# An Apologetic from the standpoint of classical history



## Lukecash12

Apologetic: Based upon the greek word _apologia_, meaning to defend one's views in a formal setting, an apologetic is most often a reference to an academic defense of the Christian faith. However, I've not always felt that "defense" is the appropriate word to use, given that those who work in apologetics have other goals, such as: politely and unobtrusively admonishing unbelievers, and establishing yet firmer ground for their faith and for the faith of those around them.

And now, to introduce my own apologetic:

First, I'll be laying out for you the standards of contemporary history and the methodology used to meet those standards. Then I will present all of the information I have gathered in order to point out that the resurrection story of the canonical gospels is both historically reliable and an excellent proof that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

Using these resources, a historian attempts to find a theory that has explanatory power and explanatory scope, one that isn't contrived, and one that is confirmed by the accepted beliefs of the day (mostly concerning the empirically evidenced sciences).

Explanatory power- The trait ascribed to a theory that convincingly explains the story.

Explanatory scope- The trait ascribed to a theory that explains the whole story.

Limited contrivation- The trait ascribed to a theory that doesn't assume more than it has to. This means no unheard of secret societies, etc. Any variety of what historians deride as "ad hoc".

Accepted beliefs- The set of philosophical beliefs, anything from science, to theology, to modal logic, that the parties involved in the debate hold in common.

What kinds of methodology are used to test whether a theory meets these standards? Here are the things most pointed out by those who practice historical Apologetics:

Enemy attestation- When a source opposed to a theory actually services it by pointing out it's existence, or even making up lies which inadverntently affirm it by failing to be based in history.

Multiple, independent attestation- Of course one group can spout off about something more than once and still not seem reliable, but when another independent group or even several independent groups attest to the same thing we are obligated to give it more credence.

Legendary development- When an event has been exaggerated upon by the writer(s)we can suss that development out by considering whether or not it is nonsensical on it's own, and augment the decision of whether or not it is a legendary detail by observing whether or not the author wrote the book more than a few generations away from the account or that he used a source for that particular detail that was more than a few generations away. Of course, it's another whole matter to determine if said source was real.

The principle of embarrassment- Simple intuition tells us that one wouldn't relate to us a personally embarassing fact if it weren't the truth. This can apply especially in ancient societies, considering their sociology.

Eyewitness testimony- The pursuit of whether or not something was ultimately based on eyewitness testimony, which involves intensive study of the author and his possible relationship with eyewitnesses, just might be the most important litmus of a story.

The circumstance and reliability of the author- Not to be confused with the pursuit of eyewitness testimony, this has to do with the veracity of the story according to the character traits of the author. Often this litmus has to do with potential bias and how much bias there is.

Now, this next section may come as a bit of a surprise, but I've actually decided to include extra-biblical sources as evidence, in order to further strengthen my position:

Cornelius Tacitus is estimated as having lived from 55-120 AD, and was a Roman historian who wrote two works, the Annals and the Histories, that were comprised of 30 volumes. His work that corroborates with the passion story was from the Annals, written in about 115 AD, and it reads as follows:


> *
> Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.*


To paraphrase Gary Habermas, from his book "The historical Jesus", what we can support with this text are the following facts:

The Christians were a group at this time that had been named after their founder, Christus (from the Latin).

Christ was put to death by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilatus (also Latin).

He was put to death during the reign of emperor Tiberius (14-37 AD).

Tacitus, having been a historian employed by Rome, must have had access to official record and is thus a fairly reliable author. Further augmenting the veracity of his statements is the principle concerning the author's circumstance, because he was a professional historian who wasn't invested into the Christian world view and society.

Flavius Josephus, another historian who lived from 37-97 AD, was employed by commander Vespasian in Jerusalem and circulated his work "The Antiquities of the Jews" anywhere from 90-95 AD. The portion relevant to the current subject (called the Testimonium Flavanium or TV) was likely edited by Christians, because Eusebius quoted it as having said that Jesus was the Christ and that He had been risen on the third day as foretold by the prophets. Much criticism has been leveled at those who work in apologetics and quote Eusebius' tampering.

However, a manuscript written in Arabic was made public in 1972 by professor Schlomo Pines, and it reads as follows:



> *At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.*


Here we see that Josephus corroborates with the Gospels concerning Jesus' virtuous reputation, that He was crucified by Pilate, and that His original disciples reported that He had been risen on the third day on account of Him being the Messiah.

The reasons that we should accept this part of this manuscript is because it hasn't been edited by Christians, on account of it being written in Arabic around the 6th century (outside of the reach of the Church) and using the dry language that you would expect from a historian who is merely retelling facts that he isn't invested in. Concerning the author, Josephus is obviously unbiased, given his stance as Jewish and his stance as a Roman historian.

Thallus, a less known figure who is theorized as having been some wealthy Samaritan that Josephus referred to, as a freedman under the reign of emperor Tiberius who loaned money to Herod Agrippa I, probably made this relevant work (being a history of the Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time) around 52 AD. That would mean that this source is earlier than the Gospels are currently dated.

While we don't have any manuscripts of his work, a man by the name of Julius Africanus criticized his work and referred to the relevant portion:



> *On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.*


Considering that it was a criticism, we can reasonably conclude that Julius Africanus was referring to a real manuscript. Furthermore, Africanus may be right in that an eclipse probably didn't happen, but this source serves to corroborate the details of the passion story that say that an earthquake occurred which rended the temple in two.

As for Thallus the author, we can't establish much reliability as to his claims, and must thus restrict however much his work colors the evidence for the resurrection.

In the Babylonian Talmud, the most reliable period of work that we would have for the purpose of placing the resurrection as a historical event would be the Tannaitic period (70-200 AD). The Tannaitic tract was compiled by Rabbi Akiba, Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Judah. This is the relevant piece of text:


> *
> On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.*


Now, this serves to strengthen the fact that Jesus was crucified, and that He was crucified on the eve of the passover. If you don't find it as reliable because they say he was hung, then you would benefit from knowing the linguistics of Galatians 3:13 and Luke 23:39, which use the Greek words kremamenos and kremasthenton. Kremamenos was a reference to Jesus being hung, and kremasthenton was a reference to the two thieves being hung; Apparently, the terms hung and crucified were used variably. Of this variable verbiage, I can produce several more examples from antiquity if asked.

And our last, relevant extra biblical reference to Christ comes from the second century Greek satirist named Lucian. In the process of his critique he fuels my Apologetic with the following text:



> *The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.*


This source can be established as reliable according to enemy attestation and the author's circumstance. As for the text, we have yet another confirmation of Jesus' crucifixion, totalling to 3.


----------



## Lukecash12

And now, we start with the canonical gospels on the case of Luke/Acts and it's historicity. From Christopher Price:



> *I. The Challenges Faced by Ancient Writers
> 
> The author of Acts faced a problem common among ancient writers: a lack of records and information. Unlike today, there were no - or very few - reference books, encyclopedias, or textbooks available. As for geography, "exact and detailed geographical knowledge on the basis of maps and accurate descriptions of places was limited to a very tiny elite of soldiers, politicians and scholars, and even with them, personal knowledge of a place was irreplaceable."[58] Maps or other resources that were available were often wildly inaccurate. Even educated writers with connections to the areas they were writing about often demonstrated imperfect geographic or political knowledge. "That even educated Jews had little information about the geography of Palestine is clear from the imaginary description of Judea and Jerusalem in the Letter of Aristeas or that of the Holy City by Pseudo-Hecataeus; we can presuppose that even Philo had only a vague knowledge of Jerusalem, the Temple and the Holy Land, though he did visit it once in his life."[59]
> Otherwise well regarded historians and geographers got a lot wrong, especially about Judea.
> 
> [T]o Strabo's account of Palestine, which has a great many errors in it, and to the confused remarks of Pliny the Elder, who completely muddled up his sources. Tacitus, too, had only very inaccurate ideas of the geographical relationship of Samaria and Galilee within the province of Judaea. Even Ptolemy, who sought to give exact locations of places in Palestine with indications of longitude and latitude, makes serious mistakes: his mention of Idumeaea, which lies well to the west of the Jordan' is an anachronism in the second century AD and his location of Sebaste and Gaza in Judaea, in contrast to Joppa, Ashkelon . . . is also misleading.[60]
> 
> The problem for ancient writers was not limited to geography. There was a dizzying diversity of governments and officials throughout the Roman Empire. There were provinces; some controlled by the Senate and some controlled by the Emperor. Titles of the governors of these provinces varied (for examples, Proconsul, Prefect, and Procurator). Adding to the diversity was the fact that many areas under Roman control were not provinces at all, but client kingdoms. King Herod's reign over Palestine is an example. After his death, his kingdom was split up, with Rome eventually assuming direct control over Judea and Herod's son becoming Tetrarch over Galilee. Because client kingdoms were given a freer hand in their internal administration, titles and offices were not uniform.
> There were also a variety of cities. At the top were the coloniae civium romanorum, colonies of Roman citizens - mostly military veterans. Then there were the oppida civium romanorum, towns of Roman citizens. A step lower were "Latin" towns where the Roman franchise was within reach. Other cities, some prominent, were "free cities" and governed their own internal affairs.
> There were differences in the city governments, depending on the type of city, its geographic location and its culture. Cities in the eastern Mediterranean especially "show much more variety in their local government, because they could keep older forms of municipal organization rather than imitate Rome."[61] Even in Jerusalem, a city under direct Roman control, the Sanhedrin - a group of Jewish religious leaders - was given a prominent role in governing aspects of the city.
> Adding to the confusion was the ever changing nature of government in the Roman Empire. "[T]he titles sometimes did not remain the same for any great length of time; a province might pass from senatorial government to administration by a direct representative of the emperor, and would then be governed no longer by a proconsul but by an imperial legate (legatus pro praetore)."[62] Cities might achieve their Roman franchise. Provinces may be split up. Client kingdoms may be split up with different parts being ruled in different ways. For example, Palestine after the reign of King Herod was split into a Roman Province ruled by a Prefect and to Galilee, ruled by a Tetrarch (as a client king).
> Obviously, keeping oneself knowledgeable about so many different parts of the Roman Empire over any period of time would have been an almost insurmountable challenge. When it came to knowledge about where ordinary people were, what they were doing, and why they were doing it, the problem was even greater. Personal participation and/or excellent sources were often the only ways to get such details right.*


And now let's see Price's demonstration of Luke's abilities, of which his conclusion is the same as Sherwin-White (Sherwin-White being an important expert because he is a professional historian, and not a NT critic):



> *Despite the challenges faced by ancient historians, Acts demonstrates familiarity with varied Jewish customs and beliefs, including many related to the Temple. Notably, the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and the related practices and rituals extinguished. As a result, without good sources, precise knowledge of pre-Temple destruction customs was hard to come by after 70 AD.*





> *1. Purification Vow
> "Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses in order that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication." Acts 21:23-25.
> This ritual is described in the Old Testament by Numbers 6. That its practice continued in the second-temple period is attested by Josephus. Ant. 19.6.1, §§ 293-94.
> 
> 2. The Court of the Gentiles
> "And when the seven days were almost over, the Jews from Asia, upon seeing him in the temple, began to stir up all the multitude and laid hands on him, crying out, Men of Israel, come to our aid! This is the man who preaches to all men everywhere against our people, and the Law, and this place; and besides he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place." Acts 21:27-28.
> This passage correctly describes the Court of the Gentiles as being the limit of passage for Gentiles. BJ 5.194; 6.124f; Ant. 15.417; Ap. 2.103f; Philo, Leg ad Gai 212.
> 
> 3. Against the Law and Punishable by Death
> "Then all the city was provoked, and the people rushed together, and taking hold of Paul they dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut. While they were seeking to kill him, a report came up to the commander of the Romancohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion" Acts 21:30-31& "And he even tried to desecrate the temple; and then we arrested him. And we wanted to judge him according to our own Law." Acts 24:6.
> The penalty for bringing a Gentile into the Temple was death. Transgressors were to be immediately removed to be executed so as not to defile the temple. Ant. 18.30. This is also confirmed by inscription evidence.[63]
> 
> 4. Steps into the Temple
> "And when he got to the stairs, it so happened that he was carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the mob; for the multitude of the people kept following behind, crying out, 'Away with him!' And as Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the commander, 'May I say something to you?' And he said, 'Do you know Greek? Then you are not the Egyptian who some time ago stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?'" Acts 21:35-38.
> This passage accurately depicts the steps at the Jerusalem temple. Acts is also correct that there was a rebel at this time known as the Egyptian.
> 
> 5. Prayer in the Sixth Hour
> "And on the next day, as they were on their way, and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray." Acts 10:9.
> The time of prayer is confirmed by rabbinic tradition. Pesach. 5.1, but is not mentioned in Antiquities.
> 
> 6. Description of the Temple
> As Professor Hengel notes, Luke's "description of the temple resembles rabbinic tradition," not Josephus. Unlike Josephus, "Luke . . . never makes a distinction between the inner sanctuary and the Court of the gentiles. They are all speaking only about the one iepov, the real Temple. This is in some way in accordance with rabbinic terminology, which makes a sharp distinction between the sanctuary proper and the outer courtyard, the Temple mount, which is not called sanctuary."[64]
> 
> 7. The Location of the Roman Commander
> "And all the city was aroused, and the people rushed together; and taking hold of Paul, they dragged him out of the temple; and immediately the doors were shut. And while they were seeking to kill him, a report came up to the commander of the Roman cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion. And at once he took along some soldiers and centurions, and ran down to them; and when they saw the commander and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul." Acts 21:30-32.
> Verse 31 correctly describes how the Roman commandant could intercede in a timely manner because the Roman barracks were on a higher level and connected by stairs to the Temple site. Jewish War 5.242-5.
> 
> 8. Priestly Duties Selected by Lot
> "Now it came about, while he was performing his priestly service before God in the appointed order of his division, according to the custom of the priestly office, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense." Luke 1:8-9.
> In fact, priestly duties were assigned by lot. This is not mentioned by Josephus and is otherwise known to us only through the Mishnah. Yoma 2, 1-4; Tamid 1, 2; 2, 5; 3, 1; T. Yoma 1, 10.
> 
> 9. Time of Prayer at the Temple
> "Peter and John were going up to the temple at the ninth hour, the hour of prayer." Acts 3:1.
> "The specific reference to the time of prayer at the ninth hour points to a precise knowledge of Jewish customs in the Temple. This was the time of the tamid sacrifice, in the afternoon, which was concluded with an incense offering and the priestly blessing."[65] See m. Pes. 5:1 and Ant. 14.65.
> 
> 10. A Lame Man at the Beautiful Gate
> "And a man who had been lame from his mother's womb was being carried along, whom they used to set down every day at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, in order to beg alms of those who were entering the temple."Acts 3:2.
> Once again Acts demonstrates familiarity with Jewish custom. A lame man was not permitted to fully participate in the Temple worship. m. Shab. 6:8.
> 
> 11. Solomon's Portico
> "While he was clinging to Peter and John, all the people ran together to them at the so-called portico of Solomon, full of amazement." Acts 3:11.
> The portico is also attested independently by John 10:23.
> 
> 12. A Sabbath Day's Journey
> "Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away." Acts 1:12.
> The reference to a "Sabbath day's journey" from Jerusalem to the mount of Olivet, shows accurate knowledge of Jewish customs. "The distance of their walk a 'Sabbath day's walk,' which was the longest distance one could walk without breaking the Sabbath. The rabbinic tradition set this at 2,000 cubits, i.e., about three-fourths of a mile."[66] As Hengel notes, "[t]he term 'a sabbath day's journey', which appears only here in the New Testament, presupposes an amazingly intimate knowledge-for a Greek-of Jewish customs."[67]
> 
> 13. Field of Blood
> "And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood." Acts 1:19.
> "Hakeldama" is an Aramaic word accurately translated as "field of blood."[68] This place and name was also known by Matthew (27:8).
> 
> 14. David's Tomb
> "Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day." Acts 2:29.
> The tomb of David is mentioned in Neh. 3:16. Its continuing veneration in the time of Jesus is attested by Josephus. Ant. 7:239ff.*





> *Although Acts spends a significant amount of its narrative discussing Palestine, it also follows Paul and others to many places in the Roman Empire. Again and again the author of Acts demonstrates accurate knowledge about the geography and culture of the places Paul traveled.
> 
> 1. A Natural Crossing
> "So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia and from there they sailed to Cyprus. When they reached Salamis, they began to proclaim the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews; and they also had John as their helper." Acts 13:4-5.
> The author has Paul crossing the sea from Seleucia to Cyprus, which was a natural crossing point, as noted by Strabo, Geography 7.5.8 and Polybius, History 5.58.4.
> 
> 2. The River Port Perga
> "Now Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia; but John left them and returned to Jerusalem." Acts 13:13.
> "The text names Perga, a river-port, and perhaps the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus, whereas a coaster would have called only at the coastal harbour town of Attalia."[69]
> 
> 3. The Pisidian Antioch
> "But going on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down." Acts 13:14.
> Although the city was a part of Phrygia, not Pisidian, Luke is correct in referring to "Pisidian Antioch." Strabo also recognized the connection to Pisidian. 12.6.4 and 12.8.14. Moreover, because of the confirmed presence of a colony of Jews in Pisidian, the presence of a synagogue is also likely.
> 
> 4. Iconium Not in Lyconia
> "[T]hey became aware of it and fled to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe, and the surrounding region." Acts 14:6.
> "The implication is that Iconium was not in Lycaonia. As it was a frontier town between Phrygia and Lycaonia, and commonly shared the fortunes of the latter region, it is frequently called a Lycaonian city by ancient writers (e.g., Cicero, Fam. 15.4.2; Pliny, NH 5.25). But strictly it is in Phrygia."[70] This is confirmed by Xenophon, Anab.1.2.19, Hierax, Acta Iustini and Cyprian, Ep. 75.7.
> 
> 5. Coasting Port for Coasting Vessel
> "When they had spoken the word in Perga, they went down to Attalia." Acts 14:25.
> See point No. 2 above. Although Perga is a port, it is only a river-port. To catch a "coaster" for travel in the Mediterranean, they had to go to the sea port of Attalia.
> 
> 6. Derbe to Lystra
> "Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek." Acts 16:1.
> Acts lists in correct order the overland approach to Lystra from the Cilician Gates.[71]
> 
> 7. Lystra and Iconium
> "[A]nd [Timothy] was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium." Acts 16:2.
> "Lystra and Iconium were relatively close, although belonging to different jurisdictions, whereas Derbe is now known to have been more distant than was supposed when it was wrongly placed at Zostra or Gudelisin. It is thus natural that Timothy, if a native of Lystra, was known to these two churches rather than in Derbe."[72]
> 
> 8. Troas
> "[A]nd passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas."Acts 16:8.
> Not only is the geography correct, but the use of the name "Troas" itself is an interesting accuracy. "The use of the name Troas, formerly Alexandria, is characteristic of first century usage, after Augustus made the city a colony formally designated 'Colonia Augusta Troadensium' or 'Colonia Augusta Troas.'"[73]
> 
> 9. Samothrace
> "So putting out to sea from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace, and on the day following to Neapolis;" Acts 16:11.
> "Samothrace was a conspicuous sailor's landmark, dominated by a 5000 foot mountain."[74] Additionally, Luke uses the technical nautical term "anagein," which he also uses in 13:13 (literally, "having been carried up [onto the high sea]").
> 
> 10. Amphipolis and Apollonia
> "Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica. . . ." Acts 17:1.
> Here, Acts accurately places these two cities as stations on the Egnatian Way from Philippi to Thessalonica.[75] It is likely that the author also gets the distances correct. "The mention of Amphipolis and of Apollonia should probably be taken to imply that theses were place where the travelers spent successive nights, dividing the journey to Thessalonica into three stages of about 30, 27, and 35 miles."[76]
> 
> 11. A Synagogue in Thessalonica
> "[T]hey came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews."Acts 17:1.
> Inscription evidence supports the conclusion that a synagogue existed in Thessalonica.[77]
> 
> 12. The Lycaonian Language in Lystra
> "When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, 'The gods have become like men and have come down to us.'" Acts 14:11.
> Verse 11 says the Lycaonian language is spoken in Lystra. However, the use of native languages was rather rare in urban Hellenized society. Nevertheless, Acts is correct that in Lystra they did in fact speak their native language. This was apparently not widely known. There is only one other reference to this language in all writings discovered up to the present day. It would require a person who was very familiar with specific local information on Lystra to be aware of this detail.
> 
> 13. The Gangites Outside Philippi
> "And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled."Acts 16:13.
> The Gangites River matches this description and is outside of Philippi.
> 
> 14. Philippi a Roman Colony
> Acts correctly lists Philippi as a Roman colony, and its seaport is properly given as Nea Polis. Acts 16:12. Confirmation of these facts range from ancient writings and inscriptions to ancient coins.
> 
> 15. Few Jews in Philippi
> Acts indicates that there were too few Jews to form a synagogue in Philippi. Acts 16:13. This is highly probable. Given that Philippi was a colony rather than a center of commerce or trade, there were likely few Jews.
> 
> 16. The Dye Trade in Thyatira
> 
> "A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul." Acts 16:14.
> The city of Thyatira is involved in the dye trade. Archaeologists have found 7 inscriptions in the city that refer to it.
> 
> 17. The Correct Order of Assos, Mitylene, Chios, Samos, and Miletus
> "But we, going ahead to the ship, set sail for Assos, intending from there to take Paul on board; for so he had arranged it, intending himself to go by land. And when he met us at Assos, we took him on board and came to Mitylene. Sailing from there, we arrived the following day opposite Chios; and the next day we crossed over to Samos; and the day following we came to Miletus. For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus so that he would not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost." Acts 20:13-16.
> In verse 14-15, the author lists small cities in the correct order in which they would have been encountered on such a trip.
> 
> 18. Organization of the Military Guard
> "When he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out before the people." Acts 12:4.
> Gives correct information on the details of a Roman military guard. Vegetius, de Re militari 3.8.
> 
> 19. The Appian Way
> "And the brethren, when they heard about us, came from there as far as the Market of Appius and Three Inns to meet us; and when Paul saw them, he thanked God and took courage." Acts 28:15.
> This verse correctly lists the Appii Forum (the Market of Appius) and Tres Tabernae (the Three Inns) as stops on the Appian Way. They are 30-45 miles southeast of Rome. The Appii Forum is the marketplace of Appius and is a market town south of Rome along the Appian Way. Horace, Sat. 153. Tres Tabernae is "The Tree Taverns" which was a station on the Appian Way 33 miles south of Rome. Both are mentioned by Cicero, Att. 2.10.
> 
> 20. Athens
> Acts 17:16-34, gives a vivid description of life in Athens that matches the knowledge obtained from archaeological discoveries and other Greek writers. Luke mentions Athens in relation to the Stoics, the altar to an unknown god (such altars are confirmed by Pausanias, 1.1.4 and Diogenes Laertius, Vita Philos. 1.110), and he gives the correct title for a member of the Areopagus (verse 34). Luke also reports Paul's speech as quoting two Greek philosophers (Epimenides and Aratus) in verse 28. Aratus was a Stoic philosopher from Soli near Paul's hometown of Tarsus, therefore making it highly plausible that Paul was familiar with his work. Luke also has the Athenians call Paul an "idle babbler," which is a "word of characteristically Athenian slang."[78]
> 
> 21. An Odd Grouping of Hellenized Gods
> "And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. . . ."Acts 14:12ff.
> The Greek names Zeus and Hermes are hellenized versions of the local cult. There is archeological evidence from Lystra showing that the grouping of Zeus and Hermes was unique to this region. The inscriptions were published and discussed in W.M. Calder's, "A Cult of the Homonades," CR 24 (1910), pages 76-81. Further, these passages recount how the locals started worshiping Paul and Barnabas as if they were the gods Hermes and Zeus. This fits well with their religious beliefs about those two gods. As Professor Hemer writes:
> 
> The story named appropriate gods. A statuette of Hermes and an eagle, bird of Zeus, have been found near Lystra; the two gods are coupled in an inscription from the general region; on a sculptured relief, we can see how people locally pictured these divinities, round-faced and solemn, with long hair and flowing beards, a searching gaze and the right hand held prominently across the chest. Such a Zeus looks uncommonly like our image of a wandering Christian holy man: in these reliefs, we, too, can sense the elusive features of Paul or Barnabas.[79]
> 
> 22. Worship of Artemis
> Acts 19:24-41, associates the worship of Artemis with the city of Ephesus. This has been proven by numerous inscriptions uncovered in the ruins of Ephesus.*


Now, by virtue of it's author being a historian of great diligence, whether or not he was indeed Luke the beloved physician (which I can make a very strong case for), we can say that Luke/Acts is a very reliable work.


