Thats why i say debates wont work against theism they will never give it up no matter how many times you refute them just look at creationism they loose over and over and yet they still persist.
Again you compare believers to witnesses. Cognitive consonance is not a valid analogy. You must find witnesses not believers to go to their death for a lie. You are arguing against a argument that isn't being made. I doubt if I am going to listen to the rest of these videos. I cannot believe that you have made 8 videos to knock down a straw man. You miss the whole point. They were not believers they were witnesses. Cognitive consonance does not apply to witnesses.
@mejc2 "I doubt if I am going to listen to the rest of these videos."
Clearly you haven't fully understood what you've listened to so far and you've been upset by at least some of it. There's no sense in pushing yourself beyond what you're able to handle right now.
"They were not believers they were witnesses."
You're merely assuming the ground in controversy.
"Cognitive consonance"
It's cognitive dissonance. You need to pay attention.
It's cognitive dissonance. You need to pay attention.
Actually you use both terms. you need to pay attention.Also, I was not upset by your misunderstanding, I was disappointed. It's one thing to totally misunderstand an argument, It is totally sad to make 8 videos on you tube proclaiming how badly you have misconstrued it.
Refute? there is nothing to refute. you make a claim against believers when the question asks about witnesses. Your claims about believes are probably true. However, you either lack the comprehension ability to realize the difference or are intentionally being misleading. Which ever the case there is nothing to refute. Your argument is meaningless. 8 videos worth of meaningless. What a waste of time.
Denial? what a joke. You propose and defend your own claims while ignoring the actual claim. That is called creating a straw man. I do understand what I'm talking about and what the actual argument is. However, I am not familiar with your phraseology.
@mejc2 You are assuming that the initial group of disciples were "witnesses" of a physical resurrection rather than believers in a spiritual, invisible one. The argument vis-a-vis the resurrection in this series shows how their own statements--not what is put in their mouths by the gospels, but their own statements--have them describing the resurrection *not* as a physical, visible reality, but a spiritual, invisible reality that they apprehend only in visions. Deal with the case I've made.
@mejc2 You miss the point. These videos demonstrate that believers can and do "Die for a lie." Without presuming the "truth" of Yeshua's resurrection there's no evidence supporting the claim that the disciples were witnesses to anything. The point of contention is that the disciples were witnesses based on their actions, rather than believers. If it can be demonstrated that their behaviour is not unique to witnesses then there's no grounds upon which to make such claims.
You miss the point. We are not saying that their behavior is unique to witnesses, we are saying that the opposite is expected and usually demonstrated by witnesses. When faced with death people usually tell the truth if they know it. The Apostles claimed to have seen Jesus after his death. They didn't believe that they saw him, They KNEW. When faced with death people usually tell the truth. Especially if their lie doesn't bring them any gain.
@mejc2 "They didn't believe that they saw him, They KNEW."
Again, you assume the ground in controversy.
"When faced with death people usually tell the truth."
Again, you fail to understand the role of persecution--even persecution that concludes in death--in religious belief (discussed in detail in the series) & you assume that the apostolic martyrdom legends are accurate (the many problems with them are discussed at length in the series). You're just mindlessly repeating your beliefs.
@mejc2 The disciples may have been considered criminals when finally executed(presuming this is true at all). I wonder if a recantation on their part would have stayed their execution at all? Was it common in Rome to simply allow criminals to walk if they recanted? Faced with an unavoidable death why bother rescinding your teachings when you can become a martyr¿ Roman execution of the Cult of Bacchus members didn't stop belief in that religion why do assume Christianity is any different?
Inventing scenarios that are not even hinted at in any text, will allow you to create any imaginary situation that you wish. The cult of Bacchus were believers not witnesses. That is why Christianity is different. Becoming a martyr for a lie you have been telling which has already caused you to become a pauper, isn't exactly gain.
1:10 An overly elaborate lifting system to lift a cross? HAHAHA theotards! No, the Romans were coldly efficient. First they preset the upright, then tied and nailed the condemned to the crossbeam, they him and the crossbeam and secured them, then they nail his feeted and let him exhaust himself. Finally they installed the "seat" which really was a "short" tapered pale. When you sat on it, it pierced your anus. Ouch!
when there is a failed prophecy of great magnitude you have defectors- defectors who go away saying it was not true.
You will find a single instance where everyone was united after a failed prophecy.
If they ALL said they saw him, they saw him. If Paul a zealous Jew who persecuted Christians said he had an encounter with Jesus which caused him to do a sudden reversal -- it happened.
And the minor disagreements between the gospels demonstrate that they are fairly independent.
Try a new approach....I'm an atheist. I don't accept Jesus as G-d in human flesh or anyone else. However, I'll admit that the teachings of this person were an exemplary guide to find harmony with other believers in a higher pwr or strict non-believers.
Otherwise you are wasting everyone's time with "dopey" produced youtube videos. Be a productive atheist at least.
If I were interested in your advice or your take on what is and is not "productive," I'd have sought it out. But I'm not interested, not even a little bit. So go "find harmony" and be "productive" elsewhere, Ronoman. In short, fuck off. Thanks. :-)
What've you got? Is the most relevant ques in the world to an atheist. If you're an honest atheist (like B.Russell) then life if meaningless. These videos are a product of your time spent which is nothing.
Athiests love history yet produce little historically for the greater good.
Well, with your latest comment, Ronoman, you answered my question about whether you have anything of substance to say about the video. The answer is "no." Thanks.
Wow thats some bullshit, I never understood why people need an ultimate divine goal to give our lives meaning. Why don't we make meanings for ourselves? why don't we savor every bit of time we have on this earth. If you live as much as you can, laugh as much as you can, and love as much as you can, then your life is not meaningless, because it means something to you, and the people you love. And thats enough meaning for me. A man who truly lives is not afraid to die.
You asked me a question about "who is Jesus to [me]" and I answered. I've got nothing to be embarrassed about. I'm an atheist. Now do you have anything of substance to say about this video or are you going to continue to waste your time and mine with dopey, irrelevant questions?
I'm tempted to use the answer a British friend of mine once gave when asked what Jesus was to him: a hippie eschatologist who did wonders for the sandal market.
I think Jesus, if he existed, was a guy who challenged the Jewish religious authorities of his day, who were also the local Roman collaborators in Palestine, and ended up getting himself nailed to a cross as a result.
Part 4 fails because a failed prophecy that is rationalized is different from believing you saw Jesus alive from the dead. The former is delusional because it didn't come to pass; but the latter needs a naturalistic explanation, but group hallucinations are not possible.
Those texts are later texts about the spirit (referring to our innerman) and 1 Cor. 15 also talks about the physical resurrection so you don't have an evolving story but a devolving one from the gospel accounts to later texts.
I have a feeling you're saving your best shots for last. Even so, this point is very good: They could have formed and enhanced a false belief about the 'resurrection," and then died for that FALSE belief.
(Of course, I still infer the ultimate evidence and conclusion is that jesus, and everything surrounding him, was a myth).
But how does one explain the fact that, according to those (or some) witnesses)--THEY ATE AND DRANK with the risen Savior? I mean--cognitive dissonance or dealing with failure is one thing--but what about eating with the Risen Christ???? How is that explained?
Those stories came along decades later, most likely after all or most of the people named in them were dead. Notice how the details of these stories increase and become more elaborate across the four gospels.
Look at the Millerites. They had their "Great Disappointment" when Jesus failed to appear when Miller predicted. But they bounced right back and established the Seventh Day Adventists.
The Jehovah's Witnesses have had their disappointments also, 1914, last time 1975, but each time they bounce back and continue on.
This whole study is just getting speculative and philosphical and competely devoid of logic. We have a 21st century shrink giving men from the first century a psych eval. And we wonder what is wrong with medical care!
This is what Peter said to the first gospel sermon 50 days after Jesus rose from the dead! "This Jesus, God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses! 50 days!
Question: Why didn't the officials drag out the stinking corpse of Jesus to the gullible Jews? End of story.
"This is what Peter said to the first gospel sermon 50 days after Jesus rose from the dead!"
Actually, no, that's what the author of Acts has Peter saying. The author of Acts attributes a lot of things to people. E.g., as I explained in the video, while the author of Acts has Paul having a vivid experience of light and sound in his first encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, Paul himself, in Galatians 1, talks about an apocalypto, an internal revelation.
Far more importantly, Questioningall, deal with what your own scriptures say, i.e., early on, the post-mortem Jesus is described in terms of spirit; it's only later in the tradition that all these physical descriptions start getting added in.
Why is it so hard to believe that there were particular psychological effects in operation back then, yet because it takes careful research and scientific studies in order to bring these principles and effects to light, people did not realize that they were being influenced in the ways they were by these forces, and their articulation had to wait 20 centuries until the rise of modern science? Why is a 21st century psych eval of the ancient world is invalid? Prima facie, it is more valid.
Either a book or documentary a long, long time ago. That was the Roman explanation for why the the tomb was empty. Remember that the tomb Jesus was put into was not his nor his families. It would be improper for a Jew not to be laid to raist in his family's tomb. So I could see why the Romans thought that his followers latter stole his body. Remember that if it wasn't for that rich man who allowed Jeus to be put in his tomb, then Jesus would have been left there or buried in a mass grave.
