you need to show that that was the deciding factor in their martyrdom. That is to say that they were given the choice to give up their belief or die. Even then since I have not claimed they made the whole thing up, it's a moot point. And no doubting a claim does not require another explanation. If I told you Santa was at my house, you wouldn't need an alternate explanation.to reject my claim.
@sp1ke0kill3r " If I told you Santa was at my house, you wouldn't need an alternate explanation.to reject my claim." Then how would I explain your comments??? I would need to either agree, or come up with some other hypothesis as to why you are making this claim. Maybe you thought you saw him, maybe your dad dressed up like him and you thought it was the real deal, any number of other explanations could be possible, but I would need to pick some.
@sp1ke0kill3r Its fairly evident that they died for their faith. I'm going to assume by your earlier questions that you are familiar with the skeptic Ehrman, and even he asserts Paul, Peter, James, etc. were martyred. We also have the account in Acts 12 of James the son of Zebedee. These are the key people. In addition we have accounts of persecution to others. But as you said, it is moot bc that is not your argument
@sp1ke0kill3r I guess I am saying, you are saying that the disciples truly believed that they saw the risen Jesus, they had conviction. But then you are saying that they really didn't objectively see Him. So what happened? Either they believed they saw Him and had good reasons to do so or they did not. Suppose that they did not, would their willingness to endure martydom still be probable under this condition?
@CapsHockey100 NO perhaps if you spent as much time trying to understand an argument rather than reading into it what you expect me to say, you would have understood that I'm doubting that their claims are true: When I told ppl I saw David Crosby, was it true? Did it have to be for me to believe my friend? Did my friend have to actually see him in order to believe he did? Could he have been mistaken?. Does anyone have to say we didn't objectively see him in order to doubt we did? CONT...
@sp1ke0kill3r " I'm doubting that their claims are true" Obviously, but my question is, in what sense are you doubting that their claims are true? All these questions you have asked about Crosby we, I believe, have asked in respect to the disciples, Paul, and James. Moreover, your concern is, "it's whether they BELIEVED they had good reasons."
@sp1ke0kill3r Either they believed they saw Him and had good reasons to do so or they did not. Suppose that they did not, would their willingness to endure martydom still be probable under this condition? I think they had good reasons to believe otherwise they would not have died or suffered for their continued faith in Jesus, Paul certainly wouldn't have stopped persecuting, and James would have remained skeptical.
@sp1ke0kill3r "AGAIN ppl have been willing to die for things they believed, but it says NOTHING abt the truth of those beliefs" Certainly people have died, but as we have said the witnesses of an event are certainly more credible if they die for a belief than other down the line. Liars make poor martyrs and usually people lie in order to put them in a favorable position, not one that causes pain and/or death.
@sp1ke0kill3r If your suggesting the disciples had poor reasons for believing that they saw Jesus, what are they? Additionally, why would those who saw Jesus risk their lives, family, etc. in order to suffer and/or die on the basis of poor reasons? We come back to the question asked by the WMU professor, " Either they believed they saw Him and had good reasons to do so or they did not. Suppose that they did not, would their willingness to endure martydom still be probable under this condition?"
@CapsHockey100 2B The question isn't whether they had good reasons for their belief. Rather,it's whether they BELIEVED they had good reasons. I had plenty of reason to believe my friend when he said hey that was David Crosby, but did I have any justification for claiming wither of us saw him? Do ppl have to believe us because we stuck to our story for what we thought were good reasons? AGAIN ppl have been willing to die for things they believed, but it says NOTHING abt the truth of those beliefs
@sp1ke0kill3r Paul, for example, lists several beatings he experienced in 2 Cor. 11:23-33. Clement of Rome refers to the death of Paul and Peter while Josephus records James, the brother of Jesus, stoning. Acts records death and suffering (Acts 12 the death of James the son of Zebedee.
@CapsHockey100 A beating is not dying. Nor is it proof he saw Jesus. Was Clement there? Did he have any good evidence? Simply being Martyred for your belief is not quite the same as being given the choice to give it up or die, which is what it would have to be for your argument to make sense. My people were willing to die for Communism. That didn't mean Marx was right. Conviction only disproves lying, but since no one said anything abt lying.In fact, I specifically gave an example of ppl...cont.
@sp1ke0kill3r Willing to suffer for a claim is certainly indicative of its truth. Would you take a beating (in ancient times no less) for the claim that it actually was Crosby when an angry mob was telling you that it wasnt unless you really believed what you saw? Paul was eventually martyred anyway so the point is moot anyway.
People dying for Communism is not a good analogy bc it is death for what one believes is right, not death for something that has occurred in space and time.
@CapsHockey100 But I agree, conviction disproves lying. So that seems to bring us back full circle to the question that the disciples either saw the real risen Jesus, had a hallucination with no external referent, or saw something that thought was Jesus but actually was something different (like an illusion).
@CapsHockey100 No willingness to "suffer for a claim is only" indicative of conviction. To Are you saying an angry mob proves something? I'm sure if Paul was making it up an angry mob would have made a difference, but the mob had been stirred up, they weren't angry because they thought paul might be mistaken., but then who is claiming he made it up? Whether something actually occurred in space and time is PRECISELY the question, You're pretty hard up to argue about hallucinations. LOL
@sp1ke0kill3r No I am saying that if the witnesses saw it, then suffered and/or died for it, then we can be assured that they really believed it and in doing so are in a place which is categorically different from Kamikaze pilots, Muslims suicide bombers, or modern Christian martyrs bc they were actually witnesses to the event. Again we are brought back to the question of 'Either they had good reasons...'
@sp1ke0kill3r Lol, I am not trying to focus on hallucinations on purpose. It just seems like that is where you are headed. 'They disciples believed they saw Jesus but were wrong' usually falls into the category of hallucinations or illusions.
@CapsHockey100 2 Believing they saw something without it necessarily being the case. Maybe they saw him and maybe they didn't. The odds are against you for a number of reasons. First, at best you have second or third hand testimony. Even then there aren't very many details offered by Paul of the sightings he mentions in 1st C. The gospels are much worse as they may easily be third, fourth, fifth or umpteenth hand accounts. Second dead things don't come back to life.
@sp1ke0kill3r Paul is a first hand source, undoubtedly. Paul also records the accounts of others and we can look at what he says in 1 Cor. 1 and 15 to see that Peter and others are preaching the same message. Mark's Gospel is also considered to be, in an oversimplification, Peter's sermon notes. A historian's notes would be considered the same thing bc the actual witness has to tell them what occurred and then they write it down.
@sp1ke0kill3r "Second dead things don't come back to life." Don't you think ancient people realized this too??? I think they knew when something was dead, it stayed dead (hence graves). But it is precisely this claim that we are investigating here with Jesus and I don't think we can dismiss the miraculous without looking at the evidence first bc in theory this is exactly the type of evidence that would overturn that statement.
@CapsHockey100 Youtuber ProfMTH has a pretty good series debunking the notion that the disciples were killed explicitly for their beliefs. And besides, cognitive dissonance reduction has caused cults to fiendishly fight for much sillier beliefs, even WHEN they're proven wrong, take failed end of the world prophecies for example. they dont just give up, they find excuses, and believe even harder.
@TheBowsersMario Well I mean Bart Ehrman concedes that James, Peter, and Paul were murdered for their beliefs. James the son of Zebedee is also recorded, as is Stephen. John is exiled. So these are the key players and it just so happens they are also the ones we have evidence for!
CD does not explain conversions such as Paul or James. They are not in the frame of mind. Neither are the disciples.
@TheBowsersMario Basically, if the only argument against the resurrection is that the body would have been unrecognizable anyway, that is a weak argument. It fails to account for the empty tomb, the appearances, the appearances to skeptics, and the appearances reported by enemies. I mean we cant forget about the skeptic James and the persecutor Paul who may have thought the disciples did steal the body. Paul provides an eyewitness account of an enemy who reports to have seen Jesus. That is BIG.
@CapsHockey100 Concerning the skeptics, Paul did not see a physical Jesus. He appeared to Paul in a beam of light. after being heavily fatigued during a trip. James conversion, i mean he was already his brother. Maybe he was simply convinced to become a follower. And the supposed appearance to him only made up to make himself more credible. It's impossible to draw the line between who really thought they saw him, and who only said that they saw him to draw credibility to the movement.
