Dialogue on Resurrection Historicity

I advanced the argument I have posted on this blog about eight levels of verification for Gospels. I show that the pre mark redaction puts the story of the empty tomb back to at least a period just 18 years after the original events, and we find it circulating in writing around 50 AD/CE. This, according to Helmutt Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels. The atheists on carm can't distinguish between setting up an argument for the resurrection and other dread "supernaturl" ideas, and the historical nature of the text itself. Since they know the argument for the truth of all Gospels claims starts with the argument for historicity of Jesus, they just start at the beginning to short circuit the whole thing by saying that supernatural claims cancel the historicity. Of cousre they pay no attention to my argument that this is merely ideological swirl and the fear of one arguing for supernatural can't possibly cancel out what can be proved in history. That is not the same as arguing that miracles are historical, that's only setting up the possibility of the argument. This distinction is lost on almost all the atheists on carm!

Of course I don't' think that just demonstrated the historical nature of the narrative automatically argues for miracles. Nor do I think that miracles can be part of history. I understand why historians since the enlightenment have ruled miracles out of hsitory as historical material. that is not the same thing as saying miracles don't happen. They may very well happen, they just can't be called historical facts. They can, however, be personal beliefs, another discrimination the third grade hacks on CARM can't fathom. Of cousre then I don't argue that miracles can be proved as historical facts. I aruge that we do have a ratioanl basis for asscepting miracles as tenets of faith, they are not ruled out by an known principle in history other than that of historiography, the writing of history itself. Belief in miracles can still be rationally warranted, of course it would be historically based evidence that warrants them.

at this point good old DP, (old friend from CARM going back years) comes in and bless his heart, he actually argues agaisnt the historicity of the Gospels based upon the text rather than the ideology of wanting to dump the bible. The little guy is probably unaware that I admire him for that. I'll I have to tell him.



Originally Posted by Darth Pringle

Meta, if the Gospel accounts prove anything, they only prove a resurrection claim - not that an actual resurrection took place.

Meta: that's true, but it's enough for rational warrant.

DP:

You've conceded elsewhere that religious experience doesn't validate any particular tradition so why you've appealed to it again in your OP to defend belief in a particular tradition, I don't know.

Meta:The mystical expedience proper doesn't validate any particular tradition but one can experience Jesus. Its' a subset of mystical experience proper. That's why my experience of the mystical was also my conversion to Christ.

In the sense of the numinous one experiences a personal loving nature not experienced in the undifferentiated unity. then even a subset of that that one can cannot with a particular tradition.

why be afraid of Christianity if you know it's not the Christianity of the fundies?



Originally Posted by Darth Pringle

Even if the Gospels are in some way historically reliable, let us take some key claims into consideration.

DP

1. People were claiming that Jesus was a prophet (Jeremiah, Isaiah, John the Baptist etc) come back from the dead even before he died. These ideas became so widespread that even Herod embraced the idea that Jesus was the resurrected John the Baptist.

Meta:So what? That was popular misconception. I think they did have some reincarnation belief sin Hebrew folklore.

DP

2. Jesus warned his disciples that there would be people pretending to be him after he had gone ... and not to trust them.

Meta

He didn't say they would pretend to be Jesus of Nazareth he said they would pretend to be messiah (Christ).

DP

3. The Pharisees approached Pilate (who had previously and publicly disassociated himself from the death of Jesus) for a guard to protect his dead body because a false resurrection claim would become believed on a widespread scale if it was made. Pilate found this sufficiently convincing (despite his previous disassociation) to provide a guard.

He did provide a guard. the phrase "you have a guard" means "here you go, take one." a guard meant several men not just one. Two independent sources document the guard on the tomb, not just Matt but also Gpete.


DP

4. The body of Jesus went missing on the one night that there was a large group of men at the tomb who later prove to be dishonest (they change their initial resurrection claim in exchange for money) and who made a large sum of money out of the disappearance of the body.

Meta:

How atheists love to twist things. they were the Roman guard assigned to guard the tomb. they tomb turned up empty they were going to be killed for failing so the Sanhedrin promised to help them if they denied the resurrection.


DP

5. In post resurrection appearances, Jesus often went initially unrecognised by his closest friends and one account (Mark's) makes it clear that he was in a different form during one appearance (see 2). Paul's appearance didn't even involve seeing a person!

Meta:

The epiphanies are form differing sources. they have different agendas it's hard to get a handle on what they were about. Just to assume that his a convent juncture to assert an unsupported atheist theory is us a childish ploy. It's not going to be backed by anything. no reason to accept it.

Meta:

Any suggestion that such objections would be laughed at by a judge is in itself laughable.

That's not even what I said. I said the kind person petty garbage that has put up so far would be laughed at. so you decide to get off your you know what and make some real arguemnts then try to insert them into the quote as though I was talking about the reason arguments one could make. that's so silly. don't you have any integrity?