Orly? Can you support your amazing claim with evidence? Please show us where the Romans accused anyone of stealing a body whether it be Jesus or someone else in a SECULAR document....
Amazing claim? WTF are you super duper Roman Catholic or something?
Google "Stolen Body Hypothesis". This isn't a new theory. In fact, in Matthew the guards told each other to tell the authorities that Jesus' followers had stolen his body. In the 2nd Century worked titled, Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, a Jewish man levels the same accusations.
Now is this what I think happened? Nope.
I'm of the opinion that the Jesus cult was created by the Romans.
(continued) Check out Joseph Atwill's book, "Caeser's Messiah". Atwill's theory is that the "Christians" persecuted prior to the 2nd and 3rd centuries were actually Messianic Jews (followers of a Christ yet to come) and not followers of Jesus. Atwill suggests that the Flavians created the Jesus cult as a means of taming the Messianic Jews, giving them a Messiah figure that is pro-Roman. Later on the cult would be used to unite the Empire.
What history would that be? Moses commanding genocide? Talking snakes and donkeys? Killing all first born? I could site 'other' history but only nimwhits, imbeciles and the slightly retarded believe such bronze-age myths to base any reality upon.
Insulting quite a host in that sweeping rant, are you not?
Now if you FULLY disbelieved, you would be at peace with faith in God's nonexistence. There is more hope for you than for the indifferent. If you need to vent some more, fire away. Just don't take to long - life's a vapor. And don't follow men - they often go astray, seek money, power & prestige & mistreat people. Get in the Word - follow Christ.
Do you know with complete confidence your destiny, if you die this night?
Hippolytus (c.200AD) & Eusebius (c. 300AD), early Christian writers recorded the means by which the apostles died. IDK if they covered all of them, but most, it seems.
fair enough, I wasn't trying to point out a fallacy in what you were saying by the way, please don't misinterpret it as that. I was merely (assuming that you know more about the bible or biblical history than I) looking for a starting point to search myself. Thank you
Oh, no offense taken, even if you do happen to disagree. I don't get hostile in these discussions.
Strobel's "Case for Christ", discusses many historical points with arguments for and against. I personally think Strobel sounds a bit biased toward Christianity in his interviews with experts, but that may be because he was already converted when he compiled the book.
If the Christian god is omnipotent, but finds it an embarrassment, because his actions don't support it, then maybe he should make himself less omnipotent.
Actually, that is not sense, as it's binary. You are either omnipotent or you're not.
There are not degrees of omnipoetency. Which would then make him fallable. Oh dear !
also u say jesus had scars which is incorrect. it was a gaping wound that thomas poked his hand into. since jesus is god and made the universe would it be too large a thing for him to appear like that if he so chose? he could appear as george bush if he wanted to lol.
I mean, with the extra translation, your version of the bible, might make it impossible for you to understand, all the things I've been saying. that's why at the begining, I said for ye to look beyond your country and culture. In fact the trouble begun before, Abadon, was tranlated Apolion, to greek, wich ain't very acurate
I've heard that statement before, and it is quite oukward, It is the same as saying tht moeses, did not cross the red ssea, but the reed sea; I'm sure you've heard this before. what's the catch, the bible was traslated from hebrew to greek, to latin, then to my mother tongue, and also german, and from german, to english. Any guy that says, its reed not red, You get the point...
ProfMTH says, "In the early stages, the victorious Jesus, 'became a life-giving spirit' (1st Corinthians 15:45)..."
Then he says, "Later on, as the tradition evolved, the victorious Jesus was depicted as possessing a fish eating body of 'flesh and bone' while early in the tradition believers are told that what emerges at the resurrection is not the body that was buried."
I don't see how that's relevant. Are you having trouble with the idea that Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 that the body that is buried is not the one that is raised from the dead?
As I explained in the series, the gospel narratives in which the post-mortem Jesus is depicted as risen from the dead in physical terms come along later in the tradition. Earlier in the tradition, Jesus is portrayed as rising as a spirit.
we have a flesh body and we have a spiritual body. the 2 angels that came and visited abraham on their way to do in sodom and gehmorra looked just like normal men. but they were god's angel's that were in their spirtual body, it has mass substance and is pretty much indistinquisable from our flesh body. supposedly 1 of these angels was god/jesus himself. it's not like a wispy translucent thing like. most think it is like a ghost. probably but that is incorrect
"the viper sufucates at its own poison and becomes blind" Emanuel=Yeshua go learn hebrew... and don't need answering back, I'm taking no joy in what is happening to you.
"it says nothing about Jesus; never even mentions him " so born from a virgin, of name emanuel, is what? refering to my last king maybe? Kiddo, you are mitaken and blind, thus I will say no more, but this, leave other people out of your opinions and mistakes if you will not endure the same from others.
Questionable translation of the text. Merely assumes that Jesus was born of a virgin.
"of name emanuel"
Jesus' name was Jesus, so that's not helping your case.
"I will say no more"
You've made the right decision because, with all due respect, you were just digging yourself a really deep rhetorical and logical ditch. All the best to you.
"identify where"?? you're a funny one, only not the first. Ierch, if ya don't wanna believe, why you even ask. where? The lad has a book in the old testament, go read it, I'm not going to go through it all over again, just so you'll ask another pointless question. I only recall, it is sometime before, he ironicaly mentions the magus.
You made a claim, Ordeppaco, i.e., that Isaiah said Jesus of Nazareth was going to die, indeed that he had to die. I asked to you identify where Isaiah said this. Telling me to read Isaiah is non-responsive. Besides, I *have* read Isaiah and it says nothing about Jesus; never even mentions him -- no surprise since the text antedated Jesus' birth by a quite some time. In any case, it's *your* claim that's on the line. If you can't back it up, save us all some time by just saying you can't.
ok, ya want one, Isaias, as we call him in this country. I had more info on this to help you, but, it seems i got a put it bellow 500 characs, so tough luck.
LOL. Welcome to YouTube, Ordeppaco, where people actually make videos. You needn't be constrained by the comment box limitation. Make a video response.
In the meantime, please identify where Isaiah says anything about Jesus of Nazareth's execution. Thanks.
Hmf ladie, did you ever even considered, studying the history of this matter, beyond the limited frontiers of your country and culture?
Because, I don't know if it is ignorance, or if you are lying to make people fall for that, but, you are saying a lot of untrue things.
To begin, several prophets said He'd die, that He had to die, lol, even Himself said He was going to, so your argument as they reacted to a defeat, becomes null.
"several prophets said He'd die, that He had to die"
Name a single "prophet" who even said a word about Jesus of Nazareth's execution, much less that his execution was necessary.
"even Himself said He was going to"
Those purported "predictions" are part of gospel stories that came along much later. It's easy to "predict" something after it's already happened. Heck, Ordeppaco, I suspect even you could do that. ;-)
PROFMTH - And, I'm not sure if you know this or not, but, when you use an "if" statement to prove a "then", yet, your "if" is unproven itself, well, what you're left with is a big bag of bullshit. You'll have to pardon my use of the term "big bag". More aptly, a small bag of "bullshit" around which you build a larger, more importand-sounding argument. All the while, nothing said, nothing proven. Your ego stroked, your audience cheers. Let me know when you prove your point.
donharrold, "when you use an "if" statement to prove a "then", yet, your "if" is unproven itself, well, what you're left with is a big bag of bullshit."
"when JOSH McDOWELL and LEE STROBEL use an "if" statement to prove a "then", yet, your "if" is unproven itself, well, what you're left with is a big bag of bullshit."
Great video! You may address this in part 5 but I'm curious as to what your opinion is of the the post rez accounts with the disciples? Do you lean towards the idea it was a group hallucination or simply a myth made up over time and any sort of meeting never occurred.
Personally, since the 4 gospels differ so greatly in regards to where Jesus first met the disciples post rez and what was said, I tend to believe any sort of meeting never happened. It was a myth that snowballed.
Thanks, Robotz. As I explained in this video, I'm an adherent of the view that the resurrection story developed over time, starting with early notions -- the product of cognitive dissonance management, I suspect -- of Jesus' victory over death being invisible, taking place in the "heavenly realm" or spirit, and ending up with the elaborate and decidedly physical resurrection stories that appear in the gospels -- especially Luke and John (the latest of the four canonical gospels).
I'll have to watch it again, as I was trying to do two things at once! =) But thanks for the clarification, I think that makes a lot of sense. Looking forward to the conclusion!
Wait, one more thing: I do not even argue here that Jesus did or did not "come back". I only argue that you present no case against that event. It is a fair debate to have, yet, to base your premise on something that is open - fairly so - to debate means that you, are, guilty of some of the same belief suspension you claim early Christians must have suffered. When you first prove the "IF" in your logic chain, the "THEN" can be discussed as a potential next step.
"Wait, one more thing: I do not even argue here that Jesus did or did not "come back". I only argue that you present no case against that event."
I deal with that matter in my "Jesus Was Wrong" series. The topic of this series is the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument. Time to pay attention, Donharrold.
donharrold "When you first prove the "IF" in your logic chain, the "THEN" can be discussed as a potential next step."
Christians use the same "if->.then" logic to make the "die for a lie" argument in the first place. By your own standard, the Christian "die for a lie" fails because they can't proceed beyond the "if" stage.