@TheBowsersMario "Maybe he was simply convinced to become a follower. " Was he just simply convinced to die for this belief too? That doesn't really follow. Paul also states that Jesus appeared to James, and the Gospels indicate that James, along with the other brothers, was a disbeliever of Jesus during Jesus' lifetime and they never mention that James or the brothers converted. Yet Paul reports this appearance and James is later the leader of the Jerusalem church who is subsequently martyred.
@TheBowsersMario What do you mean Paul did not see a physical Jesus? Are you getting that from Acts? Are you telling me you take Acts as historical concerning its reports, bc that would give the resurrection a very strong boost! In any event, Paul believed that Jesus' resurrection was physical and claims to have seen the Lord (1 Cor. 9 and 15).
@TheBowsersMario You seem to say that they claim to see Jesus to gain credibility, but what is to gain of this credibility aside from imprisonment, ridicule, or death? Many of them weren't willing to accept these when Jesus was arrested, thus they fled as the Gospels embarrasingly record of all the disciples. Yet, they all appear to have a transformation and become willing to die for this belief. Seeing Jesus did not just draw credibility, but a life of suffering. Its a tough sell for selfishnes
@TheBowsersMario Of course maybe a witness did recant, the problem is there is no evidence that they did - no data at all, but in fact all the evidence suggests that they were transformed from being scared into bold proclaimers who were willing to suffer and die. Look at Peter for example, it is embarrassing to portray the head disciple as having so much doubt as to deny Jesus 3x - in order to save his life. Only to later boldly proclaim Jesus as risen and suffer and eventually die.
@TheBowsersMario You can't argue, however, from evidence we don't have - it is an argument from literal silence. I don't think the evidence is shoddy at all, but perhaps simply the fact that it occurred 2000 years is more of a problem for you?
@CapsHockey100 So you admit that all the evidence we do have are from people who are in favor of the claim? Let's say a claim is made, some people are in favor, some aren't. By way of force, the people in favor write everything we could possibly know about the claim. Those who win the wars write the history. This is a problem for historians when they try to verify far more mundane things. And yet this is a claim that a man rose from the dead. I gotta admit, I don't buy it.
@TheBowsersMario Well yes the winners write history but that doesnt make the claims false does it? Did the winners of the Holocaust write the history falsely? Of course not. The problem is, as I stated above, we have people who were also skeptics and enemies of the church who also are reported to have seen Jesus.
@CapsHockey100 it doesn't make the claim false, but it does give an unbalanced perspective. we have paul and james as "skeptics". is this the best the risen messiah could do? only show up to his brother who was already close to him and to paul in a flash? we're hearing one side of the story, whether people with conflicting sides cared to document their opinions or not. also, the die for a lie argument is moot. i recommend profmth's series on it.
@TheBowsersMario I don't think any composition of history is going to be devoid of the historians worldview or perspective, but again that doesn't mean they are untrue (look at the accounts from Julius Caesar for example). Paul is a little more than a "skeptic," he puts Dawkins to shame bc he actually put people in jail or consented to their deaths! I mean they are not the only witnesses so I am a little confused when you say "is that the best He could do?"
@TheBowsersMario Paul was an enemy and even his accounts as such are mentioned by him and also in Acts. So it is not fair to say one side of the story. Additionally, there are multiple references that "these acts did not take place in a corner." So I am not sure quite what you mean when you say we are only hearing one side of the story. We are looking at the available data.
@TheBowsersMario If you suggest that those on the other side chose not to write about it, I could just as easily argue from silence that it was bc they had nothing to say about it.
What do you mean, " i recommend profmth's series on it."? What is that?
@TheBowsersMario One who sees Jesus after the crucifixion (C) is obviously going to be in favor of the claim that they saw Jesus after the C. It is circular that it would be that way. I saw Jesus, I favor the claim. So clearly anyone who agrees with the claim is going to write it. I would not expect someone to say, I saw Jesus, but I dont favor the claim that I saw Jesus.
Christians in the 21st Century really should give it up as hopeless. Christianity started out as a doomsday cult based on a ghost story about a guy who rose from the dead. Today's christians have pinned their hopes on THAT?
Implications and claims with no evidence to support them. No contemporary writings to support them. They don't even know who authored the so called gospels.
The Bible is written full of metaphors, parallels and parables to explain things for us, but you also have to remember that many of the words we have today did not exist, and that things had to be explained in such a way that those people would understand.
@pigsburgh18 - Language doesn't work that way, if there is no word language will invent one. This is seen time and time again. Stop listening to apologetics.
all it takes is a basic understanding of history and the origins of language and you will see that you are completely off. language has evolved over hundreds and thousands of years. If, for example, a tank was seeing rolling through rome 2000 years ago, they wouldnt create a word for it, they wouldnt even know what it was. they would describe it as they best knew how, in their words. metaphors simply help explain what really happened.
@pigsburgh18 - That isn't how language works, I suggest you find some readings on etymology. When there is need a word is invented. Simple as that. Metaphors are not direct explanations. Can a elementary teacher teach what a sphere is? Yes. Can God? apparently not. They wouldn't know what a ball is, a ball would have been a fantastic analogy, and there were those who knew the Earth was a sphere. Eratosthenes figured that out 300 years B.C.E.
@pigsburgh18 - Science does a wonderful job creating new words and defining them, why can't those allegedly inspired by God or even God himself? This evidence, like most evidence regarding the veracity of the claims in the Bible is in my favor. We invent words all the time. Or maybe what the internet is can only be explained by metaphor? This is an incredibly weak argument. People weren't stupid back then, they just didn't have the information we do today.
I dont know how this turned into a genesis debate, but Genesis is simply a story to explain the creation of the universe and definitely uses metaphors to explain it. "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." That is a clear metaphor for what science calls "the big bang," there was nothing and then BANG, God created everything. I dont understand why thats so hard to understand.
Even if I grant Gary that Jesus's story was the first ever resurrection (and it's definitely not), how does that in any way validate the divinity of Jesus? You still need actual proof that it happened. Why is he talking about Paul as an eyewitness. Paul according to the bible never even physically met Jesus. The fact that people were willing to die for their belief in the resurrection doesn't provide sufficient proof either.
@Setzer It is not even sure that all those people died for their belief. Most of those stories of martyrdom were written around 300AD. Even a christian apologetics cite warns about taking those stories of martyrdom for absolute truth.
Lol I'm Christian, but I'll give the atheist props. He was civil, well-mannered, and not rude. I like him.
That being said, he is obviously wrong, and the guy he was debating with clearly knew his stuff. The Skeptic Magazine guy didn't even quote one Bible verse. I mean come on.
The best explanation for the empty tomb is that Jesus indeed resurrected from the dead. Otherwise the disciples would have gone through the five stages of grief: 1. Denial, 2.Depression, 3. Bargaining, 4.Anger, 5. Acceptance. These stages always comes to a normal human being. Failure to accept leads to psychological problems. The disciples did not show any psychological problems but transformation to changed characters: Coward to Brave, Defeated to Victorious & Hiding to Bold Preaching.
csdr0 1 month ago
I see no purpose in this resurrection. Besides many (supposedly rose from the dead on that first Easter.
ndzoko 2 months ago
to say it in layman's terms, If a group of very smart people in ancient times plotted a great conspiracy and knew how to entertain the future , so that it became an obsession. The Future, if it has no fixed limits, the value of the chasing of the Wind of Intelligent Notions. Some future people, reached a goal and so they are servicing Faith, to attend to the raising of their Messiah, reaching through a veil of mystery in time and space. The Future holds the Winning Hand. Jesus !
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
Simply, the Resurrection of Christ, is a conundrum of the past being overwhelmed by what is possible out of any future which for it's own reason , changes the material events of the past. It is one proof, that Intelligence is superior to all concepts of a limited Materialism. What is the Universe now, does not commit itself to always have all the same presumptions. If the future has a critical breaking away from all known laws, then anything can be preempted, forever is not forever.