----------



## Lukecash12

And now we move onto Paul's account from 1st Corinthians 5, to establish the fact that it is the oldest known Christian tradition, probably written anywhere from 3-5 years after the resurrection:



> *Beyond Paul's own experience, this apostle presents plenty of additional evidence for the claim that Jesus had appeared to his early followers. Essentially all critical scholars today agree that in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul records an ancient oral tradition(s) that summarizes the con*tent of the Christian gospel. Jesus the Christ died for human sin, was buried and raised from the dead, afterwards appearing to both individuals as well as groups of witnesses. While Paul penned the words, he is clear that this material was not his own but that he had passed on to his listeners years before (1 Cor 15:1-2) what he had received from others, as the very heart of his message (1 Cor 15:3). If he were writing today, he might have footnoted his source! Thus this testimony is actually years earlier than the book of 1 Corinthians. Reginald Fuller indicates the scholarly agreement here: "It is almost universally agreed today that Paul is here citing tradition."4
> 
> So Paul provides a straightforward explanation that he delivered to his audience what he had first received from others (1 Cor 15:3), which are the equivalent terms for passing rabbinic tradition to others (cf. 1 Cor 11:23). Besides this clear declaration of his actions, there are many other indications that this is exactly what happened. The sentence structure, diction, verbal parallelism, the threefold sequence of "and that," as well as the presence of several non-Pauline words, the proper names of Cephas (cf. Lk 24:34) and James, and indications that there may have been an Aramaic original all point clearly to this tradition being pre-Pauline. Critical scholars agree that Paul received it from others. 5
> 
> The most popular view among scholars is that Paul first received this very early material when he visited Jerusalem just three years after his conversion. He visited Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (Gal 1:18-19), both of whom are listed as having seen the risen Jesus (1 Cor 15:5, 7).
> 
> Stronger evidence to support this conclusion comes from Paul's use of the verb historesai in Galatians 1:18, which is usually not very helpfully translated into English. The Greek term indicates that Paul visited Peter for the purpose of investigating a particular subject. The immediate context reveals that subject: Paul's topic for discussion was ascertaining the nature of the gospel message (Gal 1:11-2:10). And Jesus' resurrection was the focus of the gospel message (1 Cor 15:3-4; Gal 1:11, 16). Without it, faith is vain (1 Cor 15:14, 17).
> 
> Critical scholars usually concede that this pre-Pauline tradition(s) originated at an exceptionally early date. For Ulrich Wilckens, this content "indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity." 6 Walter Kasper even thinks that this "ancient text" was possibly "in use by the end of 30 A.D." 7
> 
> Perhaps surprisingly, skeptics frequently even agree. Skeptic Gerd Ludemann asserts that "the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus . . . not later than three years. . . . The formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor. 15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 c. e. " Philosopher Thomas Sheehan thinks that this pre-Pauline formula "probably goes back to at least 32-34 C.E., that is, to within two to four years of the crucifixion." 9 Michael Goulder holds that this resurrection report "goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion." 10
> 
> Other skeptics are often not shy about expressing their agreement. 11 In fact, most of the critical scholars who date these events conclude that Paul received this material within just a few years after Jesus' death, in the early or mid 30s. 12 We will see how the existence and circumstances at such an early date translate to additional eyewitness testimony besides Paul's.*


So, we have another source on the Gospel which is dripping with historicity. If anyone were game to take a dare, I'd dare the people here to find any scholar in disagreement that Paul gave an extremely early and reliable creed that was based upon eyewitness testimony. Of course, it isn't impossible, but I'd be excited to see a scholarly contention pointing out otherwise.


----------



## Lukecash12

Now, considering both the authorship and reliability of John at the same time. If it can be demonstrated that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John, then that would mean that it was written by an eyewitness in this kind of society: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/ar...on_bailey.html

Now from James Patrick Holding:


> *John's Gospel shows a detailed familiarity with the geography of Palestine and of Judaism. Skeptics counter that knowledge of Palestine could have been gathered by any pilgrim, which we may allow. However, John's knowledge is so extensive and correct that this becomes a contrivance: the author of John "accurately understands Jewish customs, is steeped in the Old Testament, is aware of finer points of distinction among pre-70 Jewish sects...His knowledge of the geography and topography of Israel is excellent...John's Gospel regularly demonstrates Jesus and his Jewish opponents discussing 'halakhic' (legal) regulations relatively unique to Israel, and portions of the Gospel demonstrate affinity with distinctive Samaritan forms of thought." [Blom.Jn, 27]
> The method of referring to John the Baptist. In John's Gospel, John the Baptist is simply called "John" (1:6) - whereas other people are identified by double names (Simon Peter, Thomas Didymus). To identify John the Baptist only as "John" points to someone named "John" being author of the Gospel (and not a later person who would want or need to distinguish the two). [Robin.PJ, 105-6; Blom.Jn, 30]
> Ommission of stories where John is prominent. Blomberg [Blom.Jn, 30] points to a number of Synoptic episodes missing from John in which John plays a role (Mark 1:16-20, 29-32; 3:13-19; 5:35-43, etc.) Though he does not reach this conclusion, we would observe thatleaving out such stories fits in with the ancient dialectic of honor and shame, in which John would be hesitant to report stories in which he was prominent.
> The use of professional fisherman's terms. As with Matthew's finance records and Luke's medical language, this is more persuasion than proof to many critics, and there is less here than for the previous two, though it does fit in with the standard criterion for determining authorship: John's Gospel uses the distinct technical name for cooked fish that was part of the fishing trade. [ibid., 117]*


Now, why is John different from the other Gospels? Well, let's take a look at what James Patrick Holding has to say about that as well:



> *John as a Complement to Mark
> The programmatic work for this brief excursus is Richard Bauckham's essay in The Gospels for All Christians entitled "John for Readers of Mark." [147ff] It is Bauckham's contention that while John is a work readable on its own, it has certain aspects which indicate that it was also intended to complement Mark's Gospel and further inform those who had read or heard Mark's Gospel.
> The relation of John to the Synoptics (not Mark alone) has been through opposing permutations. Early on scholars argued that John was dependent on the Synoptics. Later they came to regard it as wholly independent in line with the thesis of competing and hateful "communities," some even saying it was meant to displace the Synoptics. Somehow a mediating position escaped notice -- that John was a complement to only one of the Synoptics, not all of them. And there are a couple of interesting "coincidences" which support this thesis.
> The major keys lie in two of John's parenthetical insertions. (For a defense of the authenticity of these to John's Gospel, see Bauckham's full essay.) We'll also intersperse other points along the way.
> 
> John 3:24 For John was not yet cast into prison.
> 
> John 11:2 (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)
> 
> These comments seem like throwaways if we read them too fast, but given careful consideration, they are weighted with significance. 3:24 raises a question:
> 
> As an explanation purely of what the text of the Gospel has said, this explanation seems ludicrously redundant. If John was still baptizing, of course he could not yet have been imprisoned...It refers to John's imprisonment as though it were something already known to the readers/hearers and as though a chronological point were at issue.
> 
> That point, Bauckham argues, is to "place the events of John 1:19-4:43 between Mark 1:13 and Mark 1:14," the Temptation of Jesus and the start of Jesus' ministry after John was put in the pokey.
> Next issue. Remember when Jesus sent the disciples out to preach the Kingdom? Ever wonder what Jesus was doing? He wasn't home counting the hairs on his head. More likely, he was doing the business of healing the paralytic in Jerusalem (John 5) -- where the disciples are conspicuous by their absence.
> The next point concerns John 7:1:
> 
> After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
> 
> Another throwaway? No -- this is John's summary of Mark 6:54-9:50, the Galileean ministry. This fits with the most clear link among the four Gospels -- the feeding of the 5000.
> The trial narrative of John also has some hints. We have noted in our trial piece that John relates the time before Annas, but only mentions Caiaphas by name without relating the hearing before him. And yet where does John get this info?
> 
> John 19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
> 
> The answer? From here:
> 
> Mark 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
> 
> There are parallels in Matthew as well, and elsewhere John notes such a claim by Jesus (i.e., 5:17-18), but there is none made in a judicial setting that would be needed when they went before Pilate -- unless John assumes knowledge of the Synoptic account.
> Another place where John offers a complement is in his ending story, 21:1-14. To fully appreciate the symbolism of the catch of fish, the reader needs to know about the "fishers of men" motif present in the Synoptics -- but never stated in John.
> Finally we have 11:2. John does not narrate this description of Mary's deeds until John 12, so why this awkward intro beforehand? And why no similar intro for Martha and Lazarus? The likely answer: John is making a point for readers who know Mark -- where Mary stars, but is not named.
> In conclusion, we have some rather poignant evidence that John wrote bits of his Gospel with readers of Mark in mind, or at the very least, the same core of traditions used by Mark [Blom.Jn, 49] -- and this goes a long way towards explaining his divergence from the Synoptics. John was writing as a complement to a known account and didn't need to be out repeating what the other had already said.
> Excursus: Jonn's Chronology vs. Synoptic Chronology
> Some claim that John's chronology of the ministry of Jesus contradicted, and was inferior to, that of the Synoptics. They say that John's portrait of an extended ministry would not fit with the Synoptic view of a ministry of about one year, whereas John offers perhaps three years, but at least two.
> We note briefly that the Synoptics offered no clear time markers that demanded such a view. In line with the typical practice of ancient biography, in which words and deeds were the foremost feature, the Synoptics gathered material topically and were not concerned to provide a chronology in the same sense as a modern biography, in which every chapter or paragraph stresses that things happened on such and such a date at 4 in the afternoon (which among the Gospels, only John does to any extent; cf. 1:19, 1:35, 1:39, 1:43, 2;1, 2:13).
> Robinson [Robin.PJ, 123ff] points out, however, that the Synoptics offer several clues that Jesus' ministry was much more extensive than they let on. Consider, in addition to the above matters concerning John as a supplement to Mark:
> 
> Jesus knows many people in the Jerusalem area: Mary and Martha, the man who reserved the upper room and the colt; Joseph of Arimathea knows of his teachings, and so on. It is possible that all these people knew and met him elsewhere, but given the number, it is more likely that he met them in the Jerusalem area, prior to the time when he "meets" them in the Synoptics.
> Matt. 23:37//Luke 13:34 has Jesus lamenting over Jerusalem, saying, "How often have I longed to gather your children..." Robinson quotes Holland: "It would be very strange if he who wept over the city had never sought to win it." Jesus had certainly been to Jerusalem before numerous times; as a Jew he was almost obliged to go there to attend the festivals. Would critics contend that he never went there in his 12-15 years as an adult, or during the key 2-3 years, even as an observant Jew? Those who read the Synoptics woodenly think he was there only once, at the end of his ministry, which is clearly erroneous in this social context. (Emphasis mine)
> Mark's allusion to "green grass" (6:39) indicates a season before summer heat scorches the grass brown, and therefore indicates a ministry longer than from one Passover to the next, as one-year proponents indicate. By the same token, the plucking of corn (Mark 2:23-28, Matt. 12:1-8, Luke 6:1-5) had to take place at the time of the corn harvest, which was in May or June, and the baptism in the Jordan had to take place after the end of the rainy season (around the time of Passover) when the Jordan would be warm and deep enough to baptize in. Therefore, as Robinson states, "...on his own showing Mark takes the ministry back nearly a year, at least, before the springtime of ch. 6, and thus nearly two years before the final Passover."
> 
> Robinson offers other points of discussion, including a suggestion (not necessarily problematic for inerrancy, in terms of the principle of topical arrangement) that the Temple cleansing took place only when John says it did, at the beginning of the ministry, and that the Synoptics put it at the end because of their topical chronology. Nevertheless, it is clear even from clues within the Synoptics that they do not intend to present a chronology of merely a year or less.
> Why is John so Different?
> One common critical argument makes much of the differences between John and the Synoptics -- both in terms of content and in terms of style. We will now take a detailed look at some of the complaints often issued in this respect, by those professing to offer "critical history" but in actuality failing to look at the texts with more than one-dimensional eyes.
> The first and most obvious issue is that John offers a great deal not in the Synoptics. We have already provided an answer to this above, noting that John is written in a way that supplements Mark.
> A second issue has to do with John's chronology, which we also address above. Some specific events are worth a closer look.
> 
> The Cleansing of the Temple. This event presents something of an oddity, as one may find scholars who actually think John represents a more accurate tradition, while the Synoptics have mistakenly put the cleansing at the end of of Jesus' ministry. A standard answer (which has nothing to do with "piety" but with common sense historical detective work) is that Jesus cleansed the Temple twice, once at the beginning of his ministry, and once at the end. Another idea is that there was no personal witness to these events, but that they were handed down through an intermediate source and later arranged according to community needs. Of course one is constrained to ask why speculative and unknown "communities" with speculated and otherwise unknown "needs" is any better an explanation than that each evangelist chose to report a different cleansing to meet certain "needs". In both cases a theory dictates the facts rather than the other way around.
> The latter idea, however, has a certain advantage, aside from the simple fact that it doesn't miss the data and context. Jesus as an observant Jew certainly visited the Jerusalem Temple many times in his life. Cleansing the Temple as an act of "prophetic demonstration" (as most agree it is) is not something that was likely to have been done once. Indeed, it is arguably something Jesus would have done, to some extent, on numerous visits to Jerusalem, during any one of the major Jewish festivals. One may ask the question of whether a pious Jesus would be any less incensed at the Temple abuses at any given time than another.
> Notably John's Gospel has a chronological marker that is quite incidental and therefore rings of authenticity: the note that the Temple has been under construction for 46 years (2:20), which places this incident in 27-28, at the beginning of Jesus' ministry (Witherington, John commentary, 87). Note as well that in John, Jesus merely orders the sellers of doves (whose wares are more likely to be able to escape) to leave, whereas in Mark and Matthew he overturns their seats, indicating a progression in reaction that suits a later cleansing.
> It does remain possible that either John or the others have purposely dischronologized a single event in Jesus' ministry. But there remains no logical or historical barrier to a "dual cleansing action".
> Baptism by John. The issues usually brought up on this subject are handled here, here, and here (section on the baptism). It is rather unreasonable to suggest that John's Gospel does not allude to Jesus' baptism by claiming that it is illicit to allow the Synoptics to provide the context, especially in light of the supplemental nature of John noted above, and allusions to baptism in vv. 31 and 33. Other objections, which speak of the church putting words in John's mouth, are cases of a theory trying to explain away the data when the data provides an unacceptable conclusion taken as it stands. One may as well say that sayings by those who praised, i.e., Martin Luther King in his own lifetime are retrojections by his later admirers. (For several examples of how this sort of theorizing can be musused, see this series.)
> Jesus' Self-Identification. There are a set of objections here that are wrong-headed to begin with. One makes much of places like Mark 1:34 where Jesus "would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was" and others where demons do manage to speak of Jesus' identity and are rebuked. This is not, as has been suggested, a case of not wanting his identity proclaimed; rather, as Malina and Rohrbaugh note (Social Science commentary, 183) it is more likely a case of the demons trying to protect themselves from a higher power by "magically using that being's true identity". Other "identity issue" passages like Mark 8:27-30 (in which Jesus warned his disciples not to reveal his identity to others) are discussed here.
> The contrast is noted, however, to Jesus' willingness to proclaim his identity, which is said to be contradictory to the Synoptic view. In view of the social factors listed above, however, all of John's reports make perfect sense and confirm the social factors. When Jesus proclaimed himself most openly, that is when he received the most hostile reactions. In other cases (the Samaritan woman) we see him using oblique language to speak of himself and allowing others to "gather data" first and reach a conclusion comfortably. In this light Jesus in John is in the same social situation as Jesus in the Synoptics, and the portraits are completely consistent.
> Miracles. Obviously John deals less in miracles and more in teaching. His focus is different, which does not in any way suggest historical difference unless we let a theory govern the data rather than the other way around. Most significance is made perhaps of John's lack of mention of exorcisms. Of course since Luke has only three allusions to exorcisms -- no direct performances are listed -- this isn't much of a difference to see. Why this silence is in any way significant needs an explanation; merely pointing it out serves no real purpose. John does think that Jesus' life and death are for overthrowing Satan (12:31, 14:30, 16:11) so it is hardly likely that he would be unaware of Jesus' exorcisms.
> What Jesus Said. Much is also repeatedly made of Jesus in John not using parables to teach. It is of course absurd to suggest that Jesus was incapable of communicating in both parables and long discourses, to say nothing of the dozens of other genres within the range of human communucation. So John would obviously have much to pick and choose from in any event, but why the difference? Blomberg [Blom.Jn, 50] suggests that parables were less appropriate for a Hellenistic-Christian readership (especially in an urban setting, when most of the parables used rural imagery), but I prefer another idea: Aside from the issue of supplementation noted already, Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social-Science Commentary on John [9ff] argue that John serves a special purpose as a manifesto for the Christian "antisociety" which has been labelled as deviant by others, notably Judeans.
> Such documents make use of "antilanguage," a sort of jargon used by a group with a different view of the way things are and ought to be. A modern comparison may be street gangs, prison inmates, or minority groups who consider themselves oppressed, adopting their own slang terms.
> Hence we have specialized phrases like "the/this world" emphasized (79 times in John, but 9 in Matthew and 3 each in Mark and Luke -- note how this fits with Luke being for an "outsider" as hypothesized by Paul on Trial).
> John's Gospel is therefore found to be a "resocializing" document intended to establish ties between the convert and his new "ingroup." To this end it features primarily conversations and monologue, the "main form of discourse used in socialization and reality maintenence" -- thus explaining as well why John does not follow the Synoptics in featuring public teachings and parables. A Sermon on the Mount would not serve John's purpose. The reader is intended to be a "conversation partner" with Jesus and there is nothing at all strange about John's non-usage of parables, which were clearly meant to be consumed by "outsiders".
> The Kingdom of God. A last major consideration is that John only mentions the Kingdom of God once (3:3, 5, though cf. 18:36) whereas Matthew has it mentioned 5 times, and Mark and Luke much more often. Like most "word count" objections this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot. Mark uses the phrase many more times, but in only 9 total pericopes; only Luke really has a comparably anamolous number of mentions, perhaps because of his Gentile readership and desire to emphasize that Christianity was not a political movement. It is perhaps better to recognize "Kingdom of God" as a phrase Jesus used publicly, in line with ingroup-outgroup expectations: it served as a catchphrase for his relations with outsiders, while insiders (John's audience) were socialized into the specifics, which is himself as "king". This is why mere word counts are so useless in serious study.
> Blomberg [50] adds that Mark 10:24, 30 show that "eternal life" was used by Jesus as a synonym for the KoG, and the former phrase appears very frequently in John, so that John is "contextualizing the Gospel for a Greaco-Roman world that frequently discussed the nature of life after death but was unfamiliar with the uniquely Jewish forms of theocracy."
> 
> In conclusion: The differences between John and the Synoptics are brought to light with closer study, especially of relevant social science factors. John's historicity cannot be questioned on the basis of any such differences.*


But it can also be said that John holds to the Christology circulated around 50 AD:



> *The theology of John is very developed, and therefore late. Such presuppositions are entirely arbitrary. Although favoring a 90-95 date for the Gospel, Streeter [Stree.4G, 456] recognized that: "The logos doctrine is consistent with almost any date for the Gospel." In support of this, he recognizes similar concepts in the work of Philo, and recognizes the author of John's Gospel as a man of genius.
> Further, a pre-existence Christology like John's is found in the letters of Philippians and Colossians, both of which may be put in the 50s, and has roots in the earlier Jewish Wisdom tradition.
> Beyond this, however, in light of the "Qumran connection" and Wisdom template, John is actually the most PRIMITIVE of the Gospels. [Robin.PJ, 6n] This spells trouble for late dates for John - not to mention a whole host of other suppositions. In light of this (and the fact that the destruction of Jerusalem is not mentioned), Robinson has suggested a date of 50-55 for John, with a second edition (including epilogue and prologue) at around 65. [ibid., 67n]
> On the other hand, Blomberg [Blom.Jn, 43] points out that "the late 90s would be far enough removed from the events of AD 70 that no mention of the temple's destruction or of Sadducees need have occurred," and to appeal to the primitiveness of the Gospel is in essence a reverse of the same fallacy used by those who date it late on the grounds of it being more developed.*


----------



## Lukecash12

I think I'll leave the tricks in my bag for now, concerning the reliability and authorship of Matthew and Mark. As is, I've got five independent sources, arguably a direct eyewitness testimony from the Apostle John, and three solid premises to go off of.