Lastly, you - in a common debate tactic - set up a set of criteria that IF true would prove your hypothesis. In this case, IF Jesus did not "come back," THEN, the disciples would have necessarily used "cognitive consonance" to replace his "coming back" with a "denial of failure." The "if" you leave out makes the "then" irrelevant. When you prove the "if" you MAY have a case. Until then, you are another in a long line Christian-bashers who argue your unproven opinion as fact. Ironic.
"In this case, IF Jesus did not 'come back,' THEN, the disciples would have necessarily used 'cognitive consonance' to replace his 'coming back' with a 'denial of failure.'"
In light of your above-quoted attempt at restating my argument, it is crystal clear that you didn't understand the argument. I encourage you to watch the video again and pay close attention. The argument isn't particularly complicated.
Furthermore, you allow this "disconfirmation" theory to be the bedrock of your hypothesis with no proof. That is ironic given the premise of your series: That believers died for something that they knew to be untrue. In your case, you don't even know what you speak is true or not. Thus, you posit a set of circumstances that hinge on your opinion based on nothing more than, your opinion.
"Furthermore, you allow this 'disconfirmation' theory to be the bedrock of your hypothesis with no proof."
Wrong on two counts, DonHarrold. First, the stuff about cognitive dissonance is only one of three arguments I offer in refutation of the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument. Second, it's not without proof. Cognitive dissonance management without abandoning religious beliefs is one of the best established facts about religious believers. You should read Dawson's article.
You say, "Believers successfully navigated the disconfirmation that is, 'Jesus did not come back,' by finding ways to re-establish cognitive consonance without sacrificing their religious beliefs." Yet, your statement assumes that Jesus DID NOT "come back." Now, this may be your belief, but, you certainly do not prove it to be true. You only show how it could be true that IF Jesus did not "come back" his followers COULD choose to ignore that "disconfirmation."
"...your statement assumes that Jesus DID NOT 'come back.'"
Indeed it does. And with good reason: Jesus didn't come back. Oh, I know that some Christians have extremely creative, fanciful notions about Jesus "coming back" invisibly in 70 C.E. and other such nonsense, but that sort of thing is nothing more than another product of cognitive dissonance. I talk about this in detail in my "Jesus Was Wrong" series.
PROFMTH - LOL. So, your video here is based on your opinion - unproven. And, you have the gall to criticize Christians for the EXACT SAME THING. NO kidding? LOL,.
"So, your video here is based on your opinion...."
Actually, Donharrold, I'm laying out an argument in a systematic, clear way. I'm not surprised you're having trouble recognizing that given the snake oil you peddle over on your channel. When you actually have a substantive refutation of anything I've said here, please do let me know. I won't hold my breath.
PROFMTH - Oooh, nice. So, for the record, your "logic" is this: Jesus didn't rise again because I BELIEVE it to be so even though I did not see it, was not there, can't prove, nor is it possible to do so. Yet, that same fallacious "logic" is what you mock Christians for believing. EVEN though, there is not ONE Christian I know who believes the argument as framed by you. Nice work. Oh, and the sarcasm laced with vitriolic ad hominem is a nice, and predictable, touch.
PROFMTH - LOL. No, see, I "grasp" it all to well. Your entire premise is flawed because you use an "if" that you don't prove to arrive at your "then". Now, is it interesting fodder for the anti-Christians in your audience? Sure. But, in the same way that there are Christians who can't think their way out of a paper bag, there's always someone like you who uses the same flawed logic you mock Christians for.
We are talking about dissonant management based on:
1) The eyewitness account of women (which wasn't looked upon favorably back then.
2) The ability to convince Roman citizens as well as Jews who did not follow Jesus that Jesus rose from the dead even though he did not.
3) Come up with a lie so great that would convince people of different opinions, economic, and social backgrounds that would make them follow the believers willing to die.
ProfMTH, this is a HUGGGE stretch. First of all where is your historical evidence that the early believers were hugely disappointed by the fact Jesus did not yet make his second return?
Secondly, you are obviously begging the question in assuming Jesus' death was a failure. If Jesus' resurrection was nothing more than a fib based on dissonance management, then that's the greatest and most successful act of dissonance management ever in the history of mankind.
"First of all where is your historical evidence that the early believers were hugely disappointed by the fact Jesus did not yet make his second return?"
Have a look at my "Jesus Was Wrong" series. I go into all that in great detail, PraiseYeshua.
"If Jesus' resurrection was nothing more than a fib based on dissonance management, then that's the greatest and most successful act of dissonance management ever in the history of mankind."
you said something along the lines of "just because the disciples died to say that jesus was ressurrected from the dead, doesn't mean he did. It just means they believed he did". Likewise, this video does not prove he didn't rise from the dead. All it proves is that you do not believe that he rose from the dead.
"you said something along the lines of 'just because the disciples died to say that jesus was ressurrected from the dead, doesn't mean he did. It just means they believed he did.'"
You'll need to quote me.
"Likewise, this video does not prove he didn't rise from the dead."
"Just a quick question, do you think this argument would be the same if the criteria in Acts didn't exist?"
The thing about eating and drinking, you mean. I guess the argument would be somewhat different, although I suspect when apologists talk about the eating and drinking thing, they have the gospels in mind.
The argument here does, correct me if I'm wrong Professor, assume that Jesus was a historical figure. Thus, the argument can be re-phrased as "Their deaths demonstate that these people had come to believe that Jesus was victorious over death, so at the very least he must have existed." Or is this simply a stipulation for the sake of argument?
"Or is this simply a stipulation for the sake of argument?"
Indeed. The series assumes arguendo that Jesus existed. I happen to be of the view that he did, but that's not the subject of this series. Thanks, Zakdayak.
Frankly , it was a wonderfully done series that provided I thought very little evidence that refuted the die for a lie argument. As heyalun below has already posted " Your comparison is broken. People invent lies to protect themselves, gain power/riches, etc. Groups don't invent lies to live life on the run, face danger, lose money, and their lives. Either the apostles saw Jesus or invented a lie. It's not reasonable to believe they had multiple mass halucinations. "
"Frankly , it was a wonderfully done series that provided I thought very little evidence that refuted the die for a lie argument."
lol First, it's not finished yet. Second, feel free to refute what I've said thus far. It's quite easy, but just as unimpressive merely to claim I've demonstrated nothing.
"Groups don't invent lies to live life on the run, face danger, lose money, and their lives."
You're unfamiliar with cognitive dissonance in the context of religious belief. ...
so jesus was a real person, its just his whole life story is a lie? possibly someone elses life? I suppose after multiple translations of a story Chinese whispered down through time, there would be no truth left!
I love learning about how Christians are in constant denial of the truth. I'll definitely use this as ammo in the future.
Every once in a while I post bulletins on MySpace highlighting the ignorance of Christians. I find it funny that every time I do that, the number of friends I have drops by about 10. They don't hesistate to delete me as a friend, but offer no argu..
Btw, for some reason I thought Dawson was the third Christian clip you put up in the first video.
I had a thought! You just mentioned the failed prophesy of Jesus not returning, but you said in the previous parts that Jesus did appear about two times after he died. Putting aside all the dramatic nuances of His return, what if Jesus appearing to those 500 people and the disciples in one of the gospels WAS the second coming? Of course I may be utterly confised as I'm typing. Or did Jesus say after he rose that there would be the second coming? Help me, Prof! Get my facts straight!
Well, Sthebg20, the first thing we want to get straight is that it's unlikely Jesus said anythying resembling much of what is attributed to him in the Christian scriptures. Moreover, you've no doubt gotten the sense that I don't think Jesus appeared to anyone after his execution. He was dead. That said, the Christian scriptures repeatedly talk about Jesus returning. Juding by, among other things, the comments about this in the body of epistles that make up the bulk of the New Testament...
...many (probably most, if not all) of the earliest Christians believed that Jesus would be returning within their lifetime. As Paul puts it in 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10, Christians were called to serve God and "to wait for God's Son from heaven." As the first generation of believers began to die off, there was anxiety about why Jesus hadn't come back yet -- anxiety one sees addressed in, e.g., 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 2 Peter 3:9-10. These sorts of passages are, of course, quite typical...
...of a group trying to come to terms with prophetic disconfirmation. They manage it in various ways and, as happened in Christianity as the movement matured, they reinterpret it. So, e.g., some Christians began to claim (and continue to claim to this very day) that Jesus came back in 70 C.E. when the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans -- they spiritualized the prophecy (a common mode of dissonance management for religious believers).
I'd just like to say thanks for doing the hammer & tongs work as dismantling religious arguments. I honestly don't know where you get the time. I can only answer such claims in a haphazard fashion and never with your scrupulously-researched accuracy. But I know you will, so I can merely be lazy and 'spread your word'. (And no, I don't think you're the messiah.)
Well, that's a good thing about the not thinking I'm the messiah. The whole messiah thing tends to be a full-time job, and I'm pretty booked as it is. ;-)
Those who supposedly died for Jesus, such as Paul, end up being just as mythical as Jesus was. Outside of holy text, (which does not meet historiographical standards) there is not one secular document that confirms they even existed to begin with.
For your comparison to be consistent the disciples would have created their movement around a dead Messiah. In the other cases the movement accepts the failure but presses forward anyway. One could imagine hardcore believers spinning a defeat. It becomes more difficult to imagine a sane group of people coming together and inventing a historical event then believing it.