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
When a truly intelligent view of reality holds that , if we have one event of interest that takes place in the dimension of time, then theoretically, we have all the eternity past, pointing forward to one event, and we have all the eternity of future time, from which to point to the event in the opposite direction. When there is a will, there is a way. And so Jesus said " With God, nothing will be impossible" The Future , as a product of the past, may yet overrule the Past.
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
1.) Paul is not an eyewitness to the Resurrection, the empty tomb or any of the purported post resurrection sightings of Jesus. Further, according to Paul's own testimony, Galations 1:18-20,he couldn't have been an eye witness to any agreement between, Peter, James and John. So the response to Habermas' idea that if Paul can do it..., is that he can't. He can only testify to his first hand knowledge of Peter and James beliefs five years after the crucifixion if we use Habermas' own time table
sp1ke0kill3r 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r I would assume you would use this objection to one of my comments I just made. Paul is certainly an eyewitness to what he believed to be the Jesus, a person whom Paul knew to be dead! An empty tomb is not needed to know that someone who was dead is now seen alive - I personally would not really care where they were buried bc I have now SEEN them alive.
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r I.e. if my sister died and then I saw her physically a few days later, I would not need to go to the morgue to verify what I saw. Moreover, an empty tomb, or morgue, by itself does not mean that someone is now alive anyway.
I think you are also misunderstanding the argument for Ga. as it is that Paul has provided/presented eyewitness material in 1 Cor. 15. Thus, he says in 1Co 15:11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. They were preaching the same.
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100 I mention the empty tomb because it was one of the ees offered by Habermas et al.
No I understand the argument perfectly, Habermas wishes to use Paul as an eyewitness to prove the ressurection and the summary Paul offers. Habermas wanted to know what was wrong with the summary. PLENTY. There weren't 12 disciples to witness any post resurrection appearances. Judas was dead and not yet replaced. As to the five hundred, he may as well said 5000 or 5....cont...
sp1ke0kill3r 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Paul specifically cites those who witnessed the risen Jesus, along with himself, as do the Gospels and other sources. That the disciples believed to have experiences of the resurrected Christ is one of the most firm facts there is...If you are referring to Judas' death as making the number of disciples no longer 12 I would say that is being a bit rediculous. Look at the names of NCAA football conferences, PAC 10 and so on, most of the time these divisions do not actually have 10
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100 The disciples weren't a football team and it's pure speculation to suggest that they were named the 12 instead of being referred to as 12 witnesses. Even if we grant you this, All we have is that Paul was told by Peter and James what the others believed. Even if we grant that they all believed to have seen Jesus resurrected, it proves nothing
sp1ke0kill3r 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r I mean if that is really your argument against the 12, the fact that Judas died and there were no longer exactly 12, it is really pretty weak but your right, we need not spend more space writing on it bc you say that Paul's reporting is still irrelevant. Is it bc you think he is reporting hearsay?
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Btw, we are in agreement thought that Paul, at the least was an eyewitness to his own experience, what that experience was is a different question.
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r teams in them, but it is just a title. Similarly so was the 12. It referred to Jesus' closest disciples as there were certainly other disciples of Jesus during His lifetime, but they were not as close to Him as the 12.
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100 2 None of their testimony is available. Again Paul didn't witness ANY of the post ressurection.appearances. and can not testify to what was seen. His testimony boils down to what Peter and James believed they saw, but all that amounts to is he was in an excellent position to know what Peter and James claim, years later, to have seen. This does absolutely nothing to prove the Resurrection.
sp1ke0kill3r 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r We don't need the 500's testimony, the people Paul was writing to could have verified what Paul was saying, and it appears as though Paul anticipates this and is why he states that some of them are still alive. Additionally, we already have two other groups listed by Paul as having seen the risen Jesus.
Essentially you are arguing that Paul's reference is hearsay, correct?
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100 but the people Paul was writing to, namely, the Corinthians, could not verify what Paul said. How would they know who to talk to? Were the 500 crashing at Peter's waiting for Corinthians to verify their testimony? How were the Corinthians supposed to know who they were? Even if they could, that does nothing for us Habermas isn't trying to prove his case to Corinthians. No i'm saying Paul's summary proves very little and it may prove he can't count.
sp1ke0kill3r 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Those are good questions certainly Paul referred to them when he was their in Corinth personally, he could have been reminding them about the 500 in order for them to be verified (he was reminding them in fact about the res.) But if you are putting something false together, you want to include fewer verifiable details, telling them to check with the 500 regarding the appearances does just that. In any event, we still have the others mentioned so one is not off the hook even w/o 500
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
lol another skeptic looking foolish when facing off against some of the 'big guns.'
babystinky 3 months ago
Belief does not equal knowledge.
Seeing is believing, but seeing isn't knowing.
Believing isn't knowing.
mclem51 3 months ago
That was awful. All Habermas did was try to prove claims. How does proving someone believing something happening help the case of it actually happening? You know what, I have an invisible spacecraft that you can't touch. This statement is being made immediately during the time in which I believed it. Guess you have to believe it's true. History cannot prove a miracle.
TheBowsersMario 4 months ago
@TheBowsersMario What do you mean history cannot prove a miracle? Don't skeptics often ask for a person to regrow a limb as proof for a miracle? Wouldn't that be historical proof that a miracle has occurred? If not, why do skeptics as for it as evidence? Just some things I have been thinking about with respect to the historian's ability to say a miracle has or has not occurred. I think that they could say one has occurred.
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@CapsHockey100 a regrown limb happening today or at least in recent times is different. If someone doesn't have a limb one day, which is confirmed, then one day that person has the limb again, then yes, it occured. and there are much better ways of confirming this should that happen now then maybe 2000 years ago.
TheBowsersMario 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario Well just to be clear you said, "History cannot prove a miracle." It seems then that you would agree that if someone had a limb that grew back we could conclude historically that a miracle has occurred?
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@CapsHockey100 yes, but the difference is if the limb grew back and was documented here and now, that's one thing. retroactively going back and using history to prove a resurrection we weren't there to see, is far more problematic.
TheBowsersMario 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario Well, that's fine, but like I said, I was interested in the topic ,can a historian say a miracle has occurred. It seems like if a limb grew back then you would say that a miracle happened and a historian can draw that same conclusion. But to question something you said, if the limb is documented as regrowing now by eyewitnesses, wouldn't people 2000 years from now be skeptical of the claim? Or would eyewitness testimony be a strong indicator (esp. if they were willing to suffer)
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@CapsHockey100 a limb being grown back now would be documented in every way imaginable, and would change the world forever.anyone who could know would find out, fairly quickly. i dont have to explain why the resurrection did not enjoy such luxury. A limb growing back today wouldnt be by just eyewitness testimony, either.
TheBowsersMario 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario Right, but when you say documented everyway imagineable we also need to be cautious. I am assuming you mean video and photos, but we can easily find videos and photos on the internet that attest to aliens or bigfoot or etc. Now if someone witnessed someone's limb grow back and was willing to suffer and die for that claim that would be strong eyewitness support that it actually occurred if, say, you were not fortunate enough to witness it grow back, right?
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario Related to a historian and miraclesYou said, all Habs does is try to prove his claims. It seems he is trying to prove a historical event that he believes occurred, like anyone does with any event they believe occurred, using the data to, like you said, prove his claim.
To contrast it to your claim, which is unfalsifiable, the resurrection claim could be falsified. A body easily could have been found, a witness could have recanted, etc. Its nobodys fault that data doesnt exist
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@CapsHockey100 A body easily could have been found? I wouldnt be so sure. By the time any of this would have become an issue, his body would have been unrecognizable. Maybe a witness did recant. He wouldn't be considered part of the christian movement and of course, we would hear nothing from him. The fact is, the idea that the creator of the universe would have such shoddy evidence for his "son" is quite telling.
TheBowsersMario 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario I meant that these would have been ways to falsify the claim of the disciples. Finding of the body would certainly have falsified the claim, unlike your invisible spacecraft scenario. In any event, I don't think the body would have been unrecognizable for various reasons, but even if it was, it would have been better to present that body than to say the disciples stole the body (as was done).
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@CapsHockey100 how would it be better to present a body that the disciples would simply say wasn't Jesus?