1. The empty tomb. The four canonical gospels agree that women discovered the tomb empty, and because of the principle of embarrassment we can assume that this was true. The location of the tomb must have been well known, because we can confidently say that he was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, considering once again the principle of embarrassment and that Jospeh was a member of the Sanhedrin. Also, the claims of postmortem appearances would have been shot down by a presentation of Jesus' body, given that they knew where He was buried and could very well have had his body exhumed if His body was still in there.

The conspiracy theory that the disciples took the body and lied, stands in either ignorance or methodological error in that we can be certain that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's (because of the principle of embarrassment and unanimity of all four gospels) tomb and that His tomb was watched over by Romans (unanimity).

The conspiracy theory according to what is said in Toledoth Jesu is impossibly contrived as well.

2. The postmortem appearances. This is attested to by:



> *See Acts 2:41-47; 4:1-4, 8-21, 29-31; 5:17-32, 40-42. For their willingness to die, see Jn 21:18-19; Acts 7:57-60; 12:1-3; 21:13; 25:11; Rom 14:8; 1 Cor 15:30-32; 2 Cor 4:7-14; 11:23-32; Phil 1:20-24; cf. 2 Pet 1:13-15. We have early references to the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul (Clement of Rome Corinthians 5) and two accounts of the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus (Josephus Antiquities 20:9:1; Hegesippus in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 2:23). Eusebius records that James the brother of John, Peter and Paul all died for their faith (Ecclesiastical History 2:9, 25).*


http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/in...for-xp-res.htm

So we have numerous and independent biblical references to eyewitnesses, actual eyewitness testimony, and extrabiblical references to just how confident the eyewitnesses were.

3. The origin of the Christian faith. Here is the summation that I deemed most appropriate here, from Habermas' contribution to the book "To everyone an answer":



> *THE UNIQUENESS OF THE DISCIPLES' TRANSFORMATIONS
> 
> Today, many have been willing to die for their religious or even political convictions. From communists to Muslims to Christians, we are well-acquainted with examples. However, many throughout history have also propagated false beliefs. What separates Jesus' disciples from these latter cases? Is their transformation in any way unique?
> 
> Virtually no one disputes the disciples' radical transformations. Before Jesus died, his followers abandoned and even denied him. 45 In contrast, after the resurrection the remainder of their lives were undeniably and radically altered. They were willing to die for their faith, and many were martyred."1 The disciples' metamorphoses are also visible from their ethics, evangelism and other teachings, reflected throughout the New Testament. Extrabiblical sources, both secular and Christian, also attest to these changes. 47
> 
> What is responsible for the changes in the disciples? The New Testa*ment is unmistakably clear that Jesus' resurrection appearances were the intervening events, the catalyst between their confusion and exaltation. Critical scholars are in total agreement here. Ben Meyer states it clearly: "That it was the Easter experiences which affected [the disciples'] trans*formation is beyond reasonable doubt." 48 Hugo Staudinger agrees: "Only the appearances of Jesus brought about a new change of mood in them." 49 N. T. Wright declares: "the first generation of Christians ... an*nounced and celebrated the victory of Jesus over evil. . . . That was the basis of their remarkable joy." 50
> 
> Admittedly, life conversions have happened for untrue causes. But I would assert that there is a qualitative difference between what oc*curred to the disciples and what we see today. Granted, there is the often-acknowledged precept that those who are willing to die for a cause genuinely believe in it. The disciples did suffer for their belief in a cause, like everyone else. But here the main similarities between the disciples and others stop.
> 
> Distinctly unlike the other cases, as we have seen in this chapter, the disciples died for more than being sold out to a cause. They willingly gave their lives precisely because they were absolutely convinced that they had seen the risen Jesus. In short, their transformations were not caused by an ideology, like the others, but their new outlook was ex*pressly based on a personal experience-their profound conviction that they had actually seen the risen Jesus.
> 
> Apart from their resurrection experiences, there would have been no transformations, for without this event their faith was vain (1 Cor. 15:14, 17). As Paul argues, they actually saw Jesus (1 Cor 15:1-11), and this is what confirmed their eternal life, for if Jesus was raised, so they would be raised (1 Cor 15:17-20). Death had no more sting for them (1 Cor 15:53-55). Peter similarly but surprisingly declares that because Jesus' resurrection secured heaven, even the serious struggles of life could be faced with rejoicing (1 Pet 1:3-7).
> 
> Think about it. If your eternity depended on Jesus being raised from the dead, which would you rather have-a strong conviction or your ac*tually having seen the risen Jesus along with an even stronger conviction precisely because you did so? In other words, which circumstance would carry a greater conviction: your being convinced centuries later that you ought to follow someone's teachings, or simply the knowledge that you actually had been with that same person last night, however unusual the particulars? Now can you imagine the disciples' joy when they saw Jesus alive-face to face, gazing straight into his eyes? In that moment when they saw Jesus, heaven entered earth's realm and eternity burst upon them. After all, what is a resurrection appearance of Jesus? When the disciples saw the risen Jesus, they saw walking, talking, eternal life! No wonder they were assured of heaven! 51
> 
> So here is the chief difference between Jesus' disciples and others who hold religious convictions. In addition to their fortified convictions, the disciples had an evidenced experience that no one else ever has, be*fore or since. 52 They saw heaven in the person of Jesus Christ. And although believers today have not seen Jesus (1 Pet 1:8), we have the next best thing-very powerful evidence that the disciples did!*


http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/in...for-xp-res.htm

So, as we can see, the disciples didn't rigorously attest to and die for an ideology, *they did it all for an event that they witnessed.*
Considering all of this, I think that I have made a valid argument without circular reasoning, in favor of God and the Christian faith. And that is just the beginning of what I can do in regards to this topic, because I have decades of experience in answering criticisms, and also have at my disposal famed lectures that establish the reliability and authorship of Matthew and Mark.


----------



## Lukecash12

Finally, I lay down my standards for debate:

1. No Ad Hominem is acceptable. It's childish, and has no place in an academic debate. Thus, if you participate in such behavior, you will be ignored.
2. You are allowed to make any claim whatsoever. However, if you do not support a claim, are challenged to support it, and then still don't support it, then your claim will be ignored.


----------



## Ukko

Do you have this in a text (Word, rtf maybe) document that can be posted and downloaded? I am interested, but do not choose to use my TC time to read it.

TIA


----------



## Klavierspieler

Hilltroll72 said:


> Do you have this in a text (Word, rtf maybe) document that can be posted and downloaded? I am interested, but do not choose to use my TC time to read it.
> 
> TIA


Same here, could you?


----------



## kv466

You sure you got that all out there, Luke?


----------



## Kopachris

I'm in the same boat as Hilltroll and Klavierspieler. TL;DR right now.


----------



## Weston

I would be interested in addressing these matters in my own blog perhaps, but not in this venue.


----------



## Ravellian

_and also have at my disposal famed lectures that establish the reliability and authorship of Matthew and *Mark.*_

Can we see this please? I always had the impression that Mark was the most important gospel, as it was the earliest to be written, and I've been told that the other gospel writers got a lot (if not most) of their material from Mark.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

I agree. Furthermore,


----------



## Lukecash12

All right, I'll supply a source for on Matthew and Mark in order to strengthen my apologetic and satisfy those interested. As for my work so far, I'm not so great at making pdf documents and what not, so all I can suggest is that you copy and paste it all onto a word document.


----------



## Lukecash12

James Patrick holding on Matthew:



> _*Internal Evidence: Attribution
> 
> With this criterion, where Matthew is concerned, there is a small matter of discussion, though it is not a serious one. The manuscript evidence does universally name Matthew as author of his Gospel, in the ascription at the beginning - with one possible exception.
> 
> The third-century manuscript P1, which contains portions of what is obviously Matthew 1 (including the beginning), does not offer any ascription whatsoever. As noted in Chapter 14, this would not permit us to thereby claim that the work was anonymous, since this would correspond with the P1 copy having its origins in a scroll copy of Matthew where the authorship would be designated by an external tag. If, perhaps, P1 stood alone without the additional evidence recorded here, it might make for a persuasive point against Matthean authorship, but we shall see that it (and other internal attribution evidence) is far from the only evidence in play.
> 
> External Evidence: Attribution
> 
> Papias
> 
> The early second-century church writer Papias (c. 125 A.D.) shares the following concerning Matthew:
> 
> Matthew made an arrangement of the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each translated them as he was able...
> 
> Great debate has attended this phrase in terms of what Papias meant by "oracles" (a collection of sayings? a full narrative Gospel?) and what he meant by "in the Hebrew language." Some say that this refers to an early Aramaic or Hebrew version of Matthew, and this is supported by other external attestations noted below, as well as by the fact that this quote of Papias is preserved by the church father Eusebius (c. 260-341 A. D.) as a way of explaining the origins of Matthew's Gospel.[1]
> 
> Two objections have been made to Papias' testimony. The first is that we have no reason to regard Papias as a reliable source. Of course for many critics, the mere fact that Papias was a Christian is enough to say that, but it would be their burden to explain why Papias is not trustworthy. Richard Bauckham shows that Papias "deliberately uses the terminology of historiographic practice," and that his language matches that of other classical historians who explained how they did their own research. The steps Papias describes himself going through to compose his work were the same carefully-ordered steps recommended by the ancient historians, as found in the pagan author Lucian's book instructing on the methods for writing history: Making careful inquiries; collecting eyewitness testimony; setting down the data in the form of notes, and then arranging them into a coherent presentation.[2]
> 
> Papias also states that he sought out living voices of testimony in preference to documents, and this is often misread as some sort of deficiency. It is in fact the same preference as that of the ancient historian, who sought out "indirect autopsy" when direct witness of the events by the historian himself was not possible.[3]
> 
> The second objection tendered against Papias is that Eusebius regards him as a man of "limited understanding." However, this estimation has to do with a disagreement Eusebius has with Papias over matters of eschatology[4] and Eusebius evidently does not think Papias' "limited understanding" is such that he cannot be trusted as a source for historical matters. Indeed, it would take very little "understanding" to be able to grasp that a certain person authored a certain book.
> 
> Irenaeus
> 
> Following Papias, the church father Irenaeus (c. 130-c.200 A.D.) wrote similarly: "Now Matthew published also a book of the Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the Church." [5]
> 
> Some object that Irenaeus was merely copying what was said by Papias, whose work he knew, and so his testimony can not be considered independent. (Similar arguments are also made about testimonies that follow.) However, this is a gratuitous assumption. Simply because Irenaeus knew of Papias' work does not mean that Papias was his sole source of knowledge for this information. The same argument could be made concerning virtually any other writer or reporter of information, with just as much credence. Irenaeus also offers more information than is available from Papias (as quoted by Eusebius), which suggests an independent investigation or more sources of information.[6]
> 
> Pantaenus
> 
> Eusebius tells of a missionary named Pantaenus, who traveled to India around 180 A.D.:
> 
> ...he there found his own arrival anticipated by some who there were acquainted with the gospel of Matthew, to whom Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached, and had left them the gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew, which was also preserved until this time.[7]
> 
> Origen
> 
> Eusebius reports the words of Origen:
> 
> As I have understood from tradition, respecting the four gospels, which are the only undisputed ones in the whole church of God throughout the world. The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it in the Hebrew.[8]
> 
> Eusebius
> 
> Eusebius himself says:
> 
> Matthew, also having first proclaimed the gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them, by his writings.[9]
> 
> Jerome
> 
> Near the end of the fourth century, the church father Jerome wrote:
> 
> Matthew -- who was also (called) Levi -- was an apostle and former tax-collector. He first composed the gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words in Judea for those from the circumcision who had believed. Who later translated (his gospel) into Greek, is not quite certain. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is still held today in the library at Caesarea (Maritima), which the martyr Pamphilus carefully put together. I also was able to make a copy from the Nazarenes, who use this volume in Beroea, a city in Syria. In it, it is to be noted that whenever the evangelist made full use of testimonies from the ancient scriptures -- either on his own or from the Lord Savior -- he did not follow the authority of Seventy translators [i.e., the Greek Septuagint], but of the Hebrew. These are two (examples) of this: "Out of Egypt I have called my Son" (Matt 2:15) and "For he shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt 2:23).[10]
> 
> Thus there is significant external evidence attributing to Matthew a Gospel, and connecting it to a version originally composed in a Semitic language.
> 
> Some will object at this point that Matthew, as we have it in Greek, does not show any signs of being translated from another language. This is true, but it is not an indication that Matthew's original work was not in another language, for as Blomberg points out, "Jewish authors like Josephus, writing in Greek while at times translating Hebrew materials, often leave no linguistic clues to betray their Semitic sources."[11] Given Matthew's likely proficiency in Greek, and the methods of transcription used in his time, it is doubtful that he would have taken his Aramaic original and done a parallel Greek translation. It is more likely that a multi-lingual tax collector like Matthew instead did his Greek version "from scratch" and was proficient enough in both languages to leave no traces of translation.[12]
> 
> Internal Evidence: Content
> 
> Positive Evidence
> 
> In line with the criterion that we would expect the claimed author of a document to reflect the vocabulary and interest of that author, there are certain touches that point to the figure we know as Matthew:
> 
> In the story about a publican called to follow Jesus, the publican is called "Levi" in Mark and Luke, but "Matthew" in Matthew; in the same vein, Mark and Luke refer to "his house" whereas Matthew refers to "the house" as one would when writing of their own house in a third-person narrative context.
> If Matthew was a tax collector, and, as suggested by his alternate name, a Levite, the content of his Gospel fits with what his expected life experiences would be. A Levite like Matthew would normally be a Pharisee, and would receive training for Temple service. In line with this, Matthew shows signs of proper Jewish religious training: His significant use of OT quotes; his use of typology, and his concern with Jewish issues. But because there would be room for only so many Levites at the Temple, someone like Matthew might be forced to seek employment elsewhere -- and if he found work as a tax collector, he would be rejected by his Pharasaic cohorts.
> 
> Matthew also shows through his writing that he is a Hellenized Jew: he has good Greek style, and would appear to be "at home" in the Roman world. Again, this fits right in with the idea of Matthew as a tax collector.[13]
> 
> Negative Evidence
> 
> Negative internal evidence against the authorship of Matthew can be broadly separated into two categories. The first category is literary evidence, and the second category is chronological. In the latter case, the thread of logic goes like this:
> 
> X element in Matthew could only have been written after 70 A.D. (and as late as 85 A.D., which is when many scholars date Matthew).
> The historical Matthew would have been deceased by 70 A.D.
> Therefore, he could not have written the Gospel with his name on it.
> 
> Negative Evidence: Literary
> 
> The style in which Matthew writes. K�mmel claims that Matthew could not have authored his Gospel because the style of the Gospel is "systematic and therefore not biographical." This is rather an odd objection. Would we not expect a tax collector to be systematic in his writing? Wallace answers the point well:
> 
> Such is a non sequitur because (1) a topically ordered account can yield biographical facts as easily as a strictly chronological account, and (2) K�mmel wrongly supposes that apostolicity is for some reason incapable of choosing anything other than a chronological framework. [14]
> 
> A more solid objection is that Matthew is not written in the vivid style of an eyewitness.15 But again, a tax collector is not supposed to be a good narrative writer, but a good organizer - and Matthew's Gospel is well-organized to serve as a teaching tool.[16]
> 
> Negative Evidence: Chronological
> 
> Knowledge of the war against Rome. Critics cite specific passages in Matthew (21:41-5, 22:7, 24:15, and 27:25) as betraying knowledge of the Roman War, thus requiring a date after 70 for the Gospel as a whole. Since this objection is also repeated for the other three Gospels, we will deal with it in some depth here, and refer back to this chapter further on when the issue is raised again.
> 
> The most obvious point to make - one that does not stand to be refuted - is that a denial of predictive prophecy lies behind such arguments. Once this epistemological barrier is cleared, these additional points can be made which defuse charges of prophecy written after the fact:
> 
> The context of Jesus' statements indicates a time before the temple was destroyed. Passages in the Gospels refer to the Temple in present tense, or in a very casual way that suggests that it is still standing. The story of the fish and the coin in particular (Mt. 17:24-7) would have been irrelevant once the Temple had been destroyed, and indeed, highly problematic, since after 70 the Temple tax went to support the pagan temple of Jupiter in Rome.
> 
> Of course, one may at this point deduce a "clever forger" thesis, but that is a case of theory driving the facts. (See Matthew 5:23-4, 12:5-7, 23:16-22, and 26:60-1.)
> Jesus' warning to flee to the mountains does not fit the picture. By A.D. 68, Jerusalem was isolated, and there were Romans and hostile Sicarii (Jewish terrorists) in the mountains. At that point, people fled into Jerusalem, and to forts like Masada and Herodion, not from Jerusalem and into the mountains. Christians, according to Eusebius, fled to Pella in the Decapolis[17], which is decidedly not where Jesus said to flee.
> A prediction of the destruction of the Temple is hardly unique. Destruction of the temple (or Jerusalem) would not be too wild a guess, in light of how turbulent relations with the Romans were in Jesus' time. Several contemporaries of Jesus made similar predictions. The most familiar of these predictors, mentioned by Josephus, was Jesus the son of Ananias, a bit of a madman who made predictions of the Temple's destruction between 63-70 A.D.[18] Prior to Jesus' time, there were also predictions of the Temple being destroyed to be found in the Old Testament and in the intertestamental book of 2 Maccabees.
> 
> Other passages which are appealed to as showing knowledge of the war against Rome are simply too vague to be useful. Matthew 22:7, for example, speaks of an army being sent to burn and destroy a city; far from being able to be said to be a specific description of Jerusalem being conquered, this is merely "a fixed description of ancient expeditions of punishment" using "the standard language of both the Old Testament and the Roman world describing punitive military expeditions against rebellious cities."[19]
> 
> Beyond the issue of the Temple's destruction, there are a few other passages said to indicate a late date for Matthew.
> 
> Theological and community developments appear late. K�mmel[20] cites Matthew 18:15 and 28:19 as being late developments:
> 
> Matt.18:15 If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.
> 
> Matt 28:19-20 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
> 
> It is hard to see why these should be considered late developments. 18:15 is much the same idea as is found Leviticus 19:17:
> 
> Lev. 19:17 Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.
> 
> Moreover, it seems difficult to argue that the idea of peaceful, internecine reconciliation of this sort could not have been envisioned by a great moral teacher like Jesus for use by his own disciples.
> 
> As for 28:19-20, reasons for dating it late are unpersuasive:
> 
> The passage reflects numerous verses in the OT regarding future blessings for the Gentiles.
> Some suggest that it reflects a fixed code for baptism, and is therefore late, but one may question whether the triune composition was intended to be a fixed code. To be sure it has a certain structure, but it offers no instructions saying,
> This is a formula to be used over baptism." At most it tells the disciples what authority they have to teach and to baptize. As Gundry puts it, the meaning is essentially, to baptize in fundamental reference to the three, and is placed in contrast to the authority for baptism placed in John the Baptist; cf. 3:16, 12:28. [21]
> The claim that the passage's appeal to the Trinity reflects a late development must wrestle with Trinitarian-compatible concepts found earlier in Judaism, and Paul's Trinitarian concepts in 1 Cor. 12:4-6 and 2 Cor. 13:14.[22]
> Finally, the objection is made that if this verse had been known, then the Apostles would not have debated the legitimacy of the Gentile mission nor assigned it to two non-apostles like Barnabas and Paul. This is simply false. The legitimacy of the Gentile mission was not debated, just its methods (e.g., do they need to follow the law?), and none of the Apostles would have been suited as well to a Gentile mission as Paul and Barnabas (especially Paul, who shows signs of having received a classical education).
> 
> References "to this day." In verses 27:8 and 28:15 (some also include 11:12), Matthew refers to conditions in 30 A.D. that are still as they are "to this day." Critics suggest that this means a late date. But how long can we wait before saying "to this day"? Would not 30 years (a 60 date for Matthew) be sufficient? Or even 20 (a 50 date)? We are only 18 years, as of this writing, past the destruction of the Berlin Wall, and it hardly incoherent to say that it remains destroyed "to this day."
> 
> Matthew reflects Judaism of the time after 70. This is supposedly because of:
> 
> The Matthean emphasis on the Pharisees. It is argued that because Matthew focuses so much on the Pharisees - the group which held the most power in Judaism after 70 A.D. - this means that Matthew must have been written after 70 A.D.
> 
> This is a very odd argument, inasmuch as it fails to specify how many times Pharisees ought to be mentioned in a given document in order to date it prior to 70 A.D. How is this to be quantified? Is Matthew permitted to mention Pharisees only six times to be dated prior to 70? Seven times? Eight? Have the critics compared pre-70 and post-70 secular documents for mentions of the Pharisees, and found a pattern proving the validity of their thesis? It is more likely that Matthew's emphasis on the Pharisees has to do with the fact that Jesus, as an itinerant preacher, was more likely to run into Pharisees than Sadducees (whose provenance was pretty much limited to Jerusalem).
> 
> At the same time, the argument can be turned on its head just as easily: The Sadducees are mentioned 7 times in Matthew, which is as many times as in the rest of the New Testament documents together. Since the Sadducees lost power after 70 A.D., we may then argue that Matthew's treatment of Judaism reflects a time before 70.[23]
> "Their" synagogue. Some point to Matthew's use of "their synagogue" as pointing to a break between Christianity and Judaism (4:23, 9:35, 10:17, etc.), which would have occurred after 70 A.D. But it is questionable whether this is always an adversarial "their" -- it may refer to provenance, as in Matt. 4:23: "And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues..." -- would not this mean simply the Galileans' synagogues?
> 
> Similarly, some regard the general Jewish-Christian tension perceived in Matthew as evidence for a late date; but there was plenty of Jewish-Christian tension in the time of Acts as well, and Jesus certainly caused the Pharisees and other groups some headaches. Tensions between the Jewish establishment and splinter groups (like the Qumranites) did not begin in the mid-first century; and Paul's own testimony of dissonance with the Christians as a Pharisee, and James' death at the hands of the Jewish establishment prior to 70 (as offered by Josephus), indicate that disagreements between the parties existed much earlier than 70 AD. Nor is there is any reason to suppose that Acts is anachronizing and that relations were fully peaceful between the Church and the Jews until after 70.
> Teacher title. The fact that Jesus is called "Teacher" supposedly indicates a post-70 date, for this parallels use in later Judaism. However, we have very little material from first-century rabbinic Judaism from which we can make such a determination and know that the title was not in use.[24]
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> If we treat the New Testament like any other document, and do so fairly, the evidence demands that we recognize that in the Gospel of Matthew, we have "at least a significant deposit of Matthean tradition"[25] -- perhaps edited by a later student of Matthew's, but I think, more likely, by Matthew himself.*_


Implications? It's a document written by a first hand witness. During the course of debating the historicity of the resurrection, I can and will show it's level of reliability on the topic of the passion and resurrection.