I was thinking what heyalun said, the disciples didn't spin a bad episode by creating an abstract victory with a dead messiah.
Their victory was rooted in man who came back to life. And, as heyalun pointed out, that would be along the lines of manufacturing a historical event rather than reinterpreting it. Hence, they would know it was a lie.
"I was thinking what heyalun said, the disciples didn't spin a bad episode by creating an abstract victory with a dead messiah."
I said nothing about "abstract victory" and a "dead messiah." The earliest bits of the tradition talk about Jesus having been put to death in the flesh & made alive in the spirit. That's not about a dead messiah. It's also not about a physically resurrected one, but that doesn't mean a dead one -- he was vindicated in the spirit, he had passed through the heavens.
True, you didn't say anything about an abstract victory.
"The earliest bits of the tradition talk about Jesus having been put to death in the flesh & made alive in the spirit."
But that's the thing, resurrection had a specific meaning. In fact, Paul might say the phrase "physically resurrected" is redundant. Thus, we have consistent teaching in this regard from the earliest tradition.
"But that's the thing, resurrection had a specific meaning."
And that meaning developed over time with respect to Jesus. The tradition demonstrates that quite clearly, StormTrek. It goes from Jesus being put to death in the flesh and then made alive in the spirit to Luke putting the exact opposite description in Jesus' mouth, "Touch me and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
As I mentioned to Heyalun in a comment below, in all of Christian...
...scripture, there is only one first-person, autobiographical account of Jesus appearing to someone after Jesus had been executed, i.e., Paul's account in the first chapter of Galatians. Paul says that God "was pleased to reveal his Son in me" (Galatians 1:16). It's an interior revelation -- in Greek, apokalyptō. This was Paul's "revelation [apokalypsis] of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:12). As the tradition develops, Luke has Paul seeing a light and hearing a voice...
..., neither of which Paul ever claims for himself in his own writings. Just from the Christian scriptures themselves, it could not be any plainer that all of this developed over time in the Jesus tradition.
"And that meaning developed over time with respect to Jesus"
If Paul meant to use the word as you say, it would mean he developed a foreign meaning of the word and then it regressed (in Christian history) back to the original Jewish meaning.
And as a "pharisee of pharisees" Paul would be using a familiar word in an unfamiliar way. Strictly to demonstrate how Jews of the day understood the meaning of the word, take a look at Acts 23:6.
1) Do you think the word resurrection had a specific meaning to 1st century Jews (the kind of understanding that would cause an instant debate to errupt)?
2) Do you think Paul intentionally tried to change the meaing of the word?
"If Paul meant to use the word as you say, it would mean he developed a foreign meaning of the word and then it regressed (in Christian history) back to the original Jewish meaning."
We've covered this territory before, StormTrek. The idea of someone rising from the dead prior to the general resurrection was a foreign notion to begin with. Once again, I point you to Paul's own words on this. I know what you want them to mean, but I'm encouraging you to look at what he actually says.
"Which was not written by Paul, but put in his mouth by the author of Acts. Moreover, it's a reference to the general resurrection."
Yes, as the word was understood by the Pharisees and Sadducees. Which would mean that Paul knew what the word meant and changed it's meaning in a letter written to the church in Corinth. But then, after having tried to change the meaning of the word, the Christian church reverted back to the original meaning and built a bodily resurrection story around that.
StormTrek, once again I refer you to Paul's own words. The body that is "sown" at death is "not ... the body which is to be" (1 Cor 15:37). It is "sown" as a natural body and raised as a spiritual body (1 Cor 15:44) -- Jesus was raised as a "life-giving spirit," Paul declares (1 Cor 15:45). All of this is dramatically different from, e.g., John 20, which has Jesus back from the dead in the same body that was killed a few days earlier -- it even retains the scars of crucifixion that admit...
Correct, and right in the middle of those verses he says "So will it be with the resurrection of the dead." (1 Cor 15:42)
So, if your interpretation is correct, Paul, the Christian, is using the term resurrection in a way that was not used by his fellow Jews, at least as his fellow Jews understood it in Acts 23:6.
Thats why i say debates wont work against theism they will never give it up no matter how many times you refute them just look at creationism they loose over and over and yet they still persist.
wachnathan 8 months ago
if i can ask what is your religious belief ???????? judaism ?
guyinmirage 1 year ago
@guyinmirage I'm an atheist.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH What an evil belief!
caseybv74 3 weeks ago
@caseybv74 What is an "evil belief"?
ProfMTH 3 weeks ago
@ProfMTH I was being sarcastic as many religious people call atheism a belief.
caseybv74 2 weeks ago
Again you compare believers to witnesses. Cognitive consonance is not a valid analogy. You must find witnesses not believers to go to their death for a lie. You are arguing against a argument that isn't being made. I doubt if I am going to listen to the rest of these videos. I cannot believe that you have made 8 videos to knock down a straw man. You miss the whole point. They were not believers they were witnesses. Cognitive consonance does not apply to witnesses.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "I doubt if I am going to listen to the rest of these videos."
Clearly you haven't fully understood what you've listened to so far and you've been upset by at least some of it. There's no sense in pushing yourself beyond what you're able to handle right now.
"They were not believers they were witnesses."
You're merely assuming the ground in controversy.
"Cognitive consonance"
It's cognitive dissonance. You need to pay attention.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
"Cognitive consonance"
It's cognitive dissonance. You need to pay attention.
Actually you use both terms. you need to pay attention.Also, I was not upset by your misunderstanding, I was disappointed. It's one thing to totally misunderstand an argument, It is totally sad to make 8 videos on you tube proclaiming how badly you have misconstrued it.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Actually you use both terms. you need to pay attention."
You're quite skilled at missing the point. Well, I guess that's useful somewhere--or at least I hope it is for your sake.
"It is totally sad to make 8 videos on you tube proclaiming how badly you have misconstrued it."
Feel free to refute the case I've laid out in this series. A video response would be ideal.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
Refute? there is nothing to refute. you make a claim against believers when the question asks about witnesses. Your claims about believes are probably true. However, you either lack the comprehension ability to realize the difference or are intentionally being misleading. Which ever the case there is nothing to refute. Your argument is meaningless. 8 videos worth of meaningless. What a waste of time.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Refute? there is nothing to refute."
LOL! Denial--one of the great cognitive dissonance management strategies.
"you make a claim against believers when the question asks about witnesses"
Again, you merely assume the ground in controversy. Perhaps you don't understand what that means. You should look it up.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
Denial? what a joke. You propose and defend your own claims while ignoring the actual claim. That is called creating a straw man. I do understand what I'm talking about and what the actual argument is. However, I am not familiar with your phraseology.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 You are assuming that the initial group of disciples were "witnesses" of a physical resurrection rather than believers in a spiritual, invisible one. The argument vis-a-vis the resurrection in this series shows how their own statements--not what is put in their mouths by the gospels, but their own statements--have them describing the resurrection *not* as a physical, visible reality, but a spiritual, invisible reality that they apprehend only in visions. Deal with the case I've made.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
The case you've made? Made up is the case. You've made up a straw man argument. Big deal. It doesn't even achieve boring.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 And yet you keep coming back. Interesting.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@mejc2 You miss the point. These videos demonstrate that believers can and do "Die for a lie." Without presuming the "truth" of Yeshua's resurrection there's no evidence supporting the claim that the disciples were witnesses to anything. The point of contention is that the disciples were witnesses based on their actions, rather than believers. If it can be demonstrated that their behaviour is not unique to witnesses then there's no grounds upon which to make such claims.
ReverendWyrm 1 year ago
@ReverendWyrm
You miss the point. We are not saying that their behavior is unique to witnesses, we are saying that the opposite is expected and usually demonstrated by witnesses. When faced with death people usually tell the truth if they know it. The Apostles claimed to have seen Jesus after his death. They didn't believe that they saw him, They KNEW. When faced with death people usually tell the truth. Especially if their lie doesn't bring them any gain.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "They didn't believe that they saw him, They KNEW."
Again, you assume the ground in controversy.
"When faced with death people usually tell the truth."
Again, you fail to understand the role of persecution--even persecution that concludes in death--in religious belief (discussed in detail in the series) & you assume that the apostolic martyrdom legends are accurate (the many problems with them are discussed at length in the series). You're just mindlessly repeating your beliefs.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@mejc2 The disciples may have been considered criminals when finally executed(presuming this is true at all). I wonder if a recantation on their part would have stayed their execution at all? Was it common in Rome to simply allow criminals to walk if they recanted? Faced with an unavoidable death why bother rescinding your teachings when you can become a martyr¿ Roman execution of the Cult of Bacchus members didn't stop belief in that religion why do assume Christianity is any different?
ReverendWyrm 1 year ago
@ReverendWyrm
Inventing scenarios that are not even hinted at in any text, will allow you to create any imaginary situation that you wish. The cult of Bacchus were believers not witnesses. That is why Christianity is different. Becoming a martyr for a lie you have been telling which has already caused you to become a pauper, isn't exactly gain.
mejc2 1 year ago
@ReverendWyrm - None of this actually happened so it's all ado about nothing really.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
1:10 An overly elaborate lifting system to lift a cross? HAHAHA theotards! No, the Romans were coldly efficient. First they preset the upright, then tied and nailed the condemned to the crossbeam, they him and the crossbeam and secured them, then they nail his feeted and let him exhaust himself. Finally they installed the "seat" which really was a "short" tapered pale. When you sat on it, it pierced your anus. Ouch!