TheBowsersMario 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario Well, which is better, present a body that is unrecognizable or concede that the tomb Jesus was buried in is actually empty, but the disciples stole the body (and subsequently died for a lie). Additionally, in making this claim those guarding the body were put in a poor light bc it makes it look like they were unable to do the job they were supposed to do. Moreover, all of this assumes that the body would be unrecognizeable, which is highly debatable.
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@CapsHockey100 Why does it have to be the disciples who stole the body? How do you know there were guards? It's interesting to think that a crucified enemy of the state who carried no respect would, not only deserve a tomb, but guards watching his body. isn't this something only nobility enjoyed? And what kind of body would be recognizable after days of decay after already being flogged thoroughly?
TheBowsersMario 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario Well it doesn't, I was just using the data that one claim that was made (as someone else stealing the body there is no evidence for). The guards are reported, but even if they aren't there and say the disciples came back to an empty tomb, that alone would not lead them to think that Jesus was resurrected! Jews were expecting everyone to be resurrected together.
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@CapsHockey100 Look, this could go on forever. I do plan on doing further study of the resurrection. As is stated in the bible, Christianity rises or falls with the resurrection, and the circumstances are interesting. But this has to end somewhere. I will take some of your points into consideration.
TheBowsersMario 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario Fair enough. Good talk. I wrote a thesis on the resurrection and you are right, Christianity rises and falls on it. I think the evidence for it is INCREDIBLY strong after a few years of study. But you asked a question I have currently been looking into regarding the historians ability to say a miracle has occurred.
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario I don't think Jesus was much an enemy of the state, otherwise the disciples would have been sought out by Pilate as was done with other Jewish rebels, I learned that from reading liberal scholars oddly enough (Crossan).
I think if there was a body, preserved in a tomb it would have been recognizable, by the time everyone was preaching Jesus soon after. The appearances to Paul and James would still need explanation as they may have thought the body was stolen prior to their con
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@CapsHockey100 @CapsHockey100 Paul did not see a physical Jesus as portrayed in 1 Corinthians. He talks about flesh and blood not entering the kingdom of God. The body that is sown is not the body that is raised, jesus became a life giving spirit, etc etc. Contrast this with much later embellished gospels like Luke and John where they are explicitly trying to make Jesus's body seem far more physical. It all seems like a legendary addition.
TheBowsersMario 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario Comeon now, context is everything. Those words refer to life lived in sin and life lived in Christ. Additionaly, the words anastasis and egiero were 99.9% of the time used to refer to a physical resurrection. Furthermore, Paul was a pharisee = physical resurrection. Even further more, Paul says that he is preaching the same message as the earliest disciples according to Ga 1 -2 as Habermas states in the video. So Peter, James, John, and Paul are all preaching the same message.
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario The argument Habermas presents in the video is the exact problems facing the legend theory. We have early, eyewitness testimony from friends, skeptics, and enemies. Legend theory to me seems to be a wussy way out, no offense, bc it shows one is not really willing to engage the evidence. It is also why many critical scholars might go the hallucination route (which has its own set of problems).
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@CapsHockey100 perhaps i misunderstand your comments, but there isn't really any eyewitness testimony. Their are claims of eyewitness testimony, but very few of these witnesses are identified; worse yet their testimony isn't even available for examination, leaving a great deal of room for legend theory. That is to say the evidence can't really be engaged because there is so very little.
sp1ke0kill3r 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Sorry if I was not clear. (1) At the very LEAST Paul is considered an eyewitness to an 'experience he believed to have been the risen Jesus', even very skeptical scholars agree with this - whether they think Paul was hallucinating or telling the truth is a different issue. (2) The argument Habs presents in the video is one that shows that Paul also received material from other eyewitnesses and key witnesses at that - Peter, James, and John. (3) Scholarship is discovering how
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100 1.)If your referring to his conversion experience, Paul was not in fact an eyewitness here. He was blinded, remember? The biblical accounts don't even claim he saw anything except a bright light. You can either believe "very skeptical scholars " or the bible. 2.) Again, according to Paul's own account in Galatians 1: 18-20, he did not meet John and could not therefore have received any "data" from him unless you think Paul was lying. Though he specifically said he wasn't.
sp1ke0kill3r 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r 1) You well clearly Paul was a witness to his own experience, now how one classifies that as I said, is going to be the question. You say he was blinded, where does Paul say he was blinded? Paul says he has seen the Lord in 1 Cor. 9:1, also the Freek words he used for resurrection, anastasis and egiero, were only used to refer to physical bodies. Additional, the only place I know that refers Paul being blinded and if you are willing to grand Luke/Acts historical, then there is ...
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100 Why do i need to grant the historicity of Acts? Acts is offered as evidence all the time. Are you saying I can't refer to certain testimony without accepting its validity?. Our court rooms would grind to a halt. If you accept the historical accuracy of Acts, then you need to accept that Paul was lying in ga. In which case we can toss out his testimony. And if Peter and James "added nothing to his Gospel" then we can toss their testimony as well. Q.E.D
sp1ke0kill3r 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r What do you mean that you cannot refer to a testimony without accepting its validity. I am saying the only text that refers to Paul's blindness is in Acts, and if you are using that to substanstiate your claim that Paul did not see the risen Jesus but was blinded, then you are granting that Acts is historical. And if this is the case Acts and Luke provide more ammunition to the case of the resurrection. Otherwise I would need to have some criteria for how you know Acts is only
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100 historically accurate where you need him to be with respect to Paul being blinded. In other words how do you know that he is right there and not other places (i.e. where Luke/Acts refers to others who witnessed the risen Jesus.) What lie/contradiction are you talking about in Ga. and Acts? What texts specifically? Are they anymore a contradiction than the 3 accounts of Paul's conversion given in Acts by the same author.
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100" if you are using that to substanstiate your claim that Paul did not see the risen Jesus but was blinded, then you are granting that Acts is historical" WRONG I only need to accept that it is testimony offered. In this context the testimony says Paul was blinded. I don't need to accept its historical validity to question its consistency. I don't know if Paul was blind and don't care if he was, but the testimony is CONTRADICTORY. Either Paul was blind or he lied. Take yr pick
sp1ke0kill3r 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r First you did not present any texts. 2 Your are saying either Paul was blind or lied makes no sense. What did he lie about as I asked? If you are saying there is a difference between Paul's account and Luke's account in Acts, you seem to think we should go with Acts, why should we choose a secondhand source over against the actual recipient Paul?
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100 I don't need to present text. I did refer to text and we both know what the text is. Yes the reference to Paul being blind or a liar was wrong. It should be either Paul was blind or Acts is wrong. If Acts is wrong there goes yr added evidence. But if Acts is right, then indeed Paul was a liar.
sp1ke0kill3r 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Well you can't claim a contradiction without citing which texts are contradictory now can you? If we don't let Christians get away with making claims without presenting the texts why should we let you in this case?
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r even more evidence that one could use in support of the resurrection, espescially a physical one! So I can believe the Bible, and the critical scholars who grant these areas of historicity. 2) Right, but Paul does say in Ga. 2 that he made another trip to Jerusalem where John was present along with Peter and James and that they added nothing to his Gospel. So we have at least 2 trips to Jerusalem where Paul meets with eyewitnesses and is himself an eyewitness - poss. 3 trips
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Sorry I was not clear. 1-At the very LEAST Paul is an eyewitness to a 'an experience he claims of the Jesus.' This is something that scholars accept, but whether or not he was hallucinating, telling the truth, or fill in the blank is a different question. 2. The data Habs presents in this video shows clearly that Paul was also teaching others what he received and that he received it from prominent eyewitnesses, namely Peter, James, and John. 3. Scholarship has discovered
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r 3. Scholarship has/is discovering ways in which historians can recognize sources within ancient texts. Richard Bauckham has written a book on this that has been highly credited called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. The book is at least worth looking at online to find reviews or summaries. 4. As Habs also mentioned in the video, Paul received this information very early within 3-5 years after the cross, but it was developed even earlier so that brings it even closer to the event.