----------



## Lukecash12

James Patrick Holding on Mark:



> *In favor of Markan authorship of the Gospel of Mark are the following considerations:
> 
> Direct testimony that Mark authored the Gospel that bears his name. Between 110 and 130 AD, the following statement was recorded by Papias, whose words are passed on to us by the church historian Eusebius:
> 
> Mark indeed, since he was the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, but not in order, the things either said or done by the Lord as much as he remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him, but afterwards, as I have said, [heard and followed] Peter, who fitted his discourses to the needs [of his hearers] but not as if making a narrative of the Lord's sayings'; consequently, Mark, writing down some things just as he remembered, erred in nothing; for he was careful of one thing - not to omit anything of the things he heard or to falsify anything in them.
> 
> Critics tend to reject this testimony out of hand. Kümmel, in particular, simply says that Papias "had no reliable knowledge of the connection of Mark with Peter" [Kumm.Int, 95], but fails to provide any significant basis for this assertion.
> 
> Contrarily, Boyd notes that there "is as yet no convincing reason to doubt the historical accuracy of this statement." That it "predates any concern to artificially give Mark's Gospel apostolic clout," and the "incidental and unpretentious nature" of the statement itself, is testimony to its veracity.
> 
> Further testimony may be found in that there was certainly no apologetic value to attaching Mark's name to a Gospel, not just because he betrayed Paul, but also because he was a relative unknown, and not an apostle, and there were much better candidates to choose from (even if one proposes that Mark was chosen precisely because he was low on the totem pole), like those selected for the late apocryphal Gospels.
> 
> Even Kümmel agrees the attribution to a non-apostle adds weight to the argument that Mark was the author. [ibid., 97] Reicke also adds [Reic.Root, 165] that Papias' inquiry was undertaken in a time when apostolic dignity was highly esteemed, thus making the ascription to Mark even more unlikely to be fake.
> 
> We have noted that such "external evidence" as this is key for secular historians in determining authorship, and it is interesting to note the comments of one such secular scholar, George Kennedy [Walk.RAG, 148ff]. To begin, Kennedy observes that contrary to what many in NT scholarship claim, and in line with typical procedures of composition in ancient times, Papias' remark that Mark wrote "not in order" is not a criticism of Mark's gospel, but a reference to hypomnema, or what we might refer to as notes, on Peter's preaching. Papias is therefore actually stressing Mark's great care in composition: He did not simply grind out a narrative, but carefully wrote up notes based on Peter's preaching as he recalled it, and in the same order as Peter preached (which, being "individual sermons," would not reflect historical order, but the need of each audience and/or the occassion).
> 
> Eusebius went on to note that Peter neither approved nor disapproved of these notes; this may be simply have been the expected reaction of someone like Peter for whom literacy was not a central issue -- or else, the resigned reaction of one who recognized these notes as fostering his inevitable "replacement".
> 
> Backing up Papias' statement are the following considerations:
> 
> Mark's Gospel is constructed around Peter more than any other Gospel. Throughout Mark, Peter is given top billing. He is the first of the disciples to be mentioned; he is portrayed as being in Jesus' inner circle, and there are many instances where Peter is the only individual to stand over and against Jesus. In terms of proportion, Peter in mentioned more times per page in Mark than in Matthew or Luke.
> 
> He is also the most "true to life" character in the Gospel other than Jesus: Kelber [Kelb.OWG, 68] observes that in Mark, "Auerbach was certainly right in contending that Peter showed a distinct mark of individuality...As an individual he ranks above all other disciples" and is the most fully developed character, other than Jesus. There are also many personal touches reflecting Peter, including the frequent and incidental mention of his house (5 times in Mark); phrases such as "Simon and his companions" (1:36) and Andrew being identified as Simon's brother (1:16); and the direct address to Simon by Jesus (14:37). Many third-person verses, if shifted to first- or second-person, would fit right in the mouth of Peter. (1:29, 5:1, 5:38, 6:53-4, 8:22, 10:32, 11:1, 14:18, etc. - [Mart.NTF, 212])
> 
> Bauckham in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses [179-80] adds to this evidence other special constructions, such as an inclusio (framing device) that indicates Peter as the source of the material; "internal focalization" in the accounts that indicates Peter as their source.
> 
> Mark's Gospel has the character of an eyewitness account. As would be expected if the material found its source in an eyewitness, the use of incidental details and characters matches the way an eyewitness account would be composed. Beck notes of the character of Mark's Gospel [Beck.TGJ, 84]:
> 
> His vivid language arrests the reader. The Spirit drives Jesus, his followers hunt him out, he sighs deeply. The demoniac hacks himself, the blind man leaps up, the great crowd jostles Jesus or sits like garden plots on the green grass.
> 
> And Kelber, although he does not make the connection that Mark's Gospel is based on Peter's preaching, observes [Kelb.OWG, 66]:
> 
> The prolific use of the third person plural instead of the passive is in keeping with the popular style of storytelling.
> 
> Pritchard [Pritch.Lit, 37-44] offers correspondence with our determination criteria. He points out that a literary analysis of Mark indicating that someone very like Peter (as we conventionally recognize him) was behind it: Mark's Gospel has a limited vocabulary (1330 words) and was written in "man on the street" Koine Greek; the rhetorical devices used are few in number and are the sort that would be used by someone who was uneducated; and, it bears an uncomplicated sentence structure: "Its sentences are made like the speech of the less educated men, upon whom the niceties of logically subordinated ideas are largely wasted." (Nice words about Peter, eh?)
> 
> Obviously, one who is determined not to allow Mark to be the author might suggest that all of this could be faked, but this would suggest a literary artistry beyond what the author of the second Gospel evidences otherwise (i.e., faking being uneducated). Further, it has been objected that much of Mark looks like "community tradition" rather than a personal account - although remember that it is not held that ALL of Mark's material came from Peter, and at any rate, the community had to get the material from somewhere! [Mart.NTF, 204-5]
> 
> The most parsimonious explanation for the above is not some conspiracy, but that Mark's Gospel was created "essentially on the basis of traditions imparted by Peter" [Reic.Root, 57] and on his preaching - just as Papias indicates.
> 
> Objections to Mark's authorship include the following:
> 
> Mark is just stealing from Homer. See here for an answer.
> 
> Geographical errors in Mark. Kümmel [Kumm.Int, 97] accuses Mark of "numerous" geographical errors, but names only three: Mark 5:1 (the Gerasene swine), 7:31 (having to do with Tyre/Sidon and the Decapolis), and 10:1 (re the region of Judea). He indicates that a lack of knowledge of the geography of Palestine is against Markan authorship. In reply we may note:
> 
> The "errors" are a product of the imagination. Let's look at Kümmel's three ("numerous"?) citations, along with a couple of others.
> 
> Mark 5:1 They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.
> 
> How this qualifies as an "error" is beyond me. It is hardly a definitive statement, referring only to a "region" - as might be expected if the party landed in a countrified area, and if this is from a sermon of Peter to a Roman audience that really did not care where some out-in-the-boondocks locale was precisely located.
> 
> The city of Gerasa was about 30 miles southeast of the traditional location of this event; that being so, to speak of being in the "region" is hardly any more erroneous than saying, after landing a boat thirty miles south of Milwaukee, that you have landed in the "region" of Milwaukee. According to The Jesus Legend [449], though, a textual-critical case can also be made for the reading "Gergasenes" which would make possible an identification with the settlement now called Khersa, which is indeed on the Sea of Galilee.
> 
> Mark 7:31 Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.
> 
> This one is a little more complex, but no more problematic. It has been interpreted to mean that Jesus and His company went through Sidon to GET TO The Sea of Galilee, which would indeed be the wrong way - but what it means is that they had an itinerary of 1) Tyre, 2) Sidon, and THEN 3) the Sea and the Decapolis region. The journey to Sidon is NOT a case of "what they went through to get there," but, "where they went also."
> 
> Glenn Miller of the Christian Thinktank has passed on to me this quote from Douglas Edwards, who, in his essay, "The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos in the First Century," has noted:
> 
> Indeed, even the Jesus movement's travel from Tyre to Sidon to the Decapolis depicted in Mark, which has struck some New Testament interpreters as evidence for an ignorance of Galilean geography, is, in fact, quite plausible. Josephus notes that during the reign of Antipas, while Herod Agrippa I was in Syria, a dispute regarding boundaries arose between Sidon and Damascus, a city of the Decapolis. It is therefore conceivable that the movement headed east toward Damascus and then south through the region of the Decapolis, following major roads linking Damascus with either Caesarea Philippi or Hippos. [GLA:59-60])
> 
> One Skeptic adds that he thinks that there was no place known as Decapolis until the time of Nero. No source is cited for this assertion, but he is apparently unaware that the Gospel of Mark was penned by someone who lived during and perhaps after the time of Nero.
> 
> Here's one from Anderson [Ander.GM, 31]:
> 
> Mark 8:10 he got into the boat with his disciples and went to the region of Dalmanutha.
> 
> So what's wrong here? Well, Anderson says that Dalmanutha is not referred to anywhere else in any extant literature. Considering how little literature we DO have from the first century, this is rather an argument from silence. See also here. (Some have regarded this as being the same as the village of Magdala, however.)
> 
> Finally, from Kümmel:
> 
> Mark 10:1a Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan.
> 
> Here again we have a very general statement of a "region" and perhaps what is probably an itinerary: 1) the region of Judea; 2) across the Jordan. Is Mark not being specific enough for Kümmel? Other than that Peter's audience would (again) not care about such minor details, we may add that Mark was a native of Jerusalem (Acts 12:12), and thus an urbanite. As such, we would not expect him to make an exact fix on certain places that were either far from his home or out on the country somewhere. Not even I, acquainted as I am with atlases and road maps as part of my library work, can get more precise than this when referring to rural areas only 100 or so miles from where I live.
> 
> Historical errors. I've found only one of these so far. Kümmel [ibid., 98] objects that the death of John the Baptist (Mark 6:17) "contradicts Palestinian custom."
> 
> Kümmel does not specify what he means, so I cannot be specific here; but it is wrong to assume that custom had some iron-fisted control that kept Palestinian people from making any variations. The grip of "custom" is no more made of iron today than it was 2000 years ago. For details on this and the passage following, see here.
> 
> [Apocalyptic Prediction] [Expectations of Jesus' Return] [Late Tradition Development] [Irenaeus on Peter's Death] [Contemporary References/Material Accuracy/Early Tradition Indicators]
> 
> Of course, if the Petrine authority of this Gospel is established, there is very little reason to date it very late; as we have seen, even Mack and Kümmel will allow for a 70 date. Indeed, it is often allowed even among critics that Mark, as an old man, put together he could of Peter's teaching at that time. But is there any reason to date Mark as late as 70?
> 
> Apocalyptic Prediction. 70 seems to be a very popular date for Mark (and the other Gospels as well); but why? The answer lies in the "little apocalypse" of Mark 13, where Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. This took place in 70 AD, and since it is assumed that predictive prophecy is impossible, skeptics (and even some who are not skeptics) must date the book no earlier than 70, and some after 70. (See [Perr.NTI, 159]; [Spiv.ANT, 62-3]; [Ander.GM, 26]) Other than noting the anti-miraculous bias of this position, we may counter that:
> 
> The context of Mark 13 indicates a time before the temple was destroyed. Verses 13:1, 3 and 11 imply that the temple is still standing, referring to it in a very casual way. (In fact, this stands as a reason to date Mark BEFORE AD 70!)
> 
> The warning of fleeing to the mountains does not fit the picture. By AD 68, Jerusalem was isolated, and there were Romans and hostile Sicarii in the mountains - people fled INTO Jerusalem, and to forts like Masada and Herodion - NOT from Jerusalem and into the mountains. Christians, according to Eusebius, fled to Pella in the Decapolis [Robin.RNT, 16-7], which is decidedly not where Jesus said to flee. This did not happen in 70 AD or anywhere near then.
> 
> A prediction of the destruction of the Temple is hardly unique anyway. First, destruction of the temple (or Jerusalem) would not be too wild a guess, in light of how turbulent relations with the Romans were.
> 
> Second, several contemporaries of Jesus made similar predictions; they were a dime a dozen, and seemingly about as common as modern Americans suggesting blowing up the White House. The most familiar of these predictors, mentioned by Josephus, was Jesus the son of Ananias, a bit of a madman who made predictions of the Temple's destruction between 63-70 AD [ibid., 15].
> 
> Third, warnings of the Temple being completely torn down - which to a Jewish mind, would have beem the only conceivable method of judgment involving the Temple [Heng.Mark, 15]- are found throughout the OT and in the Book of 2 Maccabees.
> 
> Therefore, there is no reason to use this section of Mark 13 as an argument for dating the whole of Mark at 70 or later.
> 
> Other attempts to date Mark late focus on the following:
> 
> Christians expected Jesus to come back soon; hence they had no reason to preserve a narrative life of Jesus until the apostles passed away, which would be around 70 AD. Some cite Mark 9:1 as reflecting this expectancy, but it seems that Mark saw this as fulfilled in the Transfiguration, since that is the next event he describes. Also, there are a number of Jesus' teachings that set the expectation on a non-imminent return: The instruction on divorce, legal procedings, "when the gospel is preached in the whole world, then shall the end come," etc. - hardly the sort of stuff you prepare people for when the end is imminent.
> 
> However, even the apocalyptic Qumran community wrote things down, so this cannot be a reason to date any of the Gospels late. We would add as well that the events of Mark 13 were fulfilled, in entirety, in 70 AD and are not predicting the parousia found in Paul's letters as critics have often assumed. (For more on this, see series here.)
> 
> Mark reflects a late development of the Gospel tradition. Kümmel [Kumm.Int, 98] objects to any date earlier than 64 for Mark on these grounds. Of course, this is simply an arbitrary assertion; it is simply assumed that the Gospel tradition could not be this well-developed any earlier. But it is noteworthy that Kümmel allows for as early as 64 here; and we should also note that Mark's theology is nowhere near as sophisticated as that of Paul, who wrote in the 50s. Thus, Streeter [Stree.4G, 495]:
> 
> Ecclesiastically, even if it be assigned to AD 65, the Gospel of Mark was already ten years out of date, so to speak, at the time it was written.
> 
> This, we may add, applies to a goodly degree to the other Synoptic Gospels as well, and points towards a date contemporaneous with, if not prior to in some cases, that of the letters of Paul.
> 
> Ireanaus says that Mark wrote his Gospel after Peter and Paul died. Here is what Ireneaus wrote:
> 
> ...after their death, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing what was preached by Peter.
> 
> Since Paul and Peter presumably died c. 64-7, this is taken to mean that Mark wrote after this. However:
> 
> The reference is not to "writing." Wenham [Wenh.RMML, 139] observes that Ireneaus says that Mark "handed on" (transmitted) the material after the time of the death of these apostles - not necessarily that he WROTE it afterwards. (See also [Heib.Int, 93])
> 
> The tradition is not solid. There are other traditions, for example one cited in Clement of Alexandria [Stree.4G, 489], that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome during Peter's lifetime. The matter is therefore inconclusive.
> 
> Now is there any indication that Mark can be dated earlier than 70? Indeed, there is strong evidence to date it earlier:
> 
> Contemporary-sounding references. Mark 15:21 refers to Alexander and Rufus, sons of Simon of Cyrene. It would be peculiar to mention these two persons unless they were somehow alive and known to the church - and the later Mark is dated, the more doubtful this becomes. The same may be said of referring to Pilate without mentioning his position as Matthew and Luke do.
> 
> Material accuracy. Mark's Gospel reflects well the contours of Palestinian Judaism before the time of the fall of Jerusalem; indeed, "No New Testament author portrays the different groups in Jewish Palestine at the time of Jesus as accurately as Mark" [Heng.Mark, 10].
> 
> Since the whole religious landscape was changed by the events of 70, Mark is reflecting either a very accurate memory, or else is writing before 70 when that landscape was still whole - and if we choose the former, we have no basis to reject the sayings of Jesus as inauthentic due to memory loss.
> 
> Indications of early tradition. Mark's rare use of the word "apostle," his consistent ordering of the apostles' inner circle (Peter, James, John - as opposed to Luke's Peter, John and James), and his references to "the Twelve" point to an earlier date when these terms were in use.
> 
> Our conclusion: the authorship and date of Mark, by the grounds used by secular historians for making the same determinations, we see thus far point strongly to Mark's authorship and significantly towards a pre-70 composition.*


Peter was a first hand witness, so the Gospel of Mark reaffirms the passion and resurrection story where it agrees with the other reliable accounts.


----------



## graaf

Interesting coincidence, but I saw this documentary yesterday:





In brief, Jesus did not die on the cross - he was removed from the cross before he died by the same Roman centurion who believed in him (the one who had sick friend and wanted Jesus to cure him, so he had "more faith then all of Israel", or something along those lines), and brought a lot of herbs (used as medicine, not as burial ritual) for Jesus. And then no wonder that Jesus was appearing to others showing wounds, like any other man who survived hell (for example, many Jewish people today can show you wounds when they survived Holocaust).

Also, some tribes in Kashmir say they have Palestinian ancestry and that Jesus came to them after crucifixion, and some Tibetan scripts talk about a man from Palestine, coming at 14yr old and leaving at 29 (corresponds nice to missing years of Jesus). All those things are easily as valid as any of the Gospels, or maybe a bit more, since they were not used to spread religion...

PS
It is just a nice documentary, but the irony is that it can easily contain more valid points and reasoning than Bible itself.


----------



## Almaviva

Oh well, all very very interesting, except that there is no such thing as rising from the dead. I don't know what happened to this guy Jesus; he certainly wasn't a god and the son of a powerful god for the good reason that such things don't exist and are purely creations of the human mind (just as much as talking snakes don't exist) so the BBC documentary's explanation is as good as any. Of course, after all the threats from the OP that any opinion to the contrary will be ignored unless it is supported by evidence (which is impossible to do in these matters), I know very well that my opinion will be ignored which is just fine, I certainly won't lose any sleep over it.


----------



## Amfibius

If veracity was your primary concern, you would be a Muslim. Unlike the New Testament, the Koran was written at the time of Mohammed's life. Also, the Koran is read today in the same language that it was written - so you don't get strange mis-translations e.g. "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for the rich to get into heaven" (which seems to be conveniently ignored by mainstream Christians, especially the televengelist type). 

Not that either argument impresses me. An accurate documentation of the thinking of a bronze age society is only relevant for historical interest and should not be used as a guide to behaviour in the 21st century.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Almaviva said:


> ... just as much as talking snakes don't exist ...


:lol: You cracked me up with that comment.