EdM021 1 year ago
when there is a failed prophecy of great magnitude you have defectors- defectors who go away saying it was not true.
You will find a single instance where everyone was united after a failed prophecy.
If they ALL said they saw him, they saw him. If Paul a zealous Jew who persecuted Christians said he had an encounter with Jesus which caused him to do a sudden reversal -- it happened.
And the minor disagreements between the gospels demonstrate that they are fairly independent.
steflova2 1 year ago
"when there is a failed prophecy of great magnitude you have defectors - defectors who go away saying it was not true"
So?
"If they ALL said they saw him, they saw him"
Of course, if you were paying attention to this series you'd know that whether they even claimed they "saw him" is in question.
"And the minor disagreements between the gospels...."
They're not minor.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Try a new approach....I'm an atheist. I don't accept Jesus as G-d in human flesh or anyone else. However, I'll admit that the teachings of this person were an exemplary guide to find harmony with other believers in a higher pwr or strict non-believers.
Otherwise you are wasting everyone's time with "dopey" produced youtube videos. Be a productive atheist at least.
ronoman88 2 years ago
@ronoman88
If I were interested in your advice or your take on what is and is not "productive," I'd have sought it out. But I'm not interested, not even a little bit. So go "find harmony" and be "productive" elsewhere, Ronoman. In short, fuck off. Thanks. :-)
ProfMTH 2 years ago
What've you got? Is the most relevant ques in the world to an atheist. If you're an honest atheist (like B.Russell) then life if meaningless. These videos are a product of your time spent which is nothing.
Athiests love history yet produce little historically for the greater good.
ronoman88 2 years ago
Well, with your latest comment, Ronoman, you answered my question about whether you have anything of substance to say about the video. The answer is "no." Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
then life if meaningless
Wow thats some bullshit, I never understood why people need an ultimate divine goal to give our lives meaning. Why don't we make meanings for ourselves? why don't we savor every bit of time we have on this earth. If you live as much as you can, laugh as much as you can, and love as much as you can, then your life is not meaningless, because it means something to you, and the people you love. And thats enough meaning for me. A man who truly lives is not afraid to die.
MasterofDisaster17 1 year ago
ProfMTH the issue is now you've become what? Don't be embarrassed? Speak up. What've you got?
ronoman88 2 years ago
@ronoman88
You asked me a question about "who is Jesus to [me]" and I answered. I've got nothing to be embarrassed about. I'm an atheist. Now do you have anything of substance to say about this video or are you going to continue to waste your time and mine with dopey, irrelevant questions?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Prof I'll assume after looking at the life of Jesus you've become what? Athiest? Astrologer, agnostic? Deist?
Who is Jesus to You?
ronoman88 2 years ago
@ronoman88
Astrologer?! lol
I'm tempted to use the answer a British friend of mine once gave when asked what Jesus was to him: a hippie eschatologist who did wonders for the sandal market.
I think Jesus, if he existed, was a guy who challenged the Jewish religious authorities of his day, who were also the local Roman collaborators in Palestine, and ended up getting himself nailed to a cross as a result.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Part 4 fails because a failed prophecy that is rationalized is different from believing you saw Jesus alive from the dead. The former is delusional because it didn't come to pass; but the latter needs a naturalistic explanation, but group hallucinations are not possible.
Parture 2 years ago
Those texts are later texts about the spirit (referring to our innerman) and 1 Cor. 15 also talks about the physical resurrection so you don't have an evolving story but a devolving one from the gospel accounts to later texts.
Parture 2 years ago
I have a feeling you're saving your best shots for last. Even so, this point is very good: They could have formed and enhanced a false belief about the 'resurrection," and then died for that FALSE belief.
(Of course, I still infer the ultimate evidence and conclusion is that jesus, and everything surrounding him, was a myth).
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
But how does one explain the fact that, according to those (or some) witnesses)--THEY ATE AND DRANK with the risen Savior? I mean--cognitive dissonance or dealing with failure is one thing--but what about eating with the Risen Christ???? How is that explained?
mcelsner 2 years ago
Those stories came along decades later, most likely after all or most of the people named in them were dead. Notice how the details of these stories increase and become more elaborate across the four gospels.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Very good video.
Look at the Millerites. They had their "Great Disappointment" when Jesus failed to appear when Miller predicted. But they bounced right back and established the Seventh Day Adventists.
The Jehovah's Witnesses have had their disappointments also, 1914, last time 1975, but each time they bounce back and continue on.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"It's not a lie, if you believe it."-George Costanza
RadarKat73080 2 years ago
its kind of like a pyramid scheme
cartmankingarc 2 years ago
This whole study is just getting speculative and philosphical and competely devoid of logic. We have a 21st century shrink giving men from the first century a psych eval. And we wonder what is wrong with medical care!
This is what Peter said to the first gospel sermon 50 days after Jesus rose from the dead! "This Jesus, God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses! 50 days!
Question: Why didn't the officials drag out the stinking corpse of Jesus to the gullible Jews? End of story.
questioningall 2 years ago
"This is what Peter said to the first gospel sermon 50 days after Jesus rose from the dead!"
Actually, no, that's what the author of Acts has Peter saying. The author of Acts attributes a lot of things to people. E.g., as I explained in the video, while the author of Acts has Paul having a vivid experience of light and sound in his first encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, Paul himself, in Galatians 1, talks about an apocalypto, an internal revelation.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"Why didn't the officials drag out the stinking corpse of Jesus to the gullible Jews?"
They probably didn't know where it was. Executed criminals were thrown in mass graves. Their bodies were sometimes burned.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Far more importantly, Questioningall, deal with what your own scriptures say, i.e., early on, the post-mortem Jesus is described in terms of spirit; it's only later in the tradition that all these physical descriptions start getting added in.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Why is it so hard to believe that there were particular psychological effects in operation back then, yet because it takes careful research and scientific studies in order to bring these principles and effects to light, people did not realize that they were being influenced in the ways they were by these forces, and their articulation had to wait 20 centuries until the rise of modern science? Why is a 21st century psych eval of the ancient world is invalid? Prima facie, it is more valid.
Uroshnor 2 years ago
The Romans accused Jesus' followers of stealing his body.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
"The Romans accused Jesus' followers of stealing his body."
Where did you get that from?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Either a book or documentary a long, long time ago. That was the Roman explanation for why the the tomb was empty. Remember that the tomb Jesus was put into was not his nor his families. It would be improper for a Jew not to be laid to raist in his family's tomb. So I could see why the Romans thought that his followers latter stole his body. Remember that if it wasn't for that rich man who allowed Jeus to be put in his tomb, then Jesus would have been left there or buried in a mass grave.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
clarification: It would be improper for a jew to be buried in any tomb other than his family's tomb, sorry about the confusion.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
No. Followers wrote that - not Romans. See the difference?
Deuterstomia 2 years ago
Umm no. At the time that was one of the accusations against the Christians, that his body was stole by his followers.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
Orly? Can you support your amazing claim with evidence? Please show us where the Romans accused anyone of stealing a body whether it be Jesus or someone else in a SECULAR document....
Deuterstomia 2 years ago
Amazing claim? WTF are you super duper Roman Catholic or something?
Google "Stolen Body Hypothesis". This isn't a new theory. In fact, in Matthew the guards told each other to tell the authorities that Jesus' followers had stolen his body. In the 2nd Century worked titled, Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, a Jewish man levels the same accusations.
Now is this what I think happened? Nope.
I'm of the opinion that the Jesus cult was created by the Romans.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
(continued) Check out Joseph Atwill's book, "Caeser's Messiah". Atwill's theory is that the "Christians" persecuted prior to the 2nd and 3rd centuries were actually Messianic Jews (followers of a Christ yet to come) and not followers of Jesus. Atwill suggests that the Flavians created the Jesus cult as a means of taming the Messianic Jews, giving them a Messiah figure that is pro-Roman. Later on the cult would be used to unite the Empire.
Search Youtube for Atwill's interviews.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
Not really fair to exclude Biblical history, since much of it is corroborated by other sources. And this claim doesn't even pertain to miracles.
mikebForJesus 2 years ago
What history would that be? Moses commanding genocide? Talking snakes and donkeys? Killing all first born? I could site 'other' history but only nimwhits, imbeciles and the slightly retarded believe such bronze-age myths to base any reality upon.
Deuterstomia 2 years ago
Insulting quite a host in that sweeping rant, are you not?
Now if you FULLY disbelieved, you would be at peace with faith in God's nonexistence. There is more hope for you than for the indifferent. If you need to vent some more, fire away. Just don't take to long - life's a vapor. And don't follow men - they often go astray, seek money, power & prestige & mistreat people. Get in the Word - follow Christ.
Do you know with complete confidence your destiny, if you die this night?
mikebForJesus 2 years ago
cite, and nitwit. not helping you prove who is slightly retarded.
Rob8036 2 years ago
well, can you point out any part of history , biblical or otherwise that points out what actually happens to the disciples?
Rob8036 2 years ago
James Z.'s death is recorded in Acts 12.