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r 4. cont'd Some scholars place the creed that Paul cites as being developed within MONTHS of the crucifixion, James Dunn for example. 5. Legend can occur even within eyewitnesses, so we must ask what evidence would falsify the Legend theory? If it is a legitimate hypothesis it should be falsifiable. All the evidence seems to indicate to me that it is not. We have noted 4 eyewitnesses, Peter, James, Paul, and John. Three of which were martyred and one exiled. The data is also early.
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100 Even if the creed were developed within days of the crucifixion, it proves nothing. All you have is an early date and some people who believe they saw Jesus alive. Are you also willing to grant UFO abductions and that Elvis is alive too?
sp1ke0kill3r 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Do you have to resort to a caricature already? You were bringing up some good points, why resort to the "all you have is 1 and 2"? that is clearly not all Christians have and I think you know it. i.e. Habermas has presented 12 facts related to the resurrection that virtually everyone grants and these facts prove problomatic for naturlistic theories. So if 'all we have' are facts and failed nat. explanations and the most unique Person in the world making very unique claims, yes!
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100 What are 1 and 2? Who's relying on caricature? Did I say that's all Christians have or did I say they have very little? I'm not sure how things like enthusiasm, belief are problematic for naturalistic theories. Their probably was a historical Jesus. He was probably crucified. It's probable that the disciples believe they saw him alive after the crucifixion, but that doesn't prove very much.
sp1ke0kill3r 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Lol, Yes did say that is all they have, "All you have is an early date and some people who believe they saw Jesus alive."
"Their probably was a historical Jesus. He was probably crucified. It's probable that the disciples believe they saw him alive after the crucifixion, but that doesn't prove very much." Dont forget enemies and skeptics too, but what do you mean that doesn't prove very much!?!? That is HUGE!! Certainly if Jesus was dead and raised it is confirms Christianity.
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100 Enemies and Sceptics such as? Are you saying enemies and sceptics accept the ressurection?. Believing You saw a ressurected Jesus and actually seeing that are two very different things. Eyewitness testimony is certainly valuable, but it's only significant IF its is internally consistent etc. There are first hand witnesses to alien abductions, People who claim to have seen Elvis alive after his funeral, Children who believe they saw Santa Many of these can be questioned...cont
sp1ke0kill3r 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r "Believing You saw a ressurected Jesus and actually seeing that are two very different things" That's true but when a former enemy such as Paul converts based on what he experienced regarding the risen Jesus and then dies for that belief it shows that he was (1) not in the frame of mind to accept a risen Jesus whatsoever, (2) was an eyewitness to what he experienced and (3) that he eventually suffered and died for this claim. Liars make poor martyrs. Liars recant when it get tough
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 2 Probably all of them sincerely believe in their testimony. In contrast we don't have the original gospels or for that matter the actual testimony of the individuals in question. Not only do we not have the autographs, but we don't have the original copies or copies of copies of copies of them. Merely claiming so and so is a first hand witness is meaningless without their testimony. Even you conceded that the testimony of Peter, James. and John contributed nothing ...cont...
sp1ke0kill3r 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r We don't have the original of any ancient work, so to say we don't have the original Gospel doesn't really do much imo. We have been looking at Paul anyway. But if you are attacking the sources in this textual nature, is it bc what the texts says provide a very strong argument for the resurrection?
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 3 to Paul's gospel. This is very curious. And Paul makes a point of separating himself from the disciples. Could that be because their own testimony wasn't credible to their contemporaries? Now you still haven't explained how enthusiasm and conviction are problematic for "naturalistic explanations" Indeed, it's likely that IF his tomb was empty, Jesus body was moved. This is certainly much more likely than resurrection.
sp1ke0kill3r 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r It is a good question, Western Mich. Univ. Professor Tim McGrew writes, “It is one thing to devote one’s time, even one’s life, to a cause. . . . It is another to be willing to die a grisly death for the truth of an empirical claim. Among the labors, dangers and sufferings endured by the early Christians, martyrdom is unique and has, from an evidential point of view, the greatest force.”
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r We should be sure to account for the evidence that has the “greatest force” and the high value assigned to the eventual outcome of the disciples. Certainly, if the disciples would have ended their lives in wealth, prosperity, and power, then how we would evaluate their claims would be considered in a new light. If that is the case, then we to should equally take into account that the disciples were willing to be exiled, tortured, or even killed.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Paul was also an enemy who converted, James was similarly a skeptic, Peter accused the women of 'legend' in that he thought they were telling stories when they reported the empty tomb. So we have three of the witnesses here who all believed one way and were transformed by what they believed to be the risen Jesus (don't forget Peter also denied Jesus in order to save his life). It is details such as these that mark against legend and they don't even include incurred beatings, etc.
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100 Wrong the belief of 3 ppl is not a mark against legend. Transformation only proves conviction, it doesn't prove anything else. Do you believe Elvis is alive? Do you believe in Alien abductions? Peter's denial proves nothing except he is willing to lie and as you pointed out earlier an empty tomb proves nothing. so peter accuses the women of "legend" and then goes and finds the empty tomb . What beatings?
sp1ke0kill3r 2 months ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Sorry for the late response, but it is not just an argument of 3 people against legend. The argument against legend is a cumulative one - after all legend can develop within one's own lifetime. But the fact that these people who claimed to experience the risen Jesus were willing to suffer and die certainly elevates them far above elvis and alien citings, additionally their are reported appearances to groups that are difficult for nat. theories as well.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 But that is precxisely the question.The fact that they were martyred doesn't mean they were given the choice to gove up their beliefs or die. Even if we can establish they did. This only proves conviction. As to group sightings, we really don't know how this happened. Many years ago I went to see Crosby, Stills and Nash. After the show as we were walking to the car, a chopper goes flying past us. My Friend says, hey that was David Crosby. I told lots of ppl....cont
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 2 Did I actually see David Crosby ride his chopper past us? No. Did my friend? Perhaps. Did I tell ppl I saw him? Yes, I believed my friend saw him and since I did see the chopper drive by, I "saw" David Crosby" Then you can add in the embarrassment factor. What do you mean you didn't see him? He was right there! How could you not see him? I thought you said something else, I saw him. The thing is we have no direct details of those group sightings. All we have is the claims.
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Someone flying overhead in a chopper is much different than groups of people witnessing Jesus and speaking with Him. Moreover, the most important part of the analogy is that the disciples were willing to suffer for this claim, I doubt you guys would be willing to do that for Crosby, Stills, and Nash. Like you said, their suffering proves their conviction. This conviction argues against an invention that would only lead to suffering.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 Flying overhead? Oh I get it! No A chopper is a motorcycle. Usually has an extended fork and small tire in the front. Believing you saw Jesus is not the same as really seeing him. You're arguments are too cookie cutter. I never claimed they invented anything. I didn't invent the CSN story. That doesn't mean it was actually David Crosby driving BY us. Further whether the disciples ACTUALLY died for their beliefs is open to question. where is the evidence that this was the case?
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Lol, my bad. I agree that believing and actually seeing are two different things, but are you suggesting that they had hallucinations of some sort with no actual external referent? Or more like they saw something and thought it was Jesus?
Still a drive by is a lot different, you would say you met Crosby if he talked to you, wouldn't you? What if you saw him die a few days before? Would you believe your eyes or would you want to touch and talk to him too?
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 Disciples evidence...We have good evidence of suffering and martydom in Acts. Josephus mentions James, the brother of Jesus' death. Clement of Rome writes about Paul and Peter's death. These are the most prominent members of the movement who suffered and eventually died for it.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 Funny, I never mentioned or alluded to hallucinations. Anyway, ppl at that time barely understood death. Among other things they had no understanding of grief and it's "5 stages" -btw there's no reason anyone necessarily passes through each stage- this is why they believed in resurrections, ghosts etc. Now as to whether Jesus appeared to, spoke to or touched anyone, the evidence is incredibly thin: Each gospel increasingly relies on a longer oral tradition. CONT...
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r lol, well I am just trying to understand what you are thinking as you are being somewhat vague. It seems you are describing hallucinations.
I can't see how the 5 stages relate at all. With a avg. life span of around 40 years old and constant failed rebellions and being under Roman rule and not having modern medicine and etc. I am sure they were much more familiar with grief! People today believe in ghosts, simply turn on the discovery channel (!).