Now back to the OP. I just want to make a comment that I think the OP might be better off starting a discusion forum of his own elsewhere in the internet to talk about this topic, because having quoted literally several thousand words, seems like having a much wider agenda of his own to me on borrowed turf. Sure, we might discuss about religion, social issues, the economy, politics etc. here in the "Community Forum", but I think the OP's manner presented here with very long quotes, and the "no evidence = shall be ignored" mentality, frankly don't interest me much. It is hardly what I consider "community" invitation for discussion.


----------



## graaf

Amfibius said:


> Koran is read today in the same language that it was written - so you don't get strange mis-translations e.g. "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for the rich to get into heaven"


Also, when historians found Mesopotamian scripts on which Book of Genesis was based, they found that Go did not take Adam's rib to make Eve, instead he took some "life" from him (the same one he gave him after making him out of clay). But in the ancient language in which Genesis was originally written, words "rib" and "life" are very similar (I think the difference is one letter). So the whole "rib mystery" just got lost in translation correction...


----------



## Ravellian

Alright, I'll add my two cents, since I'm off today and I have nothing better to do. I don't pretend to be an expert on all of this, but I have taken part of many of these debates in the past. Having read a lot about factual evidence for Christianity, it seems that the crux of it all hinges on the resurrection, that if it can be proved to be true, then Christianity must be true. I'll address LukeCash's posts first and then move on to issues besides the gospels.

In your first post, I think you demonstrated quite conclusively that yes, Jesus was a real person, and he was put to death by crucifixion. I don't think anyone will dispute that.

In your second post, you attested to the general accuracy of Luke and Acts. Indeed, it seems they were pretty good at getting the facts right in regards to places and traditions. So the author was a good historian and an expert on details. So what? He wasn't an eyewitness. I also have a couple of minor problems with that post:

_3. Against the Law and Punishable by Death
"Then all the city was provoked, and the people rushed together, and taking hold of Paul they dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut. While they were seeking to kill him, a report came up to the commander of the Romancohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion" Acts 21:30-31& "And he even tried to desecrate the temple; and then we arrested him. And we wanted to judge him according to our own Law." Acts 24:6.
The penalty for bringing a Gentile into the Temple was death. Transgressors were to be immediately removed to be executed so as not to defile the temple. Ant. 18.30. This is also confirmed by inscription evidence.[63]_
Pretty harsh, huh? Sounds to me less like the worship place of a loving God and more like a temple for zealots of some barbaric religion.

_8. Priestly Duties Selected by Lot
"Now it came about, while he was performing his priestly service before God in the appointed order of his division, according to the custom of the priestly office, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense." Luke 1:8-9.
In fact, priestly duties were assigned by lot. This is not mentioned by Josephus and is otherwise known to us only through the Mishnah. Yoma 2, 1-4; Tamid 1, 2; 2, 5; 3, 1; T. Yoma 1, 10._
"Priestly duties selected by Lot." So... they didn't even pray or anything?

Then you make a post about Paul's account in 1st Corinthians, which is not eyewitness testimony, but based on what he "heard" from other people.

So it seems that there is only one eyewitness testimony of Jesus in all of the Bible, that of John, who was a direct Disciple and therefore probably biased.

_In favor of Markan authorship of the Gospel of Mark are the following considerations:

Direct testimony that Mark authored the Gospel that bears his name. Between 110 and 130 AD, the following statement was recorded by Papias, whose words are passed on to us by the church historian Eusebius:

Mark indeed, since he was the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, but not in order, the things either said or done by the Lord as much as he remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him, but afterwards, as I have said, [heard and followed] Peter, who fitted his discourses to the needs [of his hearers] but not as if making a narrative of the Lord's sayings'; consequently, Mark, writing down some things just as he remembered, erred in nothing; for he was careful of one thing - not to omit anything of the things he heard or to falsify anything in them._
So he was an interpreter - Mark got all his material second-hand, he didn't witness any of it.

_Mark's Gospel is constructed around Peter more than any other Gospel. Throughout Mark, Peter is given top billing. He is the first of the disciples to be mentioned; he is portrayed as being in Jesus' inner circle, and there are many instances where Peter is the only individual to stand over and against Jesus. In terms of proportion, Peter in mentioned more times per page in Mark than in Matthew or Luke._
So it sounds like Peter skewed the stories to make himself more important..

_Our conclusion: the authorship and date of Mark, by the grounds used by secular historians for making the same determinations, we see thus far point strongly to Mark's authorship and significantly towards a pre-70 composition._
What's the big deal about dating here? As they said, a "prediction" of the Temple falling in 70 AD wasn't exactly revolutionary.

Based on the facts presented, the following seems the most appropriate explanation: Jesus was a real man, who happened to have a small group of devoted followers, or disciples. These followers were probably superstitious, impressionable people who were captivated by Jesus for whatever reason, probably because of the promise of "eternal life" after death. After Jesus dies, he "appears" post-mortum *only to his disciples*. Then, the gospels get written, only one of which is an actual eyewitness account (a disciple).

Regarding "THE UNIQUENESS OF THE DISCIPLES' TRANSFORMATION":
Sorry, but no. You can't make the logical leap of "The disciples were enthusiastic, therefore Christianity must be true." There have been lots of crazy people throughout history who have been willing to believe just about anything (see: the Muslim religion). What makes these disciples any different?

The point of these discussions seems to be trying to factually prove that Jesus actually performed miracles and was actually resurrected. What I wonder: if Jesus was actually God and God did want everyone to believe in him, why wouldn't he make his magical powers more obvious? Why would he only resurrect Jesus so that his disciples could see him? Why didn't Jesus exist during the age of photography and video cameras?

I am aware that all of this business on the gospels is only a very small part of a huge debate, and I have many problems with Christianity outside of anything to do with the gospels. For example:

- Christianity runs into a load of problems when it comes to science (factual knowledge of the world). I'll just mention a couple here. It's a scientific fact that modern humans have existed for at least 50,000 years, yet the Bible doesn't seem to make reference to anything past 4,000 B.C. I guess God didn't care about the early people? There are also small, but notable scientific details in the Bible that are inaccurate, pertaining to astronomy and other matters. If God existed, wouldn't he know everything about the earth and the universe and wouldn't he make sure those facts were correct?

- I have read several debates about the question: If God loves everyone, then why do two-thirds of the world live in poverty? Why do so many millions of people in LDCs live in such terrible conditions (most of whom never end up hearing about Christianity)? The Christian answer I've heard most often is: "We don't know, but God does!" Sorry, that's called a cop-out.

- There are many other religions besides Christianity that people seem to have no problem devoting their lives to.

- I used to be Christian, and I used to belong to many Christian social groups. But these people weren't any different from other people; they were just as selfish and greedy and snobbish as lustful as anyone else. I didn't see how Christianity changed their lives at all.

I am saddened by these debates, because I would like to be Christian, I would _like_ to believe that I could live forever, I would _like_ to believe that humans could live by some guiding principal besides cutthroat survival, but I can't.


----------



## Kopachris

I'm only going to try to address those last questions. I'm no theologist, and I haven't read much of the Bible because I believe it to be mostly irrelevant to my faith--I can't trust the Bible and can't use it as proof of anything.


Ravellian said:


> I am aware that all of this business on the gospels is only a very small part of a huge debate, and I have many problems with Christianity outside of anything to do with the gospels. For example:
> 
> - Christianity runs into a load of problems when it comes to science (factual knowledge of the world). I'll just mention a couple here. It's a scientific fact that modern humans have existed for at least 50,000 years, yet the Bible doesn't seem to make reference to anything past 4,000 B.C. I guess God didn't care about the early people? There are also small, but notable scientific details in the Bible that are inaccurate, pertaining to astronomy and other matters. If God existed, wouldn't he know everything about the earth and the universe and wouldn't he make sure those facts were correct?
> 
> - I have read several debates about the question: If God loves everyone, then why do two-thirds of the world live in poverty? Why do so many millions of people in LDCs live in such terrible conditions (most of whom never end up hearing about Christianity)? The Christian answer I've heard most often is: "We don't know, but God does!" Sorry, that's called a cop-out.
> 
> - There are many other religions besides Christianity that people seem to have no problem devoting their lives to.
> 
> - I used to be Christian, and I used to belong to many Christian social groups. But these people weren't any different from other people; they were just as selfish and greedy and snobbish as lustful as anyone else. I didn't see how Christianity changed their lives at all.
> 
> I am saddened by these debates, because I would like to be Christian, I would _like_ to believe that I could live forever, I would _like_ to believe that humans could live by some guiding principal besides cutthroat survival, but I can't.


1. If Genesis talked about the Big Bang and evolution, the radicals who posited such ideas would be exiled and/or stoned for their heresy, and we'd have no Judaism, Islam, or Christianity.
2. What would be the point of life if we weren't given free will? God isn't causing poverty, people are. Sure, He's allowing it, but would He really love us if he didn't allow us to make our own decisions and live with the consequences?
3. Yeah. They each have their good ideas and their bad ideas, just the same as Christianity. No human is perfect, and so no human religion is perfect either.
4. I've noticed that a lot too, but to generalize the whole of Christianity like that is flawed. There are some whose lives have been changed, just as there are some for every religion.

I only answer these questions because the way in which you state some of them indicates that you think certain facets of Christianity are contradictory to each other. I'm not trying to convert you; I'm just showing that there are ways to reconcile these apparent contradictions. I generally try to be pragmatic about religion. I believe that people should believe in whatever works for them and helps them become better than they are. If a lack of belief in any deity helps you become who you want to be, then so be it. On the other hand, if belief in the Bible helps you be a better person, that's fine too. We really can't know for certain who is most right and who is most wrong (we're all wrong about something) until we die.


----------



## science

Ravellian said:


> I am saddened by these debates, because I would like to be Christian, I would _like_ to believe that I could live forever, I would _like_ to believe that humans could live by some guiding principal besides cutthroat survival, but I can't.


I used to be a Christian too, and for the first seven or eight years after I lost my faith, I felt something like this. I wouldn't have used the same words, but I wished that I could be Christian, and regretted the intellectual path that led to my losing faith.

But the more I get used to my non-faith, the more I am grateful that none of the traditional Western versions of Christianity are true. I am glad that the universe isn't controlled by a God who would send so many people to hell eternally because they did not have some information about certain events in the Middle East.

I still miss Christianity very much - I miss the liturgy, the icons, the incense, the prayer, the song, the spiritual struggle to become a better person, the fasting and the feasts, all that.


----------



## Ukko

Kopachris said:


> I'm only going to try to address those last questions. I'm no theologist, and I haven't read much of the Bible because I believe it to be mostly irrelevant to my faith--I can't trust the Bible and can't use it as proof of anything.
> 
> 1. If Genesis talked about the Big Bang and evolution, the radicals who posited such ideas would be exiled and/or stoned for their heresy, and we'd have no Judaism, Islam, or Christianity.
> 2. What would be the point of life if we weren't given free will? God isn't causing poverty, people are. Sure, He's allowing it, but would He really love us if he didn't allow us to make our own decisions and live with the consequences?
> 3. Yeah. They each have their good ideas and their bad ideas, just the same as Christianity. No human is perfect, and so no human religion is perfect either.
> 4. I've noticed that a lot too, but to generalize the whole of Christianity like that is flawed. There are some whose lives have been changed, just as there are some for every religion.
> 
> I only answer these questions because the way in which you state some of them indicates that you think certain facets of Christianity are contradictory to each other. I'm not trying to convert you; I'm just showing that there are ways to reconcile these apparent contradictions. I generally try to be pragmatic about religion. I believe that people should believe in whatever works for them and helps them become better than they are. If a lack of belief in any deity helps you become who you want to be, then so be it. On the other hand, if belief in the Bible helps you be a better person, that's fine too. We really can't know for certain who is most right and who is most wrong (we're all wrong about something) until we die.


You express the principles of humanism, to the extent that they exist. You arrive at them following a different route from mine, but no matter. The Prime Premise is that we are all in this world *together*. The next world, if there is one, takes care of itself.

:tiphat:


----------



## Guest

@Lukecash12-
While I am certainly sympathetic to what you are trying to accomplish here, and also believe in the authenticity of the gospel accounts and the truth of the resurrection, I don't think you will achieve here what you are attempting. While these apologetics may have at one point had a wider audience, I'm afraid that these days the interest in them is primarily among the already converted. The odds of proving an event witnessed by so few so long ago is difficult in the extreme even under the best of circumstances, and so much relies on faith - which is, I believe, as it should be. That is what sets religion apart. Try all you might, I doubt you will change minds with such an exposition. While I, and I am sure other Christians, will find the research you have done interesting, those unconvinced of Christianity are not likely to be as swayed.


----------



## kv466

Ravellian said:


> Alright, I'll add my two cents, since I'm off today and I have nothing better to do. I don't pretend to be an expert on all of this, but I have taken part of many of these debates in the past. Having read a lot about factual evidence for Christianity, it seems that the crux of it all hinges on the resurrection, that if it can be proved to be true, then Christianity must be true. I'll address LukeCash's posts first and then move on to issues besides the gospels.
> 
> In your first post, I think you demonstrated quite conclusively that yes, Jesus was a real person, and he was put to death by crucifixion. I don't think anyone will dispute that.
> 
> In your second post, you attested to the general accuracy of Luke and Acts. Indeed, it seems they were pretty good at getting the facts right in regards to places and traditions. So the author was a good historian and an expert on details. So what? He wasn't an eyewitness. I also have a couple of minor problems with that post:
> 
> _3. Against the Law and Punishable by Death
> "Then all the city was provoked, and the people rushed together, and taking hold of Paul they dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut. While they were seeking to kill him, a report came up to the commander of the Romancohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion" Acts 21:30-31& "And he even tried to desecrate the temple; and then we arrested him. And we wanted to judge him according to our own Law." Acts 24:6.
> The penalty for bringing a Gentile into the Temple was death. Transgressors were to be immediately removed to be executed so as not to defile the temple. Ant. 18.30. This is also confirmed by inscription evidence.[63]_
> Pretty harsh, huh? Sounds to me less like the worship place of a loving God and more like a temple for zealots of some barbaric religion.
> 
> _8. Priestly Duties Selected by Lot
> "Now it came about, while he was performing his priestly service before God in the appointed order of his division, according to the custom of the priestly office, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense." Luke 1:8-9.
> In fact, priestly duties were assigned by lot. This is not mentioned by Josephus and is otherwise known to us only through the Mishnah. Yoma 2, 1-4; Tamid 1, 2; 2, 5; 3, 1; T. Yoma 1, 10._
> "Priestly duties selected by Lot." So... they didn't even pray or anything?
> 
> Then you make a post about Paul's account in 1st Corinthians, which is not eyewitness testimony, but based on what he "heard" from other people.
> 
> So it seems that there is only one eyewitness testimony of Jesus in all of the Bible, that of John, who was a direct Disciple and therefore probably biased.
> 
> _In favor of Markan authorship of the Gospel of Mark are the following considerations:
> 
> Direct testimony that Mark authored the Gospel that bears his name. Between 110 and 130 AD, the following statement was recorded by Papias, whose words are passed on to us by the church historian Eusebius:
> 
> Mark indeed, since he was the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, but not in order, the things either said or done by the Lord as much as he remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him, but afterwards, as I have said, [heard and followed] Peter, who fitted his discourses to the needs [of his hearers] but not as if making a narrative of the Lord's sayings'; consequently, Mark, writing down some things just as he remembered, erred in nothing; for he was careful of one thing - not to omit anything of the things he heard or to falsify anything in them._
> So he was an interpreter - Mark got all his material second-hand, he didn't witness any of it.
> 
> _Mark's Gospel is constructed around Peter more than any other Gospel. Throughout Mark, Peter is given top billing. He is the first of the disciples to be mentioned; he is portrayed as being in Jesus' inner circle, and there are many instances where Peter is the only individual to stand over and against Jesus. In terms of proportion, Peter in mentioned more times per page in Mark than in Matthew or Luke._
> So it sounds like Peter skewed the stories to make himself more important..
> 
> _Our conclusion: the authorship and date of Mark, by the grounds used by secular historians for making the same determinations, we see thus far point strongly to Mark's authorship and significantly towards a pre-70 composition._
> What's the big deal about dating here? As they said, a "prediction" of the Temple falling in 70 AD wasn't exactly revolutionary.
> 
> Based on the facts presented, the following seems the most appropriate explanation: Jesus was a real man, who happened to have a small group of devoted followers, or disciples. These followers were probably superstitious, impressionable people who were captivated by Jesus for whatever reason, probably because of the promise of "eternal life" after death. After Jesus dies, he "appears" post-mortum *only to his disciples*. Then, the gospels get written, only one of which is an actual eyewitness account (a disciple).
> 
> Regarding "THE UNIQUENESS OF THE DISCIPLES' TRANSFORMATION":
> Sorry, but no. You can't make the logical leap of "The disciples were enthusiastic, therefore Christianity must be true." There have been lots of crazy people throughout history who have been willing to believe just about anything (see: the Muslim religion). What makes these disciples any different?
> 
> The point of these discussions seems to be trying to factually prove that Jesus actually performed miracles and was actually resurrected. What I wonder: if Jesus was actually God and God did want everyone to believe in him, why wouldn't he make his magical powers more obvious? Why would he only resurrect Jesus so that his disciples could see him? Why didn't Jesus exist during the age of photography and video cameras?
> 
> I am aware that all of this business on the gospels is only a very small part of a huge debate, and I have many problems with Christianity outside of anything to do with the gospels. For example:
> 
> - Christianity runs into a load of problems when it comes to science (factual knowledge of the world). I'll just mention a couple here. It's a scientific fact that modern humans have existed for at least 50,000 years, yet the Bible doesn't seem to make reference to anything past 4,000 B.C. I guess God didn't care about the early people? There are also small, but notable scientific details in the Bible that are inaccurate, pertaining to astronomy and other matters. If God existed, wouldn't he know everything about the earth and the universe and wouldn't he make sure those facts were correct?
> 
> - I have read several debates about the question: If God loves everyone, then why do two-thirds of the world live in poverty? Why do so many millions of people in LDCs live in such terrible conditions (most of whom never end up hearing about Christianity)? The Christian answer I've heard most often is: "We don't know, but God does!" Sorry, that's called a cop-out.
> 
> - There are many other religions besides Christianity that people seem to have no problem devoting their lives to.
> 
> - I used to be Christian, and I used to belong to many Christian social groups. But these people weren't any different from other people; they were just as selfish and greedy and snobbish as lustful as anyone else. I didn't see how Christianity changed their lives at all.
> 
> I am saddened by these debates, because I would like to be Christian, I would _like_ to believe that I could live forever, I would _like_ to believe that humans could live by some guiding principal besides cutthroat survival, but I can't.


Glad to know you only had 2 cents, Ravellian, and not...let's say...a dime!


----------



## graaf

Kopachris said:


> 2. What would be the point of life if we weren't given free will? God isn't causing poverty, people are. Sure, He's allowing it, but would He really love us if he didn't allow us to make our own decisions and live with the consequences?


Talking about free will, check this out - written by an atheist:

Morality Without "Free Will" 1 2 3
Extremely interesting essays, here are the excerpts:



> The physiologist Benjamin Libet famously demonstrated that activity in the brain's motor regions can be detected some 300 milliseconds before a person feels that he has decided to move.





> We are conscious of only a tiny fraction of the information that our brains process in each moment. While we continually notice changes in our experience-in thought, mood, perception, behavior, etc.-we are utterly unaware of the neural events that produce these changes. In fact, by merely glancing at your face or listening to your tone of voice, others are often more aware of your internal states and motivations than you are. And yet most of us still feel that we are the authors of our own thoughts and actions.





> You spot your best friend standing on the street corner looking strangely disheveled. You recognize that she is crying and frantically dialing her cell phone. Was she involved in a car accident? Did someone assault her? You rush to her side, feeling an acute desire to help. Your "self" seems to stand at the intersection of these lines of input and output. From this point of view, you tend to feel that you are the source of your own thoughts and actions. You decide what to do and not to do. You seem to be an agent acting of your own free will. The problem, however, is that this point of view cannot be reconciled with what we know about the human brain. All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion.





> Imagine that a mad scientist has developed a means of controlling the human brain at a distance. What would it be like to watch him send a person to and fro on the wings of her "will"? Would there be even the slightest temptation to impute freedom to her? No. But this mad scientist is nothing more than causal determinism personified. What makes his existence so inimical to our notion of free will is that when we imagine him lurking behind a person's thoughts and actions-tweaking electrical potentials, manufacturing neurotransmitters, regulating genes, etc.-we cannot help but let our notions of freedom and responsibility travel up the puppet's strings to the hand that controls them.


----------



## Chris

Amfibius said:


> If veracity was your primary concern, you would be a Muslim. Unlike the New Testament, the Koran was written at the time of Mohammed's life. Also, the Koran is read today in the same language that it was written - so you don't get strange mis-translations e.g. "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for the rich to get into heaven" (*which seems to be conveniently ignored by mainstream Christians, especially the televengelist type*).
> 
> Not that either argument impresses me. An accurate documentation of the thinking of a bronze age society is only relevant for historical interest and should not be used as a guide to behaviour in the 21st century.


Not sure I follow this reasoning. A class of people has said nothing about a particular question, so you conclude there is nothing to be said on it.

I am not entirely sure who is included in your 'televangelist types', but if they truly are ignorant, why enquire of the ignorant? Why not consult any decent evangelical Bible commentary?