Hippolytus (c.200AD) & Eusebius (c. 300AD), early Christian writers recorded the means by which the apostles died. IDK if they covered all of them, but most, it seems.
mikebForJesus 2 years ago
fair enough, I wasn't trying to point out a fallacy in what you were saying by the way, please don't misinterpret it as that. I was merely (assuming that you know more about the bible or biblical history than I) looking for a starting point to search myself. Thank you
Rob8036 2 years ago
Oh, no offense taken, even if you do happen to disagree. I don't get hostile in these discussions.
Strobel's "Case for Christ", discusses many historical points with arguments for and against. I personally think Strobel sounds a bit biased toward Christianity in his interviews with experts, but that may be because he was already converted when he compiled the book.
mikebForJesus 2 years ago
more comments = more popularity. comment on these vids if you like them. and rate :)
Neeboopsh 2 years ago
Man... This "omnipotent" thing sure is tough for god, ehh?
thecaneater 2 years ago
It catches him up all the time.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
If the Christian god is omnipotent, but finds it an embarrassment, because his actions don't support it, then maybe he should make himself less omnipotent.
Actually, that is not sense, as it's binary. You are either omnipotent or you're not.
There are not degrees of omnipoetency. Which would then make him fallable. Oh dear !
asianlife53 2 years ago
also u say jesus had scars which is incorrect. it was a gaping wound that thomas poked his hand into. since jesus is god and made the universe would it be too large a thing for him to appear like that if he so chose? he could appear as george bush if he wanted to lol.
halburd1 2 years ago
I mean, with the extra translation, your version of the bible, might make it impossible for you to understand, all the things I've been saying. that's why at the begining, I said for ye to look beyond your country and culture. In fact the trouble begun before, Abadon, was tranlated Apolion, to greek, wich ain't very acurate
ordeppaco 2 years ago
I've heard that statement before, and it is quite oukward, It is the same as saying tht moeses, did not cross the red ssea, but the reed sea; I'm sure you've heard this before. what's the catch, the bible was traslated from hebrew to greek, to latin, then to my mother tongue, and also german, and from german, to english. Any guy that says, its reed not red, You get the point...
ordeppaco 2 years ago
"You get the point."
Actually, I haven't a clue as to what you're struggling to say here.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Comment removed
congalocke 2 years ago
ProfMTH says, "In the early stages, the victorious Jesus, 'became a life-giving spirit' (1st Corinthians 15:45)..."
Then he says, "Later on, as the tradition evolved, the victorious Jesus was depicted as possessing a fish eating body of 'flesh and bone' while early in the tradition believers are told that what emerges at the resurrection is not the body that was buried."
congalocke 2 years ago
I'm not sure how he came to this conclusion, with this scripture in particular, if he had read Ch.15 from the beginning???
congalocke 2 years ago
1st Cor. 15:4
"...that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,"
Is there a switch in this text between the body that is buried and the one that is raised that I don't see???
To be fair though...I'm not a professor.
congalocke 2 years ago
"To be fair though...I'm not a professor."
I don't see how that's relevant. Are you having trouble with the idea that Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 that the body that is buried is not the one that is raised from the dead?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
1st Cor. 15:4 says, "...he was buried, that he was raised..."
I am having trouble believing that Paul thought Jesus was buried spiritually!
I would agree that the disciples thought what you are putting forth, Luke 24:37
"...they were terrified and frightened and thought they saw a spirit."
But they never taught it because of Luke 24:39, "...for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
congalocke 2 years ago
"I am having trouble believing that Paul thought Jesus was buried spiritually!"
What put that in your mind? Certainly nothing I said.
"But they never taught it because of Luke 24:39"
As I explained in the series, the gospel narratives in which the post-mortem Jesus is depicted as risen from the dead in physical terms come along later in the tradition. Earlier in the tradition, Jesus is portrayed as rising as a spirit.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
we have a flesh body and we have a spiritual body. the 2 angels that came and visited abraham on their way to do in sodom and gehmorra looked just like normal men. but they were god's angel's that were in their spirtual body, it has mass substance and is pretty much indistinquisable from our flesh body. supposedly 1 of these angels was god/jesus himself. it's not like a wispy translucent thing like. most think it is like a ghost. probably but that is incorrect
halburd1 2 years ago
when you challenge someone, you make sure, you have a jaw wide enough for the bite, or you'll be crush like a bug...
Yesterday, I was reading something, for a friend of mine, what I found:
1st letter of St Petter, quoting Isaias who was speaking of The Christ/Messias, the text has been studied since it exist, you say what you want...
ordeppaco 2 years ago
So, you're conceding tha 'Emmanuel' and 'Yeshua' do not mean the same thing, Ordeppaco?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"the viper sufucates at its own poison and becomes blind" Emanuel=Yeshua go learn hebrew... and don't need answering back, I'm taking no joy in what is happening to you.
ordeppaco 2 years ago
"Emanuel=Yeshua go learn hebrew"
LOL! You should take your own advice, Ordeppaco. They don't mean the same thing. You'd best quit while you're behind.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"it says nothing about Jesus; never even mentions him " so born from a virgin, of name emanuel, is what? refering to my last king maybe? Kiddo, you are mitaken and blind, thus I will say no more, but this, leave other people out of your opinions and mistakes if you will not endure the same from others.
ordeppaco 2 years ago
"born from a virgin"
Questionable translation of the text. Merely assumes that Jesus was born of a virgin.
"of name emanuel"
Jesus' name was Jesus, so that's not helping your case.
"I will say no more"
You've made the right decision because, with all due respect, you were just digging yourself a really deep rhetorical and logical ditch. All the best to you.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"identify where"?? you're a funny one, only not the first. Ierch, if ya don't wanna believe, why you even ask. where? The lad has a book in the old testament, go read it, I'm not going to go through it all over again, just so you'll ask another pointless question. I only recall, it is sometime before, he ironicaly mentions the magus.
ordeppaco 2 years ago
You made a claim, Ordeppaco, i.e., that Isaiah said Jesus of Nazareth was going to die, indeed that he had to die. I asked to you identify where Isaiah said this. Telling me to read Isaiah is non-responsive. Besides, I *have* read Isaiah and it says nothing about Jesus; never even mentions him -- no surprise since the text antedated Jesus' birth by a quite some time. In any case, it's *your* claim that's on the line. If you can't back it up, save us all some time by just saying you can't.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
ok, ya want one, Isaias, as we call him in this country. I had more info on this to help you, but, it seems i got a put it bellow 500 characs, so tough luck.
ordeppaco 2 years ago
"tough luck"
LOL. Welcome to YouTube, Ordeppaco, where people actually make videos. You needn't be constrained by the comment box limitation. Make a video response.
In the meantime, please identify where Isaiah says anything about Jesus of Nazareth's execution. Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Hmf ladie, did you ever even considered, studying the history of this matter, beyond the limited frontiers of your country and culture?
Because, I don't know if it is ignorance, or if you are lying to make people fall for that, but, you are saying a lot of untrue things.
To begin, several prophets said He'd die, that He had to die, lol, even Himself said He was going to, so your argument as they reacted to a defeat, becomes null.
ordeppaco 2 years ago
"several prophets said He'd die, that He had to die"
Name a single "prophet" who even said a word about Jesus of Nazareth's execution, much less that his execution was necessary.
"even Himself said He was going to"
Those purported "predictions" are part of gospel stories that came along much later. It's easy to "predict" something after it's already happened. Heck, Ordeppaco, I suspect even you could do that. ;-)
ProfMTH 2 years ago
PROFMTH - And, I'm not sure if you know this or not, but, when you use an "if" statement to prove a "then", yet, your "if" is unproven itself, well, what you're left with is a big bag of bullshit. You'll have to pardon my use of the term "big bag". More aptly, a small bag of "bullshit" around which you build a larger, more importand-sounding argument. All the while, nothing said, nothing proven. Your ego stroked, your audience cheers. Let me know when you prove your point.
donharrold 2 years ago
A lot of blathering, Donharrold, but you're refuted nothing I've said. You're quickly becoming an intolerable bore.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
donharrold, "when you use an "if" statement to prove a "then", yet, your "if" is unproven itself, well, what you're left with is a big bag of bullshit."
"when JOSH McDOWELL and LEE STROBEL use an "if" statement to prove a "then", yet, your "if" is unproven itself, well, what you're left with is a big bag of bullshit."
justintempler 2 years ago
Great video! You may address this in part 5 but I'm curious as to what your opinion is of the the post rez accounts with the disciples? Do you lean towards the idea it was a group hallucination or simply a myth made up over time and any sort of meeting never occurred.
Personally, since the 4 gospels differ so greatly in regards to where Jesus first met the disciples post rez and what was said, I tend to believe any sort of meeting never happened. It was a myth that snowballed.
RobotzAreAwesome 2 years ago
Thanks, Robotz. As I explained in this video, I'm an adherent of the view that the resurrection story developed over time, starting with early notions -- the product of cognitive dissonance management, I suspect -- of Jesus' victory over death being invisible, taking place in the "heavenly realm" or spirit, and ending up with the elaborate and decidedly physical resurrection stories that appear in the gospels -- especially Luke and John (the latest of the four canonical gospels).
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I'll have to watch it again, as I was trying to do two things at once! =) But thanks for the clarification, I think that makes a lot of sense. Looking forward to the conclusion!