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 No I was quite specific. David Crosby was not a hallucination and could in no way be described as one. My friend may have been absolutely correcdt that Crosby drove past us. He may have seen him; yet I couldn't saqy either way. I can understand that you want to talk about hallucinations and what you heard are its problems. Familiarity with grief and feeling it are not quite the same as understanding it.
ppl today may believe in ghosts but was that what the question was? CONT...
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Crosby - Believing you saw Crosby and actually seeing him are two different things (as you have said). You have no reason to believe that your friend didn't see him unless he says 'Man I missed him!' Otherwise if he says he saw him too, you could be very confident that you actually saw him (like the disciples).
Of course the hallucination theory is highly problomatic, as you appear to agree, but what do you think happened? (you may have answered this below I haven't read all yet)
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 The problem is my friend may have been mistaken. Who knows what he actually saw. And if we add in the idea that Crosby died before the concert then it becomes less likely that my friend ACTUALLY saw him. Now as to my "suggestion" that death is permanent., it's not a suggestion. Christians believe this as well.with only one exception. It's a fact. And NO I can't be confident I "saw him too" because, I didn't see him. . Asking others to base their lives on this would require more
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CapsHockey100 The problem is my friend may have been mistaken. Who knows what he actually saw. And if we add in the idea that Crosby died before the concert then it becomes less likely that my friend ACTUALLY saw him. Now as to my "suggestion" that death is permanent., it's not a suggestion. Christians believe this as well.with only one exception. It's a fact. And NO I can't be confident I "saw him too" because, I didn't see him. . Asking others to base their lives on this would require more
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CapsHockey100 The problem is my friend may have been mistaken. Who knows what he actually saw. And if we add in the idea that Crosby died before the concert then it becomes less likely that my friend ACTUALLY saw him. Now as to my "suggestion" that death is permanent., it's not a suggestion. Christians believe this as well.with only one exception. It's a fact. And NO I can't be confident I "saw him too" because, I didn't see him. . Asking others to base their lives on this would require more
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 2 Or was it that because ppl had little understanding of grief etc that they did not understand its affects. Time was incidental here. Its significance lies in its relation to the events in question. That ppl today believe in ghosts only makes my point about UNDERSTANDING how death affects us.
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r I don't understand how 1) ancient people's understanding of grief can possibly affect what they are experiencing I might not understand love, but that doesn't prevent me from marrying. 2) you certainly would bear a burden of proof to demonstrate that ancients do not understand grief which seems to boast of a modernistic arrogance.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 An understanding of grief might help them understand their experience. But experience is partly subjective and grief-especially in the form of denial can affect our experiences. Throw in a case of mistaken identity and ppls willingness to believe their friends claims and you could have a full fledged sighting.
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r LOL (sorry ahead of time if I am mistaken), Right so you are saying they had a hallucination or saw someone they mistakenly thought was Jesus :) Or am I mistaken here?
The event you describe is much like the one in Acts 12 where the Christians think Peter is dead and when they hear his voice they think it is his ghost. But when they see him they realize he is alive (we also notice they don't claim him to be resurrected).
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Additionally, if these are grief hallucinations, it obviously would fall into the category of hallucinations (hence I keep asking about them)
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 And again I've been very clear about hallucinations. You might want to grab a dictionary Hallucinations are not as problematic as Haberma's evidence suggests, but there is absolutely no definition defining them as a case of mistaken identity.
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Well lets clarify then.
Hallucinations - seeing something with no objective referent in time or space (similar to a dream).
Illusion - seeing something, with an objective referent, but mistaking it for something else (i.e. seeing a rope on the ground at night and thinking it is a snake).
Fair?
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100
RE: Hall/ill defs
I suppose. But what would your point be?
sp1ke0kill3r 2 weeks ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Hmm. its been awhile, but it looks like we were talking about the reported appearances by the disciples and you were saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that they truly believed that they had these experiences with the risen Jesus, but that they were somehow mistaken in a manner that was consistent with hallucinations. But you were referring to Crosby and Nash which would have been illusions with external referents (while hallucinations have no external referent).
CapsHockey100 2 weeks ago
@CapsHockey100 You're very desparate to argue the hallucination angle. I'm not biting. Clearly I am, if anything-and accepting your definitions for now, arguing it could have been a case of mistaken identity among other things. No claim at all about hallucinations. I do like how you ignored my more substantive argument sent as a message in favor of arguing the hallucination angle yet again.
sp1ke0kill3r 2 weeks ago
@sp1ke0kill3r I thought we both were agreeing that the hallucination hypothesis is pretty shaky (to say the least).
CapsHockey100 2 weeks ago
@CapsHockey100 yes it is pretty shaky, but less for the reasons you seem to think.
sp1ke0kill3r 2 weeks ago
@sp1ke0kill3r The belief in the resurrection was something distinctly Jewish and anticipated death, an indetermediate period, then being raised physically back to life. That is what resurrection meant in Judaism, and no such beliefs were held by anyone else. Ghosts are categorically different from the resurrection and or the hope of the future resurrection.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 YAWN and Jewish thought about resurrection relate to to the question of whether Jesus was resurected, how?What does that prove except that Jews held certain beliefs?
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Your speaking of ghosts, ghosts are not physical in the same sense as a human being is and which is the exact way Jews spoke of resurrection - bodily raised from the dead. Thus, when they said Jesus was resurrected in was in a bodily form, not ghostly. They had language for ghostly, they did not use it nor was it in there eschatology.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 NO I'm speaking about the BELIEF in ghosts. Since no one has ever been able to document an actual sighting of one, I doubt you can make assertions about their purported physicality. Again speaking of something and it actually happening are different. Beliefs abt resurrection or have little to do with how it would actually take place, if it even happened. Jewish belief in resurrection was not based on experience with it.
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 Again how do Jewish ideas about resurrection relate to whether there actually was one. Further, Jesus "resurrection" was beleieved to be the beginning of the end so to speak. That is that Jesus "resurrection was just the first leading to a general ressurection. I think you'll find many Romans believed Caeser was resurrected. Also You shd not depend so much on what others claim. There's no substitute for having yr own knowledge and understanding.
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Oh I am simply saying that when the Jews claimed a resurrection it was bodily and would not have been some sort of ghost experience. However, all of this is moot if you think that the disciples saw someone and were mistaken about who it was.
BTW, the Romans did NOT believe Caesar was resurrected. I wish we could talk about that, but we have enough other topics going to keep us busy at the moment :)
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 That's why Thomas stuck his fingers through Jesus' hands.
martiandog89 1 day ago
@CapsHockey100 2
Even Luke ,"the historian's" "infallible proofs" don't amount to much.Even Paul's first hand account is a bit sketchy. Did his companions hear a voice? If they heard it, did they understand it? It depends on which gospel you read! Why,after sharing in Paul's experience, did his companions disappear? Not a whisper from either Paul, himself, never mentions them. Why is that? Precisely, where Paul could have been invaluable, he is silent: If the remaining disciples recounted..CONT
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r What do you mean it depends on which Gospel you read? I don't know ANY Gospel that depicts Paul's conversion. Paul states three times that he has seen the Lord. Galations 1; 1 Cor. 9; 1 Cor. 15. Paul also states that the disciples and him are preaching the same message Ga. 1-2 and 1 Cor 1,15.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 Perhaps I shd have said which version of the gospel you read. King James or one of the many others. Nice way to side step the more pertinent question about whether Paul's companions witnessed anything. Again Did they hear a voice or not? If they heard something, did they understand it? Why do Paul's companions disappear. If they witnessed his experience, why didn't they convert as well. If they didn't
why should we believe what Paul says?
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Asking which version won't do much of anything. I still am trying to find which Gospel reports Paul's conversion. You are trying to sound like Ehrman here with this type of questioning, but you are missing all of the key points (which is why Ehrman drops this line of questioning after his opening line in debates).