There is no need to mess about with the normal translation of 'it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God' (Matthew 19:24 and elsewhere). The hyperbole is deliberate. Jesus frequently employed this mode of expression, using extreme exaggeration to create an impact and arrest the attention of his hearers. There is a Hebrew word for it which I have mislaid, something like _mashal_. Here are some other instances:

'Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household" ' (Matthew 10:34-36)

'If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers, and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple' (Luke 14:26)

So the camel/needle expression is not to be understood literally, but as a figure of speech portraying the great barrier there is to the conversion of those who are happily provided for in this world. Those who have attempted to 'correct' the expression by changing camel to cable, or inventing city gates called 'the needle's eye', or other devices, have misunderstood the Hebrew idiom.

And the total impossibility of a camel passing through a needle's eye fits nicely with the context. The next two verses are:

'When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked "Who then can be saved?"
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is *impossible*, but with God all things are possible" '.


----------



## science

All the same, the Bible is loaded with instructions to care for the widows and orphans, and so on. Jesus' teachings also have plenty of references to visiting the sick and imprisoned, feeding the hungry, and so on, which do not seem meant to be ignored. 

But they very often are.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> All the same, the Bible is loaded with instructions to care for the widows and orphans, and so on. Jesus' teachings also have plenty of references to visiting the sick and imprisoned, feeding the hungry, and so on, which do not seem meant to be ignored.
> 
> But they very often are.


Not that I am saying that failure to strictly adhere to doctrine should be excused, but since when has the inability of the members of any organization to adhere 100% to doctrine or principles been evidence of the falseness of a movement? Nobody is going to argue here that Christians are a perfect people. We try, but we freely admit our fallibility - one of the reasons we acknowledge we need the atonement of Jesus. Following the teachings of Jesus is not about perfection, rather striving to do our best to follow His teachings, and allowing his atonement to bridge the gap we can't hope to overcome.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> All the same, the Bible is loaded with instructions to care for the widows and orphans, and so on. Jesus' teachings also have plenty of references to visiting the sick and imprisoned, feeding the hungry, and so on, which do not seem meant to be ignored.
> 
> *But they very often are*.


I suppose that is based on how observant you are. Christian charities abound. They have been around longer than government welfare programs. They are often the earliest groups in following disasters. Not to say that other groups have not also participated, but it is curious that you are dismissive of the numerous charitable acts by Christian groups.


----------



## mmsbls

@Lukecash12:

I agree with Dr.Mike. These arguments are very difficult in general and more so given that this is a forum devoted to classical music.

I'm confused about your purpose in this thread. You state at the beginning of the OP:

"Then I will present all of the information I have gathered in order to point out that the resurrection story of the canonical gospels is both historically reliable and an excellent proof that Jesus Christ rose from the dead." The second part of this seems like you are saying, "The story that Jesus rose from the dead is an excellent proof that Jesus Christ rose from the dead." I'm assuming you meant something at least somewhat different.

I think you may give eyewitness testimony too much weight. There are many dozens of books describing detailed accounts of alien abductions in our lifetimes. This Wikipedia entry references an early study that found 1,700 people who claimed to be abducted. The actual number of claimed abductees from all sources is probably higher. Clearly the eyewitness evidence for alien abductions is vastly greater than that for the resurrection of Jesus and, in addition, is current rather than roughly 2000 years old. I do not know if you believe strongly that aliens have been abducting many people over the past several decades, but I personally know no one who believes that.

I would also say that your interpretation of extra-biblical sources differs strongly from what I have read. As one example, you write:

"Tacitus, having been a historian employed by Rome, must have had access to official record and is thus a fairly reliable author. Further augmenting the veracity of his statements is the principle concerning the author's circumstance, because he was a professional historian who wasn't invested into the Christian world view and society."

Tacitus calls Pontius Pilatus a procurator rather than a prefect, leading those I have read to suspect precisely that he did not source an official record but rather referenced more general later sources. Overall the extra-biblical evidence is remarkably scant, and none of it is contemporary with Jesus's life. While one _can_ give arguments why that might be so, it _ought_ make an unbiased person skeptical.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> Not that I am saying that failure to strictly adhere to doctrine should be excused, but since when has the inability of the members of any organization to adhere 100% to doctrine or principles been evidence of the falseness of a movement? Nobody is going to argue here that Christians are a perfect people. We try, but we freely admit our fallibility - one of the reasons we acknowledge we need the atonement of Jesus. Following the teachings of Jesus is not about perfection, rather striving to do our best to follow His teachings, and allowing his atonement to bridge the gap we can't hope to overcome.


As so often, you're arguing against something I didn't say. If you're not going to respond to what I actually write, don't quote the post.



DrMike said:


> I suppose that is based on how observant you are. Christian charities abound. They have been around longer than government welfare programs. They are often the earliest groups in following disasters. Not to say that other groups have not also participated, but it is curious that you are dismissive of the numerous charitable acts by Christian groups.


Yup. I know all of that, and I'm not dismissive of anything. I also know how often I heard any of this mentioned in the churches I grew up in.


----------



## Ukko

mmsbls said:


> Tacitus calls Pontius Pilatus a procurator rather than a prefect, leading those I have read to suspect precisely that he did not source an official record but rather referenced more general later sources. Overall the extra-biblical evidence is remarkably scant, and none of it is contemporary with Jesus's life. While one _can_ give arguments why that might be so, it _ought_ make an unbiased person skeptical.


If you mean skepticism in the weak sense, I agree. There is however no reason to be strongly skeptical that a man named Yeshua, a resident of Galilee, chose (or was driven) to prophetize, gained a following, and was crucified in Jerusalem. The occasion would have been unimportant to the Romans, and the Pharisees certainly wouldn't feel a need to publicize any part of it.

To make clear the (deliberate?) official insignificance of the occurrence:

We don't know the identity of the first member of the species Homo Erectus who stepped across the boundary signifying the limit of the African continent, and dignified the occasion with the (meaning lost) statement 'Arumph arghh urf'. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

:tiphat:


----------



## Artemis

Almaviva said:


> .. just as much as talking snakes don't exist ...


I wouldn't be so sure; it could be that snakes have become a whole lot dumber than they used to be.


----------



## mmsbls

Hilltroll72 said:


> If you mean skepticism in the weak sense, I agree. There is however no reason to be strongly skeptical that a man named Yeshua, a resident of Galilee, chose (or was driven) to prophetize, gained a following, and was crucified in Jerusalem. The occasion would have been unimportant to the Romans, and the Pharisees certainly wouldn't feel a need to publicize any part of it.


I agree completely. I was referring to skepticism of the resurrection and Jesus's god-like abilities.


----------



## Lukecash12

graaf said:


> Interesting coincidence, but I saw this documentary yesterday:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In brief, Jesus did not die on the cross - he was removed from the cross before he died by the same Roman centurion who believed in him (the one who had sick friend and wanted Jesus to cure him, so he had "more faith then all of Israel", or something along those lines), and brought a lot of herbs (used as medicine, not as burial ritual) for Jesus. And then no wonder that Jesus was appearing to others showing wounds, like any other man who survived hell (for example, many Jewish people today can show you wounds when they survived Holocaust).
> 
> Also, some tribes in Kashmir say they have Palestinian ancestry and that Jesus came to them after crucifixion, and some Tibetan scripts talk about a man from Palestine, coming at 14yr old and leaving at 29 (corresponds nice to missing years of Jesus). All those things are easily as valid as any of the Gospels, or maybe a bit more, since they were not used to spread religion...
> 
> PS
> It is just a nice documentary, but the irony is that it can easily contain more valid points and reasoning than Bible itself.


Care to support that contention? If you don't, then you will be ignored.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> As so often, you're arguing against something I didn't say. If you're not going to respond to what I actually write, don't quote the post.


Well then what were you saying, because it certainly seemed like a criticism of Christianity on account of your being acquainted with some that were not fully living their religion. If you wouldn't mind elaborating on what you did say so that I might more fully understand, it would be appreciated.


----------



## Lukecash12

DrMike said:


> @Lukecash12-
> While I am certainly sympathetic to what you are trying to accomplish here, and also believe in the authenticity of the gospel accounts and the truth of the resurrection, I don't think you will achieve here what you are attempting. While these apologetics may have at one point had a wider audience, I'm afraid that these days the interest in them is primarily among the already converted. The odds of proving an event witnessed by so few so long ago is difficult in the extreme even under the best of circumstances, and so much relies on faith - which is, I believe, as it should be. That is what sets religion apart. Try all you might, I doubt you will change minds with such an exposition. While I, and I am sure other Christians, will find the research you have done interesting, those unconvinced of Christianity are not likely to be as swayed.


That's not exactly the wall I'm running into. You see, an apologetic can be very effective in an academic environment, and even garner converts. However, it's a hit .1% to a 99.9% miss ratio when it comes to any other environment. No offense to anyone, but out of an academic setting people are willing to engage in much more inconsistent epistemic logic, are perfectly willing to suppose things they don't have any support for (such as suppositions about a translation process, or about ancient sociology), and generally don't have any intent to set down standards and agree to them.

So, I cast a net out, in order to see if anyone is interested in serious formal debate, or they benefit merely from the material I gave. Such is the circumstance of practicing apologetics on a regular basis.


----------



## Lukecash12

mmsbls said:


> @Lukecash12:
> 
> I agree with Dr.Mike. These arguments are very difficult in general and more so given that this is a forum devoted to classical music.
> 
> I'm confused about your purpose in this thread. You state at the beginning of the OP:
> 
> "Then I will present all of the information I have gathered in order to point out that the resurrection story of the canonical gospels is both historically reliable and an excellent proof that Jesus Christ rose from the dead." The second part of this seems like you are saying, "The story that Jesus rose from the dead is an excellent proof that Jesus Christ rose from the dead." I'm assuming you meant something at least somewhat different.
> 
> I think you may give eyewitness testimony too much weight. There are many dozens of books describing detailed accounts of alien abductions in our lifetimes. This Wikipedia entry references an early study that found 1,700 people who claimed to be abducted. The actual number of claimed abductees from all sources is probably higher. Clearly the eyewitness evidence for alien abductions is vastly greater than that for the resurrection of Jesus and, in addition, is current rather than roughly 2000 years old. I do not know if you believe strongly that aliens have been abducting many people over the past several decades, but I personally know no one who believes that.
> 
> I would also say that your interpretation of extra-biblical sources differs strongly from what I have read. As one example, you write:
> 
> "Tacitus, having been a historian employed by Rome, must have had access to official record and is thus a fairly reliable author. Further augmenting the veracity of his statements is the principle concerning the author's circumstance, because he was a professional historian who wasn't invested into the Christian world view and society."
> 
> Tacitus calls Pontius Pilatus a procurator rather than a prefect, leading those I have read to suspect precisely that he did not source an official record but rather referenced more general later sources. Overall the extra-biblical evidence is remarkably scant, and none of it is contemporary with Jesus's life. While one _can_ give arguments why that might be so, it _ought_ make an unbiased person skeptical.


Ah sir, but I don't give eyewitnesses any more credence than the modern judicial system does. Not all witnesses are made equal, at all.


----------



## Almaviva

Lukecash12 said:


> Care to support that contention? If you don't, then you will be ignored.


Care to be nicer to your fellow TC members? If you don't, then you will be ignored. Or worse.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Care to be nicer to your fellow TC members? If you don't, then you will be ignored. Or worse.


But isn't one of the tools available to TC members the ability to put members on an ignore list so that their posts are not visible to you? So why would something worse happen to him if he chose to exercise this function of the forum?


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> But isn't one of the tools available to TC members the ability to put members on an ignore list so that their posts are not visible to you? So why would something worse happen to him if he chose to exercise this function of the forum?


Dr. Mike, I think it's pretty visible to everybody here (e.g., read post #20; and probably to you as well, but you wouldn't miss this opportunity to counter me, would you?) that the attitude of the OP is less than friendly with his fellow members. I don't like it. It certainly is rubbing some members the wrong way, me included. This is not really the tone we try to promote here. It strikes me as rather arrogant and contemptuous. So, I'm giving him a "friendly" advice about adopting a more productive tone, or in other more precise words (my intervention wasn't that friendly), a dose of his own remedy. All this "I'll set the conditions of this debate" etc. is rather off-putting. This is not a polite way to invite people to debate with you.

Do I agree with a single letter of his long argumentation? No. But then, I don't agree with you either and I've never wrote this kind of rebuke to you. Why? Simple: because you address your fellow posters with civility (almost all the time, hehehe). Big difference.

So I'm not posting this rebuke because I don't agree with the content of his ideas, but rather, because I don't agree with his tone and the impolite way he chose to use when talking to fellow members. Graaf's intervention was pretty mild, saying "it's just a documentary" and the response from the OP was harsh.

I care for the civility of this place and won't put up with this sort of thing. Call me heavy handed if you will, but my patience with this kind of discourse is not infinite.

I didn't lock the thread and I didn't give the member an infraction or anything like this. I'm letting this proceed unchanged. But I'd like to see a more polite tone, or else.

Oh, and by the way, Dr. Mike, if I needed any justification for what I did, here it is, from the letter of the law of the land (our Terms of Service):

"Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner."

The OP's general stance since the first post falls short of this.


----------



## Ukko

Lukecash12 said:


> That's not exactly the wall I'm running into. You see, an apologetic can be very effective in an academic environment, and even garner converts. However, it's a hit .1% to a 99.9% miss ratio when it comes to any other environment. No offense to anyone, but out of an academic setting people are willing to engage in much more inconsistent epistemic logic, are perfectly willing to suppose things they don't have any support for (such as suppositions about a translation process, or about ancient sociology), and generally don't have any intent to set down standards and agree to them.
> 
> So, I cast a net out, in order to see if anyone is interested in serious formal debate, or they benefit merely from the material I gave. Such is the circumstance of practicing apologetics on a regular basis.


You appear to be admitting that you have started this thread in an inappropriate forum. I agree.


----------



## Lukecash12

Almaviva said:


> Dr. Mike, I think it's pretty visible to everybody here (e.g., read post #20; and probably to you as well, but you wouldn't miss this opportunity to counter me, would you?) that the attitude of the OP is less than friendly with his fellow members. I don't like it. It certainly is rubbing some members the wrong way, me included. This is not really the tone we try to promote here. It strikes me as rather arrogant and contemptuous. So, I'm giving him a "friendly" advice about adopting a more productive tone, or in other more precise words (my intervention wasn't that friendly), a dose of his own remedy. All this "I'll set the conditions of this debate" etc. is rather off-putting. This is not a polite way to invite people to debate with you.
> 
> Do I agree with a single letter of his long argumentation? No. But then, I don't agree with you either and I've never wrote this kind of rebuke to you. Why? Simple: because you address your fellow posters with civility (almost all the time, hehehe). Big difference.
> 
> So I'm not posting this rebuke because I don't agree with the content of his ideas, but rather, because I don't agree with his tone and the impolite way he chose to use when talking to fellow members. Graaf's intervention was pretty mild, saying "it's just a documentary" and the response from the OP was harsh.
> 
> I care for the civility of this place and won't put up with this sort of thing. Call me heavy handed if you will, but my patience with this kind of discourse is not infinite.
> 
> I didn't lock the thread and I didn't give the member an infraction or anything like this. I'm letting this proceed unchanged. But I'd like to see a more polite tone, or else.


Thank you for giving me the impetus to properly explain myself. I don't reserve any judgment for anyone because of the standards I have for formal debate. Maybe it wasn't apparent, but the proposition was formal debate, and not only were the standards consistent with the proposed academic setting, but they discriminated for no party. I am just as willing to support a contention, as I am willing to point out that no factual support has been given for a contention.

As for this idea that I project contempt, I'd like to say that I project objectivity. I offer an objective environment, where if one were to participate with me in it he/she would be wheeling and dealing in facts. How is this demonstrable? Well, I haven't answered any criticisms leveled with support thus far, because I am not interested in having that kind of discussion. As for myself, I've given peer reviewed articles.

So, let's just level this whole idea that projections were given, and accept that a proposition was given; no more, no less.


----------



## Almaviva

Hilltroll72 said:


> You appear to be admitting that you have started this thread in an inappropriate forum. I agree.


Me too. ....


----------



## Almaviva

Lukecash12 said:


> Thank you for giving me the impetus to properly explain myself. I don't reserve any judgment for anyone because of the standards I have for formal debate. Maybe it wasn't apparent, but the proposition was formal debate, and not only were the standards consistent with the proposed academic setting, but they discriminated for no party. I am just as willing to support a contention, as I am willing to point out that no factual support has been given for a contention.
> 
> As for this idea that I project contempt, I'd like to say that I project objectivity. I offer an objective environment, where if one were to participate with me in it he/she would be wheeling and dealing in facts. How is this demonstrable? Well, I haven't answered any criticisms leveled with support thus far, because I am not interested in having that kind of discussion. As for myself, I've given peer reviewed articles.
> 
> So, let's just level this whole idea that projections were given, and accept that a proposition was given; no more, no less.


So maybe you should reserve your high standards to an academic setting but while here, you might want to uphold the terms of service you signed up for and treat opponents with civility, regardless of whether or not they meet your expectations.

If our crowd here doesn't fulfill your academic needs, please kindly take this debate (and your attitude) to whatever place you believe will be more receptive of it. But while here, you *will *treat people nicely (I'll see to it).


----------



## Amfibius

I would have to agree with Almaviva. Like you, I am an academic and I am a member of a few forums, including a few closed academic forums that discuss my area of specialty. The tone of any forum, even one full of professionals and academics, is always less formal than what you would find in a journal, or a scientific meeting, or a conference. I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I don't think you will get the responses you are looking for here.


----------



## Lukecash12

Almaviva said:


> So maybe you should reserve your high standards to an academic setting but while here, you might want to uphold the terms of service you signed up for and treat opponents with civility, regardless of whether or not they meet your expectations.
> 
> If our crowd here doesn't fulfill your academic needs, please kindly take this debate (and your attitude) to whatever place you believe will be more receptive of it. But while here, you *will *treat people nicely (I'll see to it).


Once again, I have projected no emotion whatsoever except civility. I may have been clinical, but I think it should be fairly clear to anyone who read my posts in the most literal sense that I haven't reserved any type of judgement for anyone. Whatever attitude you thought was given you, was not expressed in any literal sense. If you were offended, then you read between the lines, and those things you read between the lines didn't happen to be there.


----------



## Ravellian

I also think you're approaching your beliefs completely wrong if you're trying to "prove" it in the manner of a strictly "formalized" debate (whatever that means). Religion is not a science.

Moreover, I read all of your posts and I thought I gave very clear reasons why I disagree. It sounds like you're just trying to dismiss me (and others) as ignorant. Doesn't your God tell you to be humble?


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> Well then what were you saying, because it certainly seemed like a criticism of Christianity on account of your being acquainted with some that were not fully living their religion. If you wouldn't mind elaborating on what you did say so that I might more fully understand, it would be appreciated.


Of course it was a criticism of Christians - especially of fundamentalist ones. It was not an argument that therefore their religion isn't true. I could argue that, and if I did, the bad behavior of Christians would not appear in my argument.

Notice how that - the central - part of your response has been dropped now? It's the old bait & switch. I'm sure that you were perfectly aware of what you were doing, and that you did it on purpose.


----------



## mmsbls

Ravellian said:


> I also think you're approaching your beliefs completely wrong if you're trying to "prove" it in the manner of a strictly "formalized" debate (whatever that means). Religion is not a science.
> 
> Moreover, I read all of your posts and I thought I gave very clear reasons why I disagree. It sounds like you're just trying to dismiss me (and others) as ignorant. Doesn't your God tell you to be humble?


I agree with Ravellian on both points here. Your OP mentioned proving a real world event (Jesus rose from the dead). Only logic and math propositions can be proved. Even science does not prove things, but simply increases support for given hypotheses.

Also I'm not sure if you ignored Ravellian because his well argued post did not include references to experts.


----------



## Ravellian

I'm guessing he just wants input from other scholars who can provide some argument as to why a certain verse of a certain book of the Bible is questionable and so forth. Don't think there are any other such scholars here besides LukeCash. To me, such matters of detail are irrelevant with regards to one's belief...


----------



## mmsbls

Lukecash12 said:


> Tacitus, having been a historian employed by Rome, must have had access to official record and is thus a fairly reliable author. Further augmenting the veracity of his statements is the principle concerning the author's circumstance, because he was a professional historian who wasn't invested into the Christian world view and society.
> 
> Concerning the author, Josephus is obviously unbiased, given his stance as Jewish and his stance as a Roman historian.





Lukecash12 said:


> And now let's see Price's demonstration of Luke's abilities, of which his conclusion is the same as Sherwin-White (Sherwin-White being an important expert because he is a professional historian, and not a NT critic):
> 
> Now, by virtue of it's author being a historian of great diligence, whether or not he was indeed Luke the beloved physician (which I can make a very strong case for), we can say that Luke/Acts is a very reliable work.


You seem to consider professional expertise quite important in establishing the reliability of someone's views. Perhaps your stated standard, "if you do not support a claim, are challenged to support it, and then still don't support it, then your claim will be ignored" even requires references from experts (professional historians). In my academic field argument from authority doesn't get one very far.

Your signature quotes Einstein: "Your mathematics are correct, but your physics are abominable..." I'm not sure if you know the circumstances of this quote, but it is a perfect example showing why arguing from authority is not recommended.


----------



## Lukecash12

mmsbls said:


> You seem to consider professional expertise quite important in establishing the reliability of someone's views. Perhaps your stated standard, "if you do not support a claim, are challenged to support it, and then still don't support it, then your claim will be ignored" even requires references from experts (professional historians). In my academic field argument from authority doesn't get one very far.
> 
> Your signature quotes Einstein: "Your mathematics are correct, but your physics are abominable..." I'm not sure if you know the circumstances of this quote, but it is a perfect example showing why arguing from authority is not recommended.