RobotzAreAwesome 2 years ago
Wait, one more thing: I do not even argue here that Jesus did or did not "come back". I only argue that you present no case against that event. It is a fair debate to have, yet, to base your premise on something that is open - fairly so - to debate means that you, are, guilty of some of the same belief suspension you claim early Christians must have suffered. When you first prove the "IF" in your logic chain, the "THEN" can be discussed as a potential next step.
donharrold 2 years ago
"Wait, one more thing: I do not even argue here that Jesus did or did not "come back". I only argue that you present no case against that event."
I deal with that matter in my "Jesus Was Wrong" series. The topic of this series is the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument. Time to pay attention, Donharrold.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
donharrold "When you first prove the "IF" in your logic chain, the "THEN" can be discussed as a potential next step."
Christians use the same "if->.then" logic to make the "die for a lie" argument in the first place. By your own standard, the Christian "die for a lie" fails because they can't proceed beyond the "if" stage.
justintempler 2 years ago
Lastly, you - in a common debate tactic - set up a set of criteria that IF true would prove your hypothesis. In this case, IF Jesus did not "come back," THEN, the disciples would have necessarily used "cognitive consonance" to replace his "coming back" with a "denial of failure." The "if" you leave out makes the "then" irrelevant. When you prove the "if" you MAY have a case. Until then, you are another in a long line Christian-bashers who argue your unproven opinion as fact. Ironic.
donharrold 2 years ago
"In this case, IF Jesus did not 'come back,' THEN, the disciples would have necessarily used 'cognitive consonance' to replace his 'coming back' with a 'denial of failure.'"
In light of your above-quoted attempt at restating my argument, it is crystal clear that you didn't understand the argument. I encourage you to watch the video again and pay close attention. The argument isn't particularly complicated.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Furthermore, you allow this "disconfirmation" theory to be the bedrock of your hypothesis with no proof. That is ironic given the premise of your series: That believers died for something that they knew to be untrue. In your case, you don't even know what you speak is true or not. Thus, you posit a set of circumstances that hinge on your opinion based on nothing more than, your opinion.
donharrold 2 years ago
"Furthermore, you allow this 'disconfirmation' theory to be the bedrock of your hypothesis with no proof."
Wrong on two counts, DonHarrold. First, the stuff about cognitive dissonance is only one of three arguments I offer in refutation of the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument. Second, it's not without proof. Cognitive dissonance management without abandoning religious beliefs is one of the best established facts about religious believers. You should read Dawson's article.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
You say, "Believers successfully navigated the disconfirmation that is, 'Jesus did not come back,' by finding ways to re-establish cognitive consonance without sacrificing their religious beliefs." Yet, your statement assumes that Jesus DID NOT "come back." Now, this may be your belief, but, you certainly do not prove it to be true. You only show how it could be true that IF Jesus did not "come back" his followers COULD choose to ignore that "disconfirmation."
donharrold 2 years ago
"...your statement assumes that Jesus DID NOT 'come back.'"
Indeed it does. And with good reason: Jesus didn't come back. Oh, I know that some Christians have extremely creative, fanciful notions about Jesus "coming back" invisibly in 70 C.E. and other such nonsense, but that sort of thing is nothing more than another product of cognitive dissonance. I talk about this in detail in my "Jesus Was Wrong" series.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
PROFMTH - LOL. So, your video here is based on your opinion - unproven. And, you have the gall to criticize Christians for the EXACT SAME THING. NO kidding? LOL,.
donharrold 2 years ago
"So, your video here is based on your opinion...."
Actually, Donharrold, I'm laying out an argument in a systematic, clear way. I'm not surprised you're having trouble recognizing that given the snake oil you peddle over on your channel. When you actually have a substantive refutation of anything I've said here, please do let me know. I won't hold my breath.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
PROFMTH - Oooh, nice. So, for the record, your "logic" is this: Jesus didn't rise again because I BELIEVE it to be so even though I did not see it, was not there, can't prove, nor is it possible to do so. Yet, that same fallacious "logic" is what you mock Christians for believing. EVEN though, there is not ONE Christian I know who believes the argument as framed by you. Nice work. Oh, and the sarcasm laced with vitriolic ad hominem is a nice, and predictable, touch.
donharrold 2 years ago
Actually, once again, Donharrold, you demonstrate that you have failed to grasp the argument presented here.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
PROFMTH - LOL. No, see, I "grasp" it all to well. Your entire premise is flawed because you use an "if" that you don't prove to arrive at your "then". Now, is it interesting fodder for the anti-Christians in your audience? Sure. But, in the same way that there are Christians who can't think their way out of a paper bag, there's always someone like you who uses the same flawed logic you mock Christians for.
donharrold 2 years ago
We are talking about dissonant management based on:
1) The eyewitness account of women (which wasn't looked upon favorably back then.
2) The ability to convince Roman citizens as well as Jews who did not follow Jesus that Jesus rose from the dead even though he did not.
3) Come up with a lie so great that would convince people of different opinions, economic, and social backgrounds that would make them follow the believers willing to die.
Highly unlikely!
PraiseYeshua 2 years ago
"We are talking about dissonant management...."
Dissonance, PraiseYeshua, dissonance.
As for the rest of your comment, it seems you've not followed the argument in this series. I encourage you to watch it again.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
ProfMTH, this is a HUGGGE stretch. First of all where is your historical evidence that the early believers were hugely disappointed by the fact Jesus did not yet make his second return?
Secondly, you are obviously begging the question in assuming Jesus' death was a failure. If Jesus' resurrection was nothing more than a fib based on dissonance management, then that's the greatest and most successful act of dissonance management ever in the history of mankind.
PraiseYeshua 2 years ago
"First of all where is your historical evidence that the early believers were hugely disappointed by the fact Jesus did not yet make his second return?"
Have a look at my "Jesus Was Wrong" series. I go into all that in great detail, PraiseYeshua.
"If Jesus' resurrection was nothing more than a fib based on dissonance management, then that's the greatest and most successful act of dissonance management ever in the history of mankind."
You're probably right.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
you said something along the lines of "just because the disciples died to say that jesus was ressurrected from the dead, doesn't mean he did. It just means they believed he did". Likewise, this video does not prove he didn't rise from the dead. All it proves is that you do not believe that he rose from the dead.
FaithWillSetYouFree 2 years ago
"you said something along the lines of 'just because the disciples died to say that jesus was ressurrected from the dead, doesn't mean he did. It just means they believed he did.'"
You'll need to quote me.
"Likewise, this video does not prove he didn't rise from the dead."
You've misunderstood the goal of the video.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Thanks, PM.
cosmicjackpot 2 years ago
Dammit!Another great video Prof. I have mid terms next week I need to study! After your videos I always spend the rest of the day pondering them.
Just a quick question, do you think this argument would be the same if the criteria in Acts didn't exist?
HecticSkeptic 2 years ago
"Just a quick question, do you think this argument would be the same if the criteria in Acts didn't exist?"
The thing about eating and drinking, you mean. I guess the argument would be somewhat different, although I suspect when apologists talk about the eating and drinking thing, they have the gospels in mind.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
The argument here does, correct me if I'm wrong Professor, assume that Jesus was a historical figure. Thus, the argument can be re-phrased as "Their deaths demonstate that these people had come to believe that Jesus was victorious over death, so at the very least he must have existed." Or is this simply a stipulation for the sake of argument?
Zakdayak 2 years ago
"Or is this simply a stipulation for the sake of argument?"
Indeed. The series assumes arguendo that Jesus existed. I happen to be of the view that he did, but that's not the subject of this series. Thanks, Zakdayak.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Where the hell is part-5, ProfMTH?
JesusSatanAllah 2 years ago
Frankly , it was a wonderfully done series that provided I thought very little evidence that refuted the die for a lie argument. As heyalun below has already posted " Your comparison is broken. People invent lies to protect themselves, gain power/riches, etc. Groups don't invent lies to live life on the run, face danger, lose money, and their lives. Either the apostles saw Jesus or invented a lie. It's not reasonable to believe they had multiple mass halucinations. "
TruthasICit 2 years ago
"Frankly , it was a wonderfully done series that provided I thought very little evidence that refuted the die for a lie argument."
lol First, it's not finished yet. Second, feel free to refute what I've said thus far. It's quite easy, but just as unimpressive merely to claim I've demonstrated nothing.
"Groups don't invent lies to live life on the run, face danger, lose money, and their lives."
You're unfamiliar with cognitive dissonance in the context of religious belief. ...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
... I encourage you to read Lorne Dawon's article to get an overview of how it works.
"It's not reasonable to believe they had multiple mass halucinations."
You're quoting Heyalun's strawman. I said nothing about "mass halucinations."
ProfMTH 2 years ago
waiting breathless for the next video prof (well maybe not breathless,if i don't breath i'll miss the next vid and we can't have that... ) :)
hellshade2 2 years ago
lol
ProfMTH 2 years ago
so there is no doubt jesus was real, its just his life wasnt?
1GOD1JESUS 2 years ago
I don't understand your question, 1GOD1JESUS.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
so jesus was a real person, its just his whole life story is a lie? possibly someone elses life? I suppose after multiple translations of a story Chinese whispered down through time, there would be no truth left!
1GOD1JESUS 2 years ago
"so jesus was a real person, its just his whole life story is a lie?"