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r We could just cut to it, no Gospel reports Paul's conversion. Acts reports it three seperate times and unless the same writer is likely to contradict himself three times in one work (let alone the fact he told the story three times is beyond repetitive) then there is other more probable explanations. I.e. that it is a literary device used to draw attention on vision in one point, hearing in another, etc. These types of literary devices are common especially among Gentile audiences
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 3 their experiences to Paul, he doesn't mention them. But certainly if the gospels weren't accurate, the disciples would have said so. Yet what evidence do we have that they even knew about the gospels or what was in them? If any of them wrote a gospel, it remains to beCONT
Your point about communism is a distinction without difference. The point was ppl were willing to die for something they believed in; that conviction doesn't prove anything
other than the sincerity of belief.
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Well that is exactly the point isnt it? These people truly believed that they had seen the risen Jesus (or Crosby in your case) and in doing so the suffered persecution and eventual martrydom (as we noted this is different from a Christian dying martrys death today). They claimed to see Jesus, if you are going to doubt this claim we would need to know why. Hallucinations? Suggesting that people do not come back to life rejects this event a priori, which would be evidence for it
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 NO AGAIN. In order for the "They died for their beliefs" argument to make sense, you need to show that that was the deciding factor in their martyrdom. That is to say that they were given the choice to give up their belief or die. Even then since I have not claimed they made the whole thing up, it's a moot point. And no doubting a claim does not require another explanation. If I told you Santa was at my house, you wouldn't need an alternate explanation.to reject my claim.
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r " If I told you Santa was at my house, you wouldn't need an alternate explanation.to reject my claim." Then how would I explain your comments??? I would need to either agree, or come up with some other hypothesis as to why you are making this claim. Maybe you thought you saw him, maybe your dad dressed up like him and you thought it was the real deal, any number of other explanations could be possible, but I would need to pick some.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Its fairly evident that they died for their faith. I'm going to assume by your earlier questions that you are familiar with the skeptic Ehrman, and even he asserts Paul, Peter, James, etc. were martyred. We also have the account in Acts 12 of James the son of Zebedee. These are the key people. In addition we have accounts of persecution to others. But as you said, it is moot bc that is not your argument
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r I guess I am saying, you are saying that the disciples truly believed that they saw the risen Jesus, they had conviction. But then you are saying that they really didn't objectively see Him. So what happened? Either they believed they saw Him and had good reasons to do so or they did not. Suppose that they did not, would their willingness to endure martydom still be probable under this condition?
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 NO perhaps if you spent as much time trying to understand an argument rather than reading into it what you expect me to say, you would have understood that I'm doubting that their claims are true: When I told ppl I saw David Crosby, was it true? Did it have to be for me to believe my friend? Did my friend have to actually see him in order to believe he did? Could he have been mistaken?. Does anyone have to say we didn't objectively see him in order to doubt we did? CONT...
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r " I'm doubting that their claims are true" Obviously, but my question is, in what sense are you doubting that their claims are true? All these questions you have asked about Crosby we, I believe, have asked in respect to the disciples, Paul, and James. Moreover, your concern is, "it's whether they BELIEVED they had good reasons."
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Either they believed they saw Him and had good reasons to do so or they did not. Suppose that they did not, would their willingness to endure martydom still be probable under this condition? I think they had good reasons to believe otherwise they would not have died or suffered for their continued faith in Jesus, Paul certainly wouldn't have stopped persecuting, and James would have remained skeptical.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r "AGAIN ppl have been willing to die for things they believed, but it says NOTHING abt the truth of those beliefs" Certainly people have died, but as we have said the witnesses of an event are certainly more credible if they die for a belief than other down the line. Liars make poor martyrs and usually people lie in order to put them in a favorable position, not one that causes pain and/or death.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r If your suggesting the disciples had poor reasons for believing that they saw Jesus, what are they? Additionally, why would those who saw Jesus risk their lives, family, etc. in order to suffer and/or die on the basis of poor reasons? We come back to the question asked by the WMU professor, " Either they believed they saw Him and had good reasons to do so or they did not. Suppose that they did not, would their willingness to endure martydom still be probable under this condition?"
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r I think it is clear that the answer to his question is a resounding NO.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 2B The question isn't whether they had good reasons for their belief. Rather,it's whether they BELIEVED they had good reasons. I had plenty of reason to believe my friend when he said hey that was David Crosby, but did I have any justification for claiming wither of us saw him? Do ppl have to believe us because we stuck to our story for what we thought were good reasons? AGAIN ppl have been willing to die for things they believed, but it says NOTHING abt the truth of those beliefs
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 4 It certainly says nothing about the subject of that belief whether it's belief in an idea, event or person.
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Paul, for example, lists several beatings he experienced in 2 Cor. 11:23-33. Clement of Rome refers to the death of Paul and Peter while Josephus records James, the brother of Jesus, stoning. Acts records death and suffering (Acts 12 the death of James the son of Zebedee.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 A beating is not dying. Nor is it proof he saw Jesus. Was Clement there? Did he have any good evidence? Simply being Martyred for your belief is not quite the same as being given the choice to give it up or die, which is what it would have to be for your argument to make sense. My people were willing to die for Communism. That didn't mean Marx was right. Conviction only disproves lying, but since no one said anything abt lying.In fact, I specifically gave an example of ppl...cont.
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Willing to suffer for a claim is certainly indicative of its truth. Would you take a beating (in ancient times no less) for the claim that it actually was Crosby when an angry mob was telling you that it wasnt unless you really believed what you saw? Paul was eventually martyred anyway so the point is moot anyway.
People dying for Communism is not a good analogy bc it is death for what one believes is right, not death for something that has occurred in space and time.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 But I agree, conviction disproves lying. So that seems to bring us back full circle to the question that the disciples either saw the real risen Jesus, had a hallucination with no external referent, or saw something that thought was Jesus but actually was something different (like an illusion).
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 No willingness to "suffer for a claim is only" indicative of conviction. To Are you saying an angry mob proves something? I'm sure if Paul was making it up an angry mob would have made a difference, but the mob had been stirred up, they weren't angry because they thought paul might be mistaken., but then who is claiming he made it up? Whether something actually occurred in space and time is PRECISELY the question, You're pretty hard up to argue about hallucinations. LOL
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r No I am saying that if the witnesses saw it, then suffered and/or died for it, then we can be assured that they really believed it and in doing so are in a place which is categorically different from Kamikaze pilots, Muslims suicide bombers, or modern Christian martyrs bc they were actually witnesses to the event. Again we are brought back to the question of 'Either they had good reasons...'
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Lol, I am not trying to focus on hallucinations on purpose. It just seems like that is where you are headed. 'They disciples believed they saw Jesus but were wrong' usually falls into the category of hallucinations or illusions.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 2 Believing they saw something without it necessarily being the case. Maybe they saw him and maybe they didn't. The odds are against you for a number of reasons. First, at best you have second or third hand testimony. Even then there aren't very many details offered by Paul of the sightings he mentions in 1st C. The gospels are much worse as they may easily be third, fourth, fifth or umpteenth hand accounts. Second dead things don't come back to life.
sp1ke0kill3r 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r Paul is a first hand source, undoubtedly. Paul also records the accounts of others and we can look at what he says in 1 Cor. 1 and 15 to see that Peter and others are preaching the same message. Mark's Gospel is also considered to be, in an oversimplification, Peter's sermon notes. A historian's notes would be considered the same thing bc the actual witness has to tell them what occurred and then they write it down.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@sp1ke0kill3r "Second dead things don't come back to life." Don't you think ancient people realized this too??? I think they knew when something was dead, it stayed dead (hence graves). But it is precisely this claim that we are investigating here with Jesus and I don't think we can dismiss the miraculous without looking at the evidence first bc in theory this is exactly the type of evidence that would overturn that statement.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100 Youtuber ProfMTH has a pretty good series debunking the notion that the disciples were killed explicitly for their beliefs. And besides, cognitive dissonance reduction has caused cults to fiendishly fight for much sillier beliefs, even WHEN they're proven wrong, take failed end of the world prophecies for example. they dont just give up, they find excuses, and believe even harder.
TheBowsersMario 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario Well I mean Bart Ehrman concedes that James, Peter, and Paul were murdered for their beliefs. James the son of Zebedee is also recorded, as is Stephen. John is exiled. So these are the key players and it just so happens they are also the ones we have evidence for!