1. I consider professional expertise important to a _certain extent_ in classical history. This is because professionals study the relevant languages, are familiar with contemporary historical works, and not only submit to methodologies but have their journals reviewed by peers with the same area of expertise before they submit their work to the public.

2. The quotations I gave were full of verifiable facts, facts that were cited in the articles. I merely presented my line of reasoning by referring to you articles that represented my academic position.


----------



## Almaviva

Lukecash12 said:


> Once again, *I have projected no emotion whatsoever except civility.*


I hope so, for your sake. I'll be watching. In this kind of situation, *one* warning with no further action is warranted. It's been delivered.



> I may have been clinical, but I think it should be fairly clear to anyone who read my posts in the most literal sense that I haven't reserved any type of judgement for anyone. Whatever attitude you thought was given you, was not expressed in any literal sense. If you were offended, then you read between the lines, and* those things you read between the lines didn't happen to be there.*


I don't really agree, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, as long as you don't further stray from our terms of service. If what you're saying holds, then you should expect no trouble whatsoever from me. But if I indeed read you right and your attitude was arrogant and contemptuous and the whole point of this thread is to insist on how you'll "ignore" the people you don't feel are worthy of your consideration or don't meet your high standards (after having invited them to a discussion by starting a thread), then don't expect any further leniency from me.

See, in my opinion the Original Poster of a thread invites other members to discuss a topic, and *should feel honored *that others respond to the invitation with their thoughts. When I start a thread about, say, opera (one of my areas of interest), and some newcomer to the field makes a naïve, unwarranted, groundless, and misguided contribution, my attitude is generally one of thanking the person for his/her kindness in upholding the invitation to debate, and providing gentle guidance if I can, or gently disagreeing if it's the case. I most definitely don't rebuke the person right away after ONE respectful contribution (like the one authored by esteemed member graaf above) by "ignoring" the member. This is basic human decency. While the obligation to be civil applies to everyone here, I believe that *especially* the original poster must welcome contributors and treat them nicely, and make sure that everyone who accepts his/her invitation gets some attention and a nice response.

What you did was - "hey, I'm this huge expert on this topic, I've just done this amazing research, and I brought it here to debate it with you so join me - but if you don't debate it the way *I* want and under *MY* conditions, you'll be ignored." And then you went ahead and replied to one of your invitees with another threat of ignoring him. While like Dr.Mike said the forum does provide the "ignore" function, certainly one would expect that it'd be used when someone actually gives you a good reason to use it (such as, by offending you, etc.), not when someone is trying to respectfully reply to your own invitation to debate a topic.

You sir are a gifted, talented, and learned theology scholar, and this is fine and admirable (in certain circles), but from the way you've framed your debate and the strategies you've used, I believe it is fair to conclude that you could benefit from a bit of training in basic peoples skills.


----------



## Lukecash12

Ravellian said:


> I also think you're approaching your beliefs completely wrong if you're trying to "prove" it in the manner of a strictly "formalized" debate (whatever that means). Religion is not a science.
> 
> Moreover, I read all of your posts and I thought I gave very clear reasons why I disagree. It sounds like you're just trying to dismiss me (and others) as ignorant. Doesn't your God tell you to be humble?


You appeared fairly content to make several claims that you didn't cite with evidence. Not to mention that some of your comments were off topic:



> Pretty harsh, huh? Sounds to me less like the worship place of a loving God and more like a temple for zealots of some barbaric religion.





> "Priestly duties selected by Lot." So... they didn't even pray or anything?


This is an excellent example of something you didn't support:



> Then you make a post about Paul's account in 1st Corinthians, which is not eyewitness testimony, but based on what he "heard" from other people.


I provided the evidence that it was a creedal formula that dated anywhere from 3-5 years after Christ's death. I also provided evidence that this formula came from Peter and James. You were the one who deemed it unnecessary to even contend with the proof for my facts, and dismissed them offhandedly.



> What's the big deal about dating here? As they said, a "prediction" of the Temple falling in 70 AD wasn't exactly revolutionary.


The big deal about dating is that the earlier a document is, the less likely it is that legendary development could have corrupted the text. The reason that legendary development is less likely in an early document is that more eyewitnesses would have been around to point out errors in this kind of a society: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_tradition_bailey.html



> As indicated by the title, the setting is informal. The traditional scene is the gathering of villagers in the evening for the telling of stories and the recitation of poetry. These gatherings have a name: they are called haflat samar. Samar in Arabic is a cognate of the Hebrew shamar, meaning 'to preserve'. The community is preserving its store of tradition. By informal we mean that there is no set teacher and no specifically identified student. As stories, poems and other traditional materials are told and recited through the evening, anyone can theoretically participate. In fact, the older men, the more gifted men, and the socially more prominent men tend to do the reciting. The reciters will shift depending on who is seated in the circle. Young people can have their own haflat samar where the same selection process prevails but produces, naturally, different reciters. I have often been seated in such circles when some piece of traditional oral literature is quoted. I might not happen to know the story and so proceed to ask what it is all about. Someone then says, 'Elder so-and-so knows the story.' The ranking social/intellectual figure then proceeds to tell the story with pride. By contrast, in the recitation of formal controlled oral tradition there is a specifically identified teacher with a recognized title and a specifically identified student. The two of them often meet in a special building, a school or college.
> 
> Nielsen discusses Middle Eastern story-telling but has turned to bedouin culture and noted the professional storytellers who, he claims, roam from campfire to campfire telling their tales. I am not an expert in bedouin culture and so cannot comment on his undocumented remarks. I do know how these things work in the settled, traditional village. The elders are on couches lining the walls, doing the reciting. Everyone else in the room and in the adjoining rooms are the informal 'students' listening to the elders pass on the tradition of the community. Anyone in the community can be a reciter. No official storytellers or official students are designated. Those who dominate the recitation process shift naturally, much like the shifting of speakers in the average group discussion. Who does the talking is determined by who is there. At the same time, there are parameters. Only those within the community who have grown up hearing the stories have the right to recite them in public gatherings of the village. I can recall vividly, in the village of Kom al-Akhdar in the south of Egypt, asking a particular person about the village traditions. He was in his sixties and seemed to be an appropriate person to ask. He offered a few remarks and was soon interrupted by others around the circle who said,
> 
> 'He wouldn't understand - he is not from this village.'
> 
> 'How long has he lived here?' I queried.
> 
> 'Only thirty-seven years,' came the calm answer.
> 
> Poor fellow - he didn't understand, he was an outsider - only thirty-seven years - surely not long enough to be allowed to recite the village traditions in public.


Refer back to my first post for an exposition of what legendary development is.

Now more from you:



> Based on the facts presented, the following seems the most appropriate explanation: Jesus was a real man, who happened to have a small group of devoted followers, or disciples. These followers were probably superstitious, impressionable people who were captivated by Jesus for whatever reason, probably because of the promise of "eternal life" after death. After Jesus dies, he "appears" post-mortum only to his disciples. Then, the gospels get written, only one of which is an actual eyewitness account (a disciple).


Based on *what* facts presented? I established pretty clearly that the documents were sourced by first hand witnesses, irrefutably so with Luke/Acts considering his propensity for recording numerous facts that would have been difficult to find without the aid of first hand witnesses, given the circumstances of the times.



> Sorry, but no. You can't make the logical leap of "The disciples were enthusiastic, therefore Christianity must be true." There have been lots of crazy people throughout history who have been willing to believe just about anything (see: the Muslim religion). What makes these disciples any different?


That is not the logical "leap" being made. The distinction was made that the disciples were not only first hand witnesses, but extremely reliable ones. Considering the sociology of the day and age, often coined "honor and shame" ( http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/tillstill7-5.html ), they wouldn't have behaved the way they did, had they not actually witnessed a resurrected person. Jewish people who had been publicly deposed, and didn't already have much of a following at all, defied the eschatology, soteriology, and brand of monotheism that they had been taught from birth. If the tomb had not been empty, the Jewish authorities could have had Jesus exhumed in order to humiliate them, and many of them were martyred for their beliefs.

Paul converted from a Christian *killer* to a missionary who suffered under emperors like and including *Nero*. James was stoned for his belief in Christ, even though he was a staunch naturalist before he became a Christian.



> The point of these discussions seems to be trying to factually prove that Jesus actually performed miracles and was actually resurrected. What I wonder: if Jesus was actually God and God did want everyone to believe in him, why wouldn't he make his magical powers more obvious? Why would he only resurrect Jesus so that his disciples could see him? Why didn't Jesus exist during the age of photography and video cameras?


The point of the discussion was proposed fairly clearly: That the resurrection of Christ is a historical fact.

Edit: I'd like to amend my earlier definition of the principle of embarrassment. What I meant to express is that when a source admits something that may weaken it's position, then it tends to be true.


----------



## Ravellian

_Based on what facts presented? I established pretty clearly that the documents were sourced by first hand witnesses, irrefutably so with Luke/Acts considering his propensity for recording numerous facts that would have been difficult to find without the aid of first hand witnesses, given the circumstances of the times._

Yes, but Luke himself wasn't a witness, correct? Considering how thorough a historian he was, his input would have more weight if he were a direct witness to the events himself. And the same with Paul's Creed from 1st Corinthians. As it stands, 99% of the material from these early writers seems to stem from a very select group of a few of Jesus' zealot followers.

I just don't see why the entirety of the Christian faith (and eternal life and all that) should have to hinge on taking the word of a few fanatics.

_That is not the logical "leap" being made. The distinction was made that the disciples were not only first hand witnesses, but extremely reliable ones. Considering the sociology of the day and age, often coined "honor and shame" ( http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/tillstill7-5.html ), they wouldn't have behaved the way they did, had they not actually witnessed a resurrected person. Jewish people who had been publicly deposed, and didn't already have much of a following at all, defied the eschatology, soteriology, and brand of monotheism that they had been taught from birth. If the tomb had not been empty, the Jewish authorities could have had Jesus exhumed in order to humiliate them, and many of them were martyred for their beliefs.

Paul converted from a Christian killer to a missionary who suffered under emperors like and including Nero. James was stoned for his belief in Christ, even though he was a staunch naturalist before he became a Christian._

Call me a cynic, but there are plenty of people throughout history who have been willing to kill themselves for some pointless cause (see: suicide bombers). The actions of men themselves do nothing to convince me.

And no, I'm not citing any sources, I'm answering your arguments through logic and reason alone (the same as any scholar would). I'm not trying to pass off my opinions as fact, I'm just trying to demonstrate that the facts you presented really aren't any convincing proof that the resurrection is true.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

> Care to support that contention? If you don't, then you will be ignored.


that's dumb [1]

[1] Sir Humphrey Bogard Huffington IV of the Institute of Unicorn Farts, "Unicorns and Unemployment: Relation?" The Oxford Journal of Unicorns and Cryptology in America. Ed. Aubrey S. Bernstein. Vol. 293. 1973. Print.


----------



## samurai

This is just an observation coming from a non-partisan observer who was taught by his parents that one of the topics in which never to engage with--especially strangers--but people in general as well is that of religion, since it is based on belief, which one either has or doesn't have. 
Building on this concept then, I would most respectfully and humbly inquire of the OP if he doesn't think that both this topic--and also himself--would be better served if he were to move it to a different type of discussion group available-- {I'm sure} on the Web? In other words, a site which basically dealt solely or primarily with religious issues? To me, this whole question of one's religion--or lack thereof--is a very private and personal matter, and should be between himself/herself and their own God, or whatever Divine power one might believe in--or not. 
Perhaps because I ran into a lot of prejudice when I was younger--mistakenly based on what people "thought" I was, I am overly sensitive on this topic. I just know everytime this kind of "debate" is broached--be it online or in real life--I get a really bad feeling in my gut.
Can't we get back to Classical Music?


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Of course it was a criticism of Christians - especially of fundamentalist ones. It was not an argument that therefore their religion isn't true. I could argue that, and if I did, the bad behavior of Christians would not appear in my argument.
> 
> Notice how that - the central - part of your response has been dropped now? It's the old bait & switch. I'm sure that you were perfectly aware of what you were doing, and that you did it on purpose.


Believe what you will of me and my motives. In one post you talked about how you now know that the Christian faith is not true. And in the next you criticize Christians for not always living up to their teachings - you said nothing of fundamentalists. While you may not have explicitly said a thing, the implications of your statements are there. Perhaps I read too much into the connection I saw - if you see some purposeful motive on my part, or some "bait & switch," well, then are you not engaging in what you criticize me for?


----------



## Lukecash12

Almaviva said:


> I hope so, for your sake. I'll be watching. In this kind of situation, *one* warning with no further action is warranted. It's been delivered.


Of course, you are the one who was delegated the position of moderator. Such is your prerogative and earned right. And this fact I respect, especially because I've moderated at a few sites and appreciate your position.



> I don't really agree, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, as long as you don't further stray from our terms of service. If what you're saying holds, then you should expect no trouble whatsoever from me. But if I indeed read you right and your attitude was arrogant and contemptuous and the whole point of this thread is to insist on how you'll "ignore" the people you don't feel are worthy of your consideration or don't meet your high standards (after having invited them to a discussion by starting a thread), then don't expect any further leniency from me.
> 
> See, in my opinion the Original Poster of a thread invites other members to discuss a topic, and *should feel honored *that others respond to the invitation with their thoughts. When I start a thread about, say, opera (one of my areas of interest), and some newcomer to the field makes a naïve, unwarranted, groundless, and misguided contribution, my attitude is generally one of thanking the person for his/her kindness in upholding the invitation to debate, and providing gentle guidance if I can, or gently disagreeing if it's the case. I most definitely don't rebuke the person right away after ONE respectful contribution (like the one authored by esteemed member graaf above) by "ignoring" the member. This is basic human decency. While the obligation to be civil applies to everyone here, I believe that *especially* the original poster must welcome contributors and treat them nicely, and make sure that everyone who accepts his/her invitation gets some attention and a nice response.
> 
> What you did was - "hey, I'm this huge expert on this topic, I've just done this amazing research, and I brought it here to debate it with you so join me - but if you don't debate it the way *I* want and under *MY* conditions, you'll be ignored." And then you went ahead and replied to one of your invitees with another threat of ignoring him. While like Dr.Mike said the forum does provide the "ignore" function, certainly one would expect that it'd be used when someone actually gives you a good reason to use it (such as, by offending you, etc.), not when someone is trying to respectfully reply to your own invitation to debate a topic.
> 
> You sir are a gifted, talented, and learned theology scholar, and this is fine and admirable (in certain circles), but from the way you've framed your debate and the strategies you've used, I believe it is fair to conclude that you could benefit from a bit of training in basic peoples skills.


Actually sir, those aren't my conditions. Those are some of the conditions of formal debate. I proposed a formal debate, so it would be off topic for us not to be participating in and adhering to the conditions for a formal debate. There was no emphasis given to my expertise at all, because I enjoy plenty of respect for the work I've done. My satisfaction in my efforts is good enough, that I don't need to participate in behavior that degrades others.

However, when I do propose a thing, I do propose it in plain English and am in fact proposing it. Which is to say: That my ignoring someone doesn't project anything emotional towards the person being ignored. Not only that, but I established that I ignore people only after they refuse to support their contentions, and not before.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Lukecash12 said:


> ...Not only that, but I established that I ignore people only after they refuse to support their contentions, and not before.


What you're saying is you choose to respond or not based on what you consider to be "reasonable evidence". If I responded by using general reasoning alone, you may well disregard that because it is not "formal scholarly evidence". So much for community invitation for discussion. As I said in my first post in this thread (#20), this topic deserves its own address elsewhere in the www. And all this apparent "formality" that come with this thread is, quite frankly, spurious.


----------



## Lukecash12

> Yes, but Luke himself wasn't a witness, correct? Considering how thorough a historian he was, his input would have more weight if he were a direct witness to the events himself. And the same with Paul's Creed from 1st Corinthians. As it stands, 99% of the material from these early writers seems to stem from a very select group of a few of Jesus' zealot followers.
> 
> I just don't see why the entirety of the Christian faith (and eternal life and all that) should have to hinge on taking the word of a few fanatics.


1. Luke was not a witness. However, his work that we call Luke/Acts has to have been directly based off of witnesses. Otherwise it would have been impossible to record as much geographical, cultural, and political facts as he did. Not only that, but Luke's work was circulated when most witnesses were alive, and would have corrected or even deposed him in an society with an informal controlled oral tradition (ICOT is what I gave you a link for).

2. Paul and James were skeptics to start with. Are naturalists and enemies of the faith likely to be fanatics for the faith if they choose to follow it? Not to mention that the disciples came up with an original claim and unpopular claim in an honor and shame society, and did so without much of a following.

3. None of those objections answer the empty tomb.



> Call me a cynic, but there are plenty of people throughout history who have been willing to kill themselves for some pointless cause (see: suicide bombers). The actions of men themselves do nothing to convince me.
> 
> And no, I'm not citing any sources, I'm answering your arguments through logic and reason alone (the same as any scholar would). I'm not trying to pass off my opinions as fact, I'm just trying to demonstrate that the facts you presented really aren't any convincing proof that the resurrection is true.


Some elements of the disciples that disparage comparisons between them and people like fanatical suicide bombers:

1. The disciples shunned the religion of their childhood in an honor and shame society.
2. Paul and James were exceedingly skeptical to start with.
3. They were first hand witnesses, not just followers of an ideology.
4. The claim they made was original *to them*, that a person was physically resurrected.


----------



## Lukecash12

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> What you're saying is you choose to respond or not based on what you consider to be "reasonable evidence". If I responded by using general reasoning alone, you may well disregard that because it is not "formal scholarly evidence". So much for community invitation for discussion. As I said in my first post in this thread (#20), this topic deserves its own address elsewhere in the www. And all this apparent "formality" that come with this thread is, quite frankly, spurious.


No, that is not what I expressed. "Formal scholarly evidence" is not an oppression I belabor people with, other than myself. Try this example on for size:

I say: "The disciples claim of a physical resurrection before the Jewish eschatologic resurrection was original to them."

An opponent says: "Mithra was physically resurrected too."

I say: "Care to tell me where you heard that?"

My opponent: "No. It's a well known fact."

I then ignore this person.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> Believe what you will of me and my motives. In one post you talked about how you now know that the Christian faith is not true. And in the next you criticize Christians for not always living up to their teachings - you said nothing of fundamentalists. While you may not have explicitly said a thing, the implications of your statements are there. Perhaps I read too much into the connection I saw - if you see some purposeful motive on my part, or some "bait & switch," well, then are you not engaging in what you criticize me for?


I said A. 
I said B.

I did not say or imply A --> B.

Your argument that A -/-> B is irrelevant to anything I said, as you knew and know.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Lukecash12 said:


> No, that is not what I expressed. "Formal scholarly evidence" is not an oppression I belabor people with, other than myself. Try this example on for size:
> 
> I say: "The disciples claim of a physical resurrection before the Jewish eschatologic resurrection was original to them."
> 
> An opponent says: "Mithra was physically resurrected too."
> 
> I say: "Care to tell me where you heard that?"
> 
> My opponent: "No. It's a well known fact."
> 
> I then ignore this person.


I say the ressurection is a good story, as is Adam & Eve. But just because a small handful of disciples who were ordinary folks and claimed they witnessed the physical ressurection of Jesus Christ, don't constitute anymore evidence than people who claim they have seen ghosts. That is the whole weak foundation of your thread here. What you claim to be sufficent evidence for you, does not necessarily constitute sufficiently rigorous evidence for many of us. Remember, you used the word "evidence"; had you described it all as "faith", that would be a different matter (and a more respectable one, too).


----------



## Almaviva

> The principle of embarrassment- *Simple intuition* tells us that one wouldn't relate to us a personally embarassing fact if it weren't the truth. This can apply especially in ancient societies, considering their sociology.
> 
> *Eyewitness testimony*- The pursuit of whether or not something was ultimately based on eyewitness testimony, which involves intensive study of the author and his possible relationship with eyewitnesses, just might be the most important litmus of a story.
> 
> The circumstance and *reliability of the author*- Not to be confused with the pursuit of eyewitness testimony, this has to do with the veracity of the story according to the character traits of the author. Often this litmus has to do with potential bias and how much bias there is.


So basically you're relying upon rather subjective factors while you claim objectivity? Here you have an intuition, a second-hand hearsay account, and an *opinion* about someone's character. You consider these to be sufficient evidence, but you hold your opponents to a higher standard of evidence-presenting, otherwise you'll ignore what they have to say. And this is what you call a formal, academic debate.


----------



## Lukecash12

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I say the ressurection is a good story, as is Adam & Eve. But just because a small handful of disciples who were ordinary folks and claimed they witnessed the physical ressurection of Jesus Christ, don't constitute anymore evidence than people who claim they have seen ghosts. That is the whole weak foundation of your thread here. What you claim to be sufficent evidence for you, does not necessarily constitute sufficiently rigorous evidence for many of us. Remember, you used the word "evidence"; had you described it all as "faith", that would be a different matter (and a more respectable one, too).


The evidential weight of eye witness testimony isn't much at all, I agree, if you don't apply any sociology or psychology to your considerations. I attested to the evidential quality of the witnesses in post 65, if you would be so kind to take a look.

I'm going to be frank, but most definitely without the intent of offending you. It appears that you don't give credence to witnesses because you aren't so educated in the science of our modern judicial systems. The factors that I've given, especially the professional diagnosis I referred to my opponent on an honor and shame society, are actually considered in cases even today that involve murder. Actually, a good deal of affect is had on a trial with eyewitnesses that haven't been profiled nearly as well as the authors of the gospels have been profiled by professional historians.

So yes, I do consider something to be proper evidence when the modern world considers the work of professionals in this area to be influential enough to convict people of murder with that type of evidence alone.