That's not my position. The question invited is what actually *is* the life story of the person who's come to be called Jesus Christ.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Beautiful, Prof.
I love learning about how Christians are in constant denial of the truth. I'll definitely use this as ammo in the future.
Every once in a while I post bulletins on MySpace highlighting the ignorance of Christians. I find it funny that every time I do that, the number of friends I have drops by about 10. They don't hesistate to delete me as a friend, but offer no argu..
Btw, for some reason I thought Dawson was the third Christian clip you put up in the first video.
ph4rcyd3r 2 years ago
"Btw, for some reason I thought Dawson was the third Christian clip you put up in the first video."
No. That was the late Cardinal Avery Dulles.
Thanks a lot, Ph4rcyd3r.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I had a thought! You just mentioned the failed prophesy of Jesus not returning, but you said in the previous parts that Jesus did appear about two times after he died. Putting aside all the dramatic nuances of His return, what if Jesus appearing to those 500 people and the disciples in one of the gospels WAS the second coming? Of course I may be utterly confised as I'm typing. Or did Jesus say after he rose that there would be the second coming? Help me, Prof! Get my facts straight!
sthebg20 2 years ago
Well, Sthebg20, the first thing we want to get straight is that it's unlikely Jesus said anythying resembling much of what is attributed to him in the Christian scriptures. Moreover, you've no doubt gotten the sense that I don't think Jesus appeared to anyone after his execution. He was dead. That said, the Christian scriptures repeatedly talk about Jesus returning. Juding by, among other things, the comments about this in the body of epistles that make up the bulk of the New Testament...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...many (probably most, if not all) of the earliest Christians believed that Jesus would be returning within their lifetime. As Paul puts it in 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10, Christians were called to serve God and "to wait for God's Son from heaven." As the first generation of believers began to die off, there was anxiety about why Jesus hadn't come back yet -- anxiety one sees addressed in, e.g., 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 2 Peter 3:9-10. These sorts of passages are, of course, quite typical...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...of a group trying to come to terms with prophetic disconfirmation. They manage it in various ways and, as happened in Christianity as the movement matured, they reinterpret it. So, e.g., some Christians began to claim (and continue to claim to this very day) that Jesus came back in 70 C.E. when the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans -- they spiritualized the prophecy (a common mode of dissonance management for religious believers).
ProfMTH 2 years ago
That would render Paul, who recalled this event himself, quite blind to the very "second coming" he claimed to be "close at hand."
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
I'd just like to say thanks for doing the hammer & tongs work as dismantling religious arguments. I honestly don't know where you get the time. I can only answer such claims in a haphazard fashion and never with your scrupulously-researched accuracy. But I know you will, so I can merely be lazy and 'spread your word'. (And no, I don't think you're the messiah.)
lordshell 2 years ago
Well, that's a good thing about the not thinking I'm the messiah. The whole messiah thing tends to be a full-time job, and I'm pretty booked as it is. ;-)
Thanks, Lordshell.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
can't wait for part 5
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
I venture this is your best series yet.
Nicely spread over several parts so as not to rush over the salient points
mattblackcat 2 years ago
Thank you *very* much, Mattblackcat.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Can't wait for part 5!
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
I hope to have it posted this weekend.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Excellent series thus far, Prof. I always find it intriguing to hear about discrepancies in Biblical text.
God raised (Jesus) up on the third day and granted that he should become visible, not to all people, but to witnesses chosen beforehand by God
That sentence speaks volumes about the central tenet of Christianity. One could write novel on its ramifications.
threewiseman1 2 years ago
I suspect one could, Threewiseman1. Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Those who supposedly died for Jesus, such as Paul, end up being just as mythical as Jesus was. Outside of holy text, (which does not meet historiographical standards) there is not one secular document that confirms they even existed to begin with.
johnhart30 2 years ago
Exactly. We don't even know if Jesus existed- at least not as described within the gospels.
Cyraside 2 years ago
For your comparison to be consistent the disciples would have created their movement around a dead Messiah. In the other cases the movement accepts the failure but presses forward anyway. One could imagine hardcore believers spinning a defeat. It becomes more difficult to imagine a sane group of people coming together and inventing a historical event then believing it.
heyalun 2 years ago
heyalun "It becomes more difficult to imagine a sane group of people coming together and inventing a historical event then believing it."
Joseph Smith and the "golden plates"
justintempler 2 years ago
'Joseph Smith and the "golden plates"'
What evidence do you have that they believed it? Did they live life on the run, give up wealth, and face assasination for their beliefs?
heyalun 2 years ago
heyalun "What evidence do you have that they believed it? Did they live life on the run, give up wealth, and face assasination for their beliefs?"
Apparently you haven't studied the history of Mormonism. The affidavits, their persecution and life on the run, and yes even assasinations.
justintempler 2 years ago
"What evidence do you have that they believed it? Did they live life on the run, give up wealth, and face assasination for their beliefs?"
Yes, yes, and yes.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I was thinking what heyalun said, the disciples didn't spin a bad episode by creating an abstract victory with a dead messiah.
Their victory was rooted in man who came back to life. And, as heyalun pointed out, that would be along the lines of manufacturing a historical event rather than reinterpreting it. Hence, they would know it was a lie.
StormTrek 2 years ago
"I was thinking what heyalun said, the disciples didn't spin a bad episode by creating an abstract victory with a dead messiah."
I said nothing about "abstract victory" and a "dead messiah." The earliest bits of the tradition talk about Jesus having been put to death in the flesh & made alive in the spirit. That's not about a dead messiah. It's also not about a physically resurrected one, but that doesn't mean a dead one -- he was vindicated in the spirit, he had passed through the heavens.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
True, you didn't say anything about an abstract victory.
"The earliest bits of the tradition talk about Jesus having been put to death in the flesh & made alive in the spirit."
But that's the thing, resurrection had a specific meaning. In fact, Paul might say the phrase "physically resurrected" is redundant. Thus, we have consistent teaching in this regard from the earliest tradition.
StormTrek 2 years ago
"But that's the thing, resurrection had a specific meaning."
And that meaning developed over time with respect to Jesus. The tradition demonstrates that quite clearly, StormTrek. It goes from Jesus being put to death in the flesh and then made alive in the spirit to Luke putting the exact opposite description in Jesus' mouth, "Touch me and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
As I mentioned to Heyalun in a comment below, in all of Christian...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...scripture, there is only one first-person, autobiographical account of Jesus appearing to someone after Jesus had been executed, i.e., Paul's account in the first chapter of Galatians. Paul says that God "was pleased to reveal his Son in me" (Galatians 1:16). It's an interior revelation -- in Greek, apokalyptō. This was Paul's "revelation [apokalypsis] of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:12). As the tradition develops, Luke has Paul seeing a light and hearing a voice...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
..., neither of which Paul ever claims for himself in his own writings. Just from the Christian scriptures themselves, it could not be any plainer that all of this developed over time in the Jesus tradition.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"And that meaning developed over time with respect to Jesus"
If Paul meant to use the word as you say, it would mean he developed a foreign meaning of the word and then it regressed (in Christian history) back to the original Jewish meaning.
And as a "pharisee of pharisees" Paul would be using a familiar word in an unfamiliar way. Strictly to demonstrate how Jews of the day understood the meaning of the word, take a look at Acts 23:6.
StormTrek 2 years ago
So I guess what I would like to know is
1) Do you think the word resurrection had a specific meaning to 1st century Jews (the kind of understanding that would cause an instant debate to errupt)?
2) Do you think Paul intentionally tried to change the meaing of the word?
StormTrek 2 years ago
"If Paul meant to use the word as you say, it would mean he developed a foreign meaning of the word and then it regressed (in Christian history) back to the original Jewish meaning."
We've covered this territory before, StormTrek. The idea of someone rising from the dead prior to the general resurrection was a foreign notion to begin with. Once again, I point you to Paul's own words on this. I know what you want them to mean, but I'm encouraging you to look at what he actually says.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"Acts 23:6"
Which was not written by Paul, but put in his mouth by the author of Acts. Moreover, it's a reference to the general resurrection.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"Which was not written by Paul, but put in his mouth by the author of Acts. Moreover, it's a reference to the general resurrection."
Yes, as the word was understood by the Pharisees and Sadducees. Which would mean that Paul knew what the word meant and changed it's meaning in a letter written to the church in Corinth. But then, after having tried to change the meaning of the word, the Christian church reverted back to the original meaning and built a bodily resurrection story around that.
StormTrek 2 years ago
StormTrek, once again I refer you to Paul's own words. The body that is "sown" at death is "not ... the body which is to be" (1 Cor 15:37). It is "sown" as a natural body and raised as a spiritual body (1 Cor 15:44) -- Jesus was raised as a "life-giving spirit," Paul declares (1 Cor 15:45). All of this is dramatically different from, e.g., John 20, which has Jesus back from the dead in the same body that was killed a few days earlier -- it even retains the scars of crucifixion that admit...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...of physical examination.
The Jesus tradition clearly moved over time to a decidedly physical description of the post-mortem Jesus.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Correct, and right in the middle of those verses he says "So will it be with the resurrection of the dead." (1 Cor 15:42)
So, if your interpretation is correct, Paul, the Christian, is using the term resurrection in a way that was not used by his fellow Jews, at least as his fellow Jews understood it in Acts 23:6.
...
StormTrek 2 years ago