I know you do I'm just kidding. but come on! stop playing with my rhetorical flourishes! ;-)



Originally Posted by Darth Pringle

So what? It means that "back from death" claims were not that uncommon and resemblance to the original was not an important factor in such claims being embraced. It was claimed (by some) that Jesus was John the baptist back from death. This couldn't have been a reincarnation claim because Jesus was an adult in his early thirties and John had only recently died. Presumably Jesus and John were not identical.

Meta:Jesus didn't claim to be John. Moreover, what if some form of reincarnation is true, not that I believe in it, but is that really worth opposing God over? why deny God's reality just for that?


DP

This is highly questionable ... even to the point of being obviously false.

Meta:

what is?I'm not sure what you are pointing to.


And ...



And ...


DP

In all versions, Jesus predicts that the Disciples will encounter fraudsters who will come and not simply claim to be the Messiah but will also come in his name. IOW, claiming to be his version of the Messiah. Jesus' warning only makes sense if the culture was one in which this type of thing was likely to happen.

Meta:

so you conclude that means he as phony too right? He's the only one that ever had the credentials.

DP

No twisting is taking place - only a consideration of broader context that is often overlooked.

which is?

[broader context! One that just happens to assume the text has to vial some hidden flaw that disproves the itself.]

DP

There are a number of issues that fly in the face of your rationalisation:

[calling rational warrant rationalization]

DP

1. In the Gospel of Peter (which you have appealed to to defend the idea that the guard was there) the guard go to Pilate, explain that the body is gone, that Jesus is risen and they are not punished with the death penalty but only told to keep quiet.

Meta:that doesn't fly in the face of anything. It's almost the same as the canonical gospels. Only difference is the pay and the promise to get hem off.

[I had used the Gospel of Peter to argue for independent verification of the guards on the tomb. He tries to turn Peter against the canonical but they are not in sharp enough contrast to do him any good.]


DP

2. They had to be bribed to change their account. Why would people need to be bribed to save their own lives? That they had to be bribed suggests something else.

Meta:

They were bribed to keep quite about the angles and stuff not "save themselves." they were bribed not to tell the people what happened. The tendency would be to tell their superiors what hapepned and if they were killed go get drunk and tell the world. the were bribed to keep the masses form hearing it.

DP

3. Their altered story was one in which they fell asleep on duty which was still punishable by death so they were hardly guaranteeing their safety!

Meta:

that's why the Sanhedrin promised to intercede for them. Otherwise their only excuse is to claim the miracle.

DP

4. Their new version of events was as watertight as a bucket with no bottom! If they were asleep when the body was taken then how could they claim to know that the disciples took it???

Meta:by surmising.

DP

Luke and Mark were written before Matthew and make no mention of a guard. I see only two possibilities:

Meta:

no only Mark was before Mat. It goes Mark, Mat, Luke, John. that's irrelevant you have to follow the textual criticism. It's easy to establish if you understand how they do it there's more to it than just saying which one was written first. it's about the copies not the original writing.

DP

1. They were unaware of the guard at the tomb in which case it is likely that this was added later.

Meta

that's why it's important that G Pete is independent and early!


DP

2. They were aware but intentionally omitted that detail.

Meta:

More likely; they probalby omitted becasue by the 70s the Jews had stopped talking about it and stopped saying the body was stolen so they didn't need to worry about pointing out the tomb was guarded.

There are aspects of matt that reflect an earlier redaction. Mat uses M source as well which is his independent material that no one else uses.


DP

Either way it doesn't look good. Why omit such an important detail?

no longer important for that community. Answer, because the body of Jesus went missing on the one night that there was a large group of men at the tomb who made a large sum of money out of it's disappearance and who never became Christians!

Meta
why do that? they weren't even expect to rise form the dead. It wasn't fulfilling anything they clearly understood.

[that sort of twisting of facts is really sinking low. why would it ever occur to them that they could get money from the Sanhedrin for keeping quite about a miracle? No one would assume that as a likely outcome. the more likely outcome they would assume is "we are for it, we are going to die." Sanhedrin probably figured, they guys will come clean and spread the story about to protect themselves, even thought it wont save them that's the human thing to do out of fear the only option they have in such a case, so we give them and out they keep quite and we get them off the hook. That's much more logical than assuming the guards say "let's make some money by offering to keep quite. Even if they did that doesn't imply that the body was stolen it would be even stupider to let them steal it on the ridiculously off chance that they could make money by offing to keep silent.]


Originally Posted by Darth Pringle

That's not the point. The only point of interest here is that other people claimed that he was. Ergo, it appears that it was not unusual for people to make false "back from death" claims ... especially given what we read of the mass resurrection claimed by many mentioned at the end of Matthew.

Meta:
I see a huge difference in reincarnation and resurrection. they weren't claiming he rose from they dead in saying he was Elisha. They probably said he was John because they weren't on the scene didn't know what John looked like. Communications were real bad back then. Probably half of them weren't even sure John was killed.