CD does not explain conversions such as Paul or James. They are not in the frame of mind. Neither are the disciples.
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario Basically, if the only argument against the resurrection is that the body would have been unrecognizable anyway, that is a weak argument. It fails to account for the empty tomb, the appearances, the appearances to skeptics, and the appearances reported by enemies. I mean we cant forget about the skeptic James and the persecutor Paul who may have thought the disciples did steal the body. Paul provides an eyewitness account of an enemy who reports to have seen Jesus. That is BIG.
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@CapsHockey100 Concerning the skeptics, Paul did not see a physical Jesus. He appeared to Paul in a beam of light. after being heavily fatigued during a trip. James conversion, i mean he was already his brother. Maybe he was simply convinced to become a follower. And the supposed appearance to him only made up to make himself more credible. It's impossible to draw the line between who really thought they saw him, and who only said that they saw him to draw credibility to the movement.
TheBowsersMario 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario "Maybe he was simply convinced to become a follower. " Was he just simply convinced to die for this belief too? That doesn't really follow. Paul also states that Jesus appeared to James, and the Gospels indicate that James, along with the other brothers, was a disbeliever of Jesus during Jesus' lifetime and they never mention that James or the brothers converted. Yet Paul reports this appearance and James is later the leader of the Jerusalem church who is subsequently martyred.
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario What do you mean Paul did not see a physical Jesus? Are you getting that from Acts? Are you telling me you take Acts as historical concerning its reports, bc that would give the resurrection a very strong boost! In any event, Paul believed that Jesus' resurrection was physical and claims to have seen the Lord (1 Cor. 9 and 15).
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario You seem to say that they claim to see Jesus to gain credibility, but what is to gain of this credibility aside from imprisonment, ridicule, or death? Many of them weren't willing to accept these when Jesus was arrested, thus they fled as the Gospels embarrasingly record of all the disciples. Yet, they all appear to have a transformation and become willing to die for this belief. Seeing Jesus did not just draw credibility, but a life of suffering. Its a tough sell for selfishnes
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario lol, It would be like a Democrat agreeing with a Republican!
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario Of course maybe a witness did recant, the problem is there is no evidence that they did - no data at all, but in fact all the evidence suggests that they were transformed from being scared into bold proclaimers who were willing to suffer and die. Look at Peter for example, it is embarrassing to portray the head disciple as having so much doubt as to deny Jesus 3x - in order to save his life. Only to later boldly proclaim Jesus as risen and suffer and eventually die.
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario You can't argue, however, from evidence we don't have - it is an argument from literal silence. I don't think the evidence is shoddy at all, but perhaps simply the fact that it occurred 2000 years is more of a problem for you?
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@CapsHockey100 So you admit that all the evidence we do have are from people who are in favor of the claim? Let's say a claim is made, some people are in favor, some aren't. By way of force, the people in favor write everything we could possibly know about the claim. Those who win the wars write the history. This is a problem for historians when they try to verify far more mundane things. And yet this is a claim that a man rose from the dead. I gotta admit, I don't buy it.
TheBowsersMario 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario Well yes the winners write history but that doesnt make the claims false does it? Did the winners of the Holocaust write the history falsely? Of course not. The problem is, as I stated above, we have people who were also skeptics and enemies of the church who also are reported to have seen Jesus.
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@CapsHockey100 it doesn't make the claim false, but it does give an unbalanced perspective. we have paul and james as "skeptics". is this the best the risen messiah could do? only show up to his brother who was already close to him and to paul in a flash? we're hearing one side of the story, whether people with conflicting sides cared to document their opinions or not. also, the die for a lie argument is moot. i recommend profmth's series on it.
TheBowsersMario 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario I don't think any composition of history is going to be devoid of the historians worldview or perspective, but again that doesn't mean they are untrue (look at the accounts from Julius Caesar for example). Paul is a little more than a "skeptic," he puts Dawkins to shame bc he actually put people in jail or consented to their deaths! I mean they are not the only witnesses so I am a little confused when you say "is that the best He could do?"
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario Paul was an enemy and even his accounts as such are mentioned by him and also in Acts. So it is not fair to say one side of the story. Additionally, there are multiple references that "these acts did not take place in a corner." So I am not sure quite what you mean when you say we are only hearing one side of the story. We are looking at the available data.
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario If you suggest that those on the other side chose not to write about it, I could just as easily argue from silence that it was bc they had nothing to say about it.
What do you mean, " i recommend profmth's series on it."? What is that?
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
@TheBowsersMario One who sees Jesus after the crucifixion (C) is obviously going to be in favor of the claim that they saw Jesus after the C. It is circular that it would be that way. I saw Jesus, I favor the claim. So clearly anyone who agrees with the claim is going to write it. I would not expect someone to say, I saw Jesus, but I dont favor the claim that I saw Jesus.
CapsHockey100 3 months ago
I love Dr. Habermas.
aeleveto 5 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
Christians in the 21st Century really should give it up as hopeless. Christianity started out as a doomsday cult based on a ghost story about a guy who rose from the dead. Today's christians have pinned their hopes on THAT?
MrAdvancedAtheist 5 months ago
Implications and claims with no evidence to support them. No contemporary writings to support them. They don't even know who authored the so called gospels.
alianchild 5 months ago
The Bible is written full of metaphors, parallels and parables to explain things for us, but you also have to remember that many of the words we have today did not exist, and that things had to be explained in such a way that those people would understand.
pigsburgh18 6 months ago
@pigsburgh18 - Language doesn't work that way, if there is no word language will invent one. This is seen time and time again. Stop listening to apologetics.
stevenweir76 6 months ago
@stevenweir76
all it takes is a basic understanding of history and the origins of language and you will see that you are completely off. language has evolved over hundreds and thousands of years. If, for example, a tank was seeing rolling through rome 2000 years ago, they wouldnt create a word for it, they wouldnt even know what it was. they would describe it as they best knew how, in their words. metaphors simply help explain what really happened.
pigsburgh18 6 months ago
@pigsburgh18 - That isn't how language works, I suggest you find some readings on etymology. When there is need a word is invented. Simple as that. Metaphors are not direct explanations. Can a elementary teacher teach what a sphere is? Yes. Can God? apparently not. They wouldn't know what a ball is, a ball would have been a fantastic analogy, and there were those who knew the Earth was a sphere. Eratosthenes figured that out 300 years B.C.E.
stevenweir76 6 months ago
@pigsburgh18 - Science does a wonderful job creating new words and defining them, why can't those allegedly inspired by God or even God himself? This evidence, like most evidence regarding the veracity of the claims in the Bible is in my favor. We invent words all the time. Or maybe what the internet is can only be explained by metaphor? This is an incredibly weak argument. People weren't stupid back then, they just didn't have the information we do today.
stevenweir76 6 months ago
I dont know how this turned into a genesis debate, but Genesis is simply a story to explain the creation of the universe and definitely uses metaphors to explain it. "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." That is a clear metaphor for what science calls "the big bang," there was nothing and then BANG, God created everything. I dont understand why thats so hard to understand.
pigsburgh18 6 months ago
Even if I grant Gary that Jesus's story was the first ever resurrection (and it's definitely not), how does that in any way validate the divinity of Jesus? You still need actual proof that it happened. Why is he talking about Paul as an eyewitness. Paul according to the bible never even physically met Jesus. The fact that people were willing to die for their belief in the resurrection doesn't provide sufficient proof either.
Setzer 6 months ago
@Setzer It is not even sure that all those people died for their belief. Most of those stories of martyrdom were written around 300AD. Even a christian apologetics cite warns about taking those stories of martyrdom for absolute truth.
tallliza 6 months ago
Paul's Creed 35 A.D That is Amazing !
IamJohnHello 6 months ago
Lol I'm Christian, but I'll give the atheist props. He was civil, well-mannered, and not rude. I like him.
That being said, he is obviously wrong, and the guy he was debating with clearly knew his stuff. The Skeptic Magazine guy didn't even quote one Bible verse. I mean come on.
tripletrules 7 months ago
@glord1894 you are so far off on both cases, it would be funny
if it wasnt so tragic!
MrHobiecat 8 months ago