----------



## Lukecash12

Almaviva said:


> So basically you're relying upon rather subjective factors while you claim objectivity? Here you have an intuition, a second-hand hearsay account, and an *opinion* about someone's character. You consider these to be sufficient evidence, but you hold your opponents to a higher standard of evidence-presenting, otherwise you'll ignore what they have to say. And this is what you call a formal, academic debate.


I actually would like to amend that first observation, to Gary Habermas' better description:

The principle of embarrassment- An author isn't _as_ likely to record something that could compromise his case, unless it is true. (if that seems like a silly consideration for such a big issue, it is maybe because you aren't familiar with the nature of classical history; cumulative cases are ultimately stronger and more rationally acceptable to the academic community, so this trend supports an immaculate attention to detail)

As for your contention about my "subjective" sources of evidence, please read post 70. Not to mention that I pointed out that one of the accounts had to have been based on reliable first hand witnesses, by educating my readers as to the difficulty of recording political, geographical, and cultural facts during the time, and pointing out that Luke/Acts could not have been as accurate as it is without being based upon excellent first hand testimony.

And I'm just stretching and coughing a little when it comes to that, because I have decades of study in the historicity of each of the Gospels. We've just started on that topic.

Lastly, I pointed out the ICOT (informal controlled oral tradition) that continues to this day to be part of near eastern culture, the controls that it exerts on historical claims made amongst a base of witnesses, and that the creedal tradition from Corinthians 15 was 3-5 years removed from the events it recorded in this very same culture.


----------



## Lukecash12

Amfibius said:


> I would have to agree with Almaviva. Like you, I am an academic and I am a member of a few forums, including a few closed academic forums that discuss my area of specialty. The tone of any forum, even one full of professionals and academics, is always less formal than what you would find in a journal, or a scientific meeting, or a conference. I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I don't think you will get the responses you are looking for here.


A wise appraisal, but good apologetics are worthless if no one is aware of them. You probably understand well enough the impetus I work under (the Great Commission), and why I would be obligated to serve in the way that I can best.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Lukecash12 said:


> I'm going to be frank, but most definitely without the intent of offending you. It appears that you don't give credence to witnesses because you aren't so educated in the science of our modern judicial systems. The factors that I've given, especially the professional diagnosis I referred to my opponent on an honor and shame society, are actually considered in cases even today that involve murder. Actually, a good deal of affect is had on a trial with eyewitnesses that haven't been profiled nearly as well as the authors of the gospels have been profiled by professional historians.
> 
> So yes, I do consider something to be proper evidence when the modern world considers the work of professionals in this area to be influential enough to convict people of murder with that type of evidence alone.


You are doing drawing parallels between witnesses to supernatural events and witnesses to non-supernatural events (murder, in your example), let alone in a controlled legislative environment versus whatnot. Let just just say murderers who often "witnessed" and claimed supernatural reasons for their murderous motivation ("I saw the devil entered my body and made me kill") simply won't hold very well in a factual court of law, even if there are no other witnesses to a murder. So, please spare me your rather condescending presumption that I am rather uneducated regarding this matter, when the flaws of your own reasoning are rather obvious.

My point is you if have faith in your religion, then good for you. But your purported authority and air of spurious formality in discussing this matter is rather comical, especially when it comes to _perceptions_ of evidence; not actual evidence itself, that is a world of difference between reality and what one perceives.


----------



## Artemis

Lukecash12 said:


> And now, to introduce my own apologetic:


Would you kindly tell us which denomination of the Christian faith you belong to?

The reason I ask is that if you belong to one of the better known denominations it would be far simpler for me to "google" all I need to know about your viewpoint rather than attempt to wade though this thick, treacle-like, heavily interrupted thread.


----------



## Guest

Is anybody else enjoying the delicious irony that, while Lukecash is the one admonished to treat his fellow forum members with respect, he is the one receiving more disrespectful posts?


----------



## Guest

science said:


> I said A.
> I said B.
> 
> I did not say or imply A --> B.
> 
> Your argument that A -/-> B is irrelevant to anything I said, as you knew and know.


----------



## science

I take Mike's post as an argument that blue faces prove the truth of his religion, and counter that in real life, I've never seen blue faces.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> I take Mike's post as an argument that blue faces prove the truth of his religion, and counter that in real life, I've never seen blue faces.













:tiphat:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

:lol: Are they the folks at IHOP restaurant making the pancakes until they turn blue in the face, as that's all they do all day long?


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> :lol: Are they the folks at IHOP restaurant making the pancakes until they turn blue in the face, as that's all they do all day long?


Yes and no - they are only in charge of the blueberry pancakes (and proving to science that my religion is true).


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Is anybody else enjoying the delicious irony that, while Lukecash is the one admonished to treat his fellow forum members with respect, he is the one receiving more disrespectful posts?


 Erm... don't you remember what I've said repeatedly about stimulus and response?
The OP is harvesting what he has planted.
By the way, I wouldn't even sustain what you've just said. Many of the OP's replies include assumptions about people not being educated enough on this issue, just like HC has highlighted. If we were to count each side's pokes, I'm not sure if the OP would be the part that pokes the other part the least.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Erm... don't you remember what I've said repeatedly about stimulus and response?
> The OP is harvesting what he has planted.


What I see is that, while he may have made some rash comments about ignoring others, in reality he has actually done a pretty good job of responding to most responses to his postings - even breaking his own rules of responding when little or no evidence is presented to challenge his arguments. On the other hand, some on the other side that thought him quite inappropriate for stating his intention to ignore such posts have been rather dismissive in their posts directed at him.

There is a parable in the New Testament which I will paraphrase - one group promises obedience at the outset, but then fails to follow through. Another group initially declines to be obedient, but ultimately does what is asked of them. So the question is, which of the groups should be rewarded - those who promised obedience to the rules but then hypocritically failed to obey, or those who made no such promise, but were ultimately more true to the commandments than the hypocrites?

I stand by my earlier contention - so many of the opposition comments posted in these types of threads can frequently be dismissive and intended only to hold up one person's religious convictions to scorn. When a religious person follows such postings too closely, tempers can often flare up, and threads can very quickly be shut down. Thus, it is better to ignore such comments. It seems here, to me at least, that deciding at the outset to ignore such posts is a good way to keep oneself from getting embroiled in emotional arguments - which is clearly what Lukecash is trying to do, keeping it at a more academic level. Perhaps he could have explained this position with a great deal more tact, but surely those with much less tact have posted much more off-putting comments than his (and I include myself in that group). Measured as a whole, I think it is hard to debate that Lukecash has really made very inflammatory comments in this thread. I have said I would ignore posts in much less polite ways than Lukecash has, and not even received a warning. Far worse dismissive posts regarding what I have said have been made, and nothing has been done (and I support that lack of action).


----------



## Guest

science said:


> I take Mike's post as an argument that blue faces prove the truth of his religion, and counter that in real life, I've never seen blue faces.


That was *exactly* my argument - and now that I have provided you with photographic evidence of the existence of blue faces, will you concede the truthfulness of my religion?


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> That was *exactly* my argument - and now that I have provided you with photographic evidence of the existence of blue faces, will you concede the truthfulness of my religion?


Let me consult talk radio.


----------



## Artemis

DrMike said:


> ...I stand by my earlier contention - so many of the opposition comments posted in these types of threads can frequently be dismissive and intended only to hold up one person's religious convictions to scorn.


I trust that my earlier question isn't seen as an "opposition comment" or "dismissive". I merely asked if the OP could enlighten us about which branch of Christianity he belongs to. As far as I'm aware, this matter hasn't been made clear so far. The reason I ask is that I would prefer to read up on the subject matter of this thread from published sources, if they exist, rather than from the very unsatisfactory, piecemeal fashion of a message board forum.


----------



## Lukecash12

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> You are doing drawing parallels between witnesses to supernatural events and witnesses to non-supernatural events (murder, in your example), let alone in a controlled legislative environment versus whatnot. Let just just say murderers who often "witnessed" and claimed supernatural reasons for their murderous motivation ("I saw the devil entered my body and made me kill") simply won't hold very well in a factual court of law, even if there are no other witnesses to a murder. So, please spare me your rather condescending presumption that I am rather uneducated regarding this matter, when the flaws of your own reasoning are rather obvious.
> 
> My point is you if have faith in your religion, then good for you. But your purported authority and air of spurious formality in discussing this matter is rather comical, especially when it comes to _perceptions_ of evidence; not actual evidence itself, that is a world of difference between reality and what one perceives.


"Perceptions" of evidence? You basically just conceded that the legal system does use eye witnesses as evidence. Now, is there or is there not a pair of real sciences that are applied by professionals to eye witnesses (psychology and sociology)? I wouldn't be so flippant with, say, an individual like Rorbaugh who has been applying sociology to biblical studies for decades, gives peer reviewed articles and journals, and is held with esteem in his field.

Also: Care to support a single thing you're saying? Care to even level with me how a murderer with a delusion would be diagnosed in a similar way to Paul or James?

Finally: You've had a diagnosis and a line of reasoning leveled at you. Should you continue to skirt around the real issues here by half pretending that you respect eye witness evidence, and that you half don't respect eye witness evidence, then you will have conceded to me.


----------



## Lukecash12

Artemis said:


> Would you kindly tell us which denomination of the Christian faith you belong to?
> 
> The reason I ask is that if you belong to one of the better known denominations it would be far simpler for me to "google" all I need to know about your viewpoint rather than attempt to wade though this thick, treacle-like, heavily interrupted thread.


I do not belong to a denomination. And the resurrection apologetic is used by people in basically all of the christian denominations. If you want to know more about my viewpoint, you may want to look up these individuals:

William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Sherwin White, Christopher Price, Ravi Zacharias, Bruce Malina, Richard Rohrbaugh, James Patrick Holding, and Kenneth E. Bailey. Just take your pick.


----------



## Artemis

Lukecash12 said:


> I do not belong to a denomination. And the resurrection apologetic is used by people in basically all of the christian denominations. If you want to know more about my viewpoint, you may want to look up these individuals:
> 
> William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Sherwin White, Christopher Price, Ravi Zacharias, Bruce Malina, Richard Rohrbaugh, James Patrick Holding, and Kenneth E. Bailey. Just take your pick.


You mean you do not align your specific beliefs with any denomination, and that you do not attend any church gatherings for religious activities?

Are you Unitarian or Trinitarian?


----------



## Ukko

The denomination question probably doesn't apply here. The events that _Lukecash12_ wishes to debate/examine took place (if they did take place) in the time of Jesus. Far as I know, there is no significant variation in that dogma among the Christian denominations now in existence - if you are willing to take the Son of God concept as a separate issue. There seem to have been other 'understandings of events' among early Christian groups, but those were labeled heresies by 'Peter's Church', and were disposed of.


----------



## Artemis

Hilltroll72 said:


> The denomination question probably doesn't apply here. The events that _Lukecash12_ wishes to debate/examine took place (if they did take place) in the time of Jesus. Far as I know, there is no significant variation in that dogma among the Christian denominations now in existence - if you are willing to take the Son of God concept as a separate issue. There seem to have been other 'understandings of events' among early Christian groups, but those were labeled heresies by 'Peter's Church', and were disposed of.


Sorry but it matters to me. I want to know what angle this gentleman is coming from, in terms of finding which sect, if any, is encouraging its members to engage in such extraordinary behaviour as we have seen here. It is bizarre in the extreme. You can take it all at face value if you like, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you do so.


----------



## Ukko

Artemis said:


> Sorry but it matters to me. I want to know what angle this gentleman is coming from, in terms of finding which sect, if any, is encouraging its members to engage in such extraordinary behaviour as we have seen here. It is bizarre in the extreme. You can take it all at face value if you like, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you do so.


It is easy for me to 'take' the gentleman's behavior as an intellectual exercise involving biblical/historical scholarship. So... he may not be a Christian. Is it technically possible to be a Christian without belonging to some denomination? He could be (using a common nomenclature) a 'free thinker', an agnostic or an atheist, and still be interested in the subject. Academics can be strange cusses, y'know.


----------



## Artemis

Hilltroll72 said:


> It is easy for me to 'take' the gentleman's behavior as an intellectual exercise involving biblical/historical scholarship. So... he may not be a Christian. Is it technically possible to be a Christian without belonging to some denomination? He could be (using a common nomenclature) a 'free thinker', an agnostic or an atheist, and still be interested in the subject. Academics can be strange cusses, y'know.


I guess it is possible to be a Christian without belonging to a denomination, but if so I would be interested to know which churches were considered and why their beliefs on the topics raised in this thread are not acceptable.

I would have thought that there is sufficient variety of opinion among the many denominations on the various issues raised here to cater for all but the highly unusual character. If he was a member of some denomination, it would be a lot simpler to say "I belong to XYZ Church, and if you're interested to find out more about our beliefs here's a contact telephone number". If however the gentleman is not a member of any denomination that itself speaks volumes to me as I'm far less interested in hearing about the view of any particular individual on topics like the "resurrection".

It ought to be abundantly clear too that throwing around various quotes from the OT or NT is not going to persuade anybody. Or rather if they are persuaded, merely on the basis of a few biblical quotes, from a previous position of not believing then it's arguable that there's something pretty dicey about their personalities.


----------



## mmsbls

Artemis said:


> Sorry but it matters to me. I want to know what angle this gentleman is coming from, in terms of finding which sect, if any, is encouraging its members to engage in such extraordinary behaviour as we have seen here. It is bizarre in the extreme. You can take it all at face value if you like, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you do so.


If you consider the behavior "bizarre" due to the fact that it consists of Lukecash12's post to a classical music site, I agree that it is rather unusual (especially the level of detail and the research level of the argument). If you are simply considering the argument tone and content, I do not see it as remarkable. I have read many arguments for God based on metaphysics (rather than study of ancient documents) that have a very similar approach and target audience (not TC but generally interested and somewhat knowledgeable people).


----------



## Lukecash12

Artemis said:


> You mean you do not align your specific beliefs with any denomination, and that you do not attend any church gatherings for religious activities?
> 
> Are you Unitarian or Trinitarian?


Okay, this is where you might start offending me. My behavior is not extraordinary, I am not a member of a sect, and I participate in an academic field.


----------



## Lukecash12

> I guess it is possible to be a Christian without belonging to a denomination, but if so I would be interested to know which churches were considered and why their beliefs on the topics raised in this thread are not acceptable.


The topic is academic. Apologetics are plied in an academic setting, with professionals in it from every denominational persuasion. I was not prompted to do what I do by a sect, I just consider it my responsibility to use the fields I have expertise in to give people rich opportunities they wouldn't have if there weren't anyone in this day and age like Aquinas.


----------



## Ukko

Artemis said:


> I guess it is possible to be a Christian without belonging to a denomination, but if so I would be interested to know which churches were considered and why their beliefs on the topics raised in this thread are not acceptable.


You think that's what he is doing? I thought it was the opposite.



> It ought to be abundantly clear too that throwing around various quotes from the OT or NT is not going to persuade anybody. Or rather if they are persuaded, merely on the basis of a few biblical quotes, from a previous position of not believing then it's arguable that there's something pretty dicey about their personalities.


My impression is that his purpose is to *prove* the truth of the Resurrection by some sort of logical process. Something more than biblical references must be required for that to happen, eh?

I guess I should bail out of this thread. It doesn't matter to me either way.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Lukecash12 said:


> "Perceptions" of evidence? You basically just conceded that the legal system does use eye witnesses as evidence. Now, is there or is there not a pair of real sciences that are applied by professionals to eye witnesses (psychology and sociology)? I wouldn't be so flippant with, say, an individual like Rorbaugh who has been applying sociology to biblical studies for decades, gives peer reviewed articles and journals, and is held with esteem in his field.
> 
> Also: Care to support a single thing you're saying? Care to even level with me how a murderer with a delusion would be diagnosed in a similar way to Paul or James?
> 
> Finally: You've had a diagnosis and a line of reasoning leveled at you. Should you continue to skirt around the real issues here by half pretending that you respect eye witness evidence, and that you half don't respect eye witness evidence, then you will have conceded to me.


I am _uneducated_ as you suggested, so let me just summarise it all.

(1) You start a thread whereby one of the premise for any discussion or lack of is "no evidence = shall be ignored" (which I thought was hardly a community invitation). So the thread seems to have an air of apparent rigour, until ...

(2) You present and discuss historical witnesses of a supernatural event as sufficient evidence for you (the ressurection of Jesus Christ).

(3) I question your perception of evidence, which you respond by drawing parallels with a modern day court of law whereby witnesses may present sufficent evidence to convict a murderer, for example. But I suggest the flaw in your reasoning is that witnesses to supernatural events in a modern day court of law simply won't hold any weight whatsoever.

I therefore think the foundations of this thread (the "based on evidence" thing) is entirely spurious.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Lukecash12 said:


> The topic is academic. Apologetics are plied in an academic setting, with professionals in it from every denominational persuasion. I was not prompted to do what I do by a sect, I just consider it my responsibility to use the fields I have expertise in to give people rich opportunities they wouldn't have if there weren't anyone in this day and age like Aquinas.


Don't embarrass academia in general with your perception of "evidence", it sure doesn't work that way.


----------



## Lukecash12

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I am _uneducated_ as you suggested, so let me just summarise it all.
> 
> (1) You start a thread whereby one of the premise for any discussion or lack of is "no evidence = shall be ignored" (which I thought was hardly a community invitation). So the thread seems to have an air of apparent rigour, until ...
> 
> (2) You present and discuss historical witnesses of a supernatural event as sufficient evidence for you (the ressurection of Jesus Christ).
> 
> (3) I question your perception of evidence, which you respond by drawing parallels with a modern day court of law whereby witnesses may present sufficent evidence to convict a murderer, for example. But I suggest the flaw in your reasoning is that witnesses to supernatural events in a modern day court of law simply won't hold any weight whatsoever.
> 
> I therefore think the foundations of this thread (the "based on evidence" thing) is entirely spurious.


No sir, I presented that witnesses can be evaluated by professionals. I even gave a professional evaluation by Richard Rohrbaugh, too. I did not draw a comparison between people witnessing to natural and supernatural events, because we have not even properly broached that topic. Now, if you would like to participate in progressing the discussion of this issue, it would be kind of you to finally address some of the professional works I have referred to you, and the ways in which I myself have pointed out the quality of my selected witnesses.


----------



## Philip

of course Jesus resurrected, here's video evidence:


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> What I see is that, while he may have made some rash comments about ignoring others, in reality he has actually done a pretty good job of responding to most responses to his postings - even breaking his own rules of responding when little or no evidence is presented to challenge his arguments. On the other hand, some on the other side that thought him quite inappropriate for stating his intention to ignore such posts have been rather dismissive in their posts directed at him.
> 
> There is a parable in the New Testament which I will paraphrase - one group promises obedience at the outset, but then fails to follow through. Another group initially declines to be obedient, but ultimately does what is asked of them. So the question is, which of the groups should be rewarded - those who promised obedience to the rules but then hypocritically failed to obey, or those who made no such promise, but were ultimately more true to the commandments than the hypocrites?
> 
> I stand by my earlier contention - so many of the opposition comments posted in these types of threads can frequently be dismissive and intended only to hold up one person's religious convictions to scorn. When a religious person follows such postings too closely, tempers can often flare up, and threads can very quickly be shut down. Thus, it is better to ignore such comments. It seems here, to me at least, that deciding at the outset to ignore such posts is a good way to keep oneself from getting embroiled in emotional arguments - which is clearly what Lukecash is trying to do, keeping it at a more academic level. Perhaps he could have explained this position with a great deal more tact, but surely those with much less tact have posted much more off-putting comments than his (and I include myself in that group). Measured as a whole, I think it is hard to debate that Lukecash has really made very inflammatory comments in this thread. I have said I would ignore posts in much less polite ways than Lukecash has, and not even received a warning. Far worse dismissive posts regarding what I have said have been made, and nothing has been done (and I support that lack of action).


Dr. Mike, you're completely wrong about this and I can show you why, but I'll do it by PM because other members wouldn't benefit from what I'll tell you and I don't want to fan the flames.


----------



## Almaviva

Hilltroll72 said:


> My impression is that his purpose is to *prove* the truth of the Resurrection by some sort of logical process.


 I think his purpose is rather some sort of proselytism, like a mission. It won't work, though.


----------



## science

Artemis said:


> Sorry but it matters to me. I want to know what angle this gentleman is coming from, in terms of finding which sect, if any, is encouraging its members to engage in such extraordinary behaviour as we have seen here. It is bizarre in the extreme. You can take it all at face value if you like, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you do so.


I really didn't think his behavior is that unusual. There is a long evangelical tradition of trying to convert people by sheer intellectual force, to prove evangelical Christianity in a way that would persuade scientists (or, less often, in a way that would persuade philosophers).

It's an interesting thing to do. Years ago I too tried to do that. I was perhaps not motivated to prove my own religion correct, which is (I believe) the normal motivation, but if not it was incidental and not to my credit.

I wasted years on that project. I guess it's what I had to do, and I did it (in a sense), but still, I really wish I could have those years back.


----------



## Lukecash12

Almaviva said:


> I think his purpose is rather some sort of proselytism, like a mission. It won't work, though.


Whatever you think my purpose is, it was already stated as otherwise in plain English. I even pointed out to you that I was clear enough in my OP as to this sort of issue, so please finally take it to heart that I was particular to express myself in a literal sense.

Is it so hard to believe that I say what I mean and I mean what I say? Are men to be crucified for words they haven't said?


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> I really didn't think his behavior is that unusual. There is a long evangelical tradition of trying to convert people by sheer intellectual force, to prove evangelical Christianity in a way that would persuade scientists (or, less often, in a way that would persuade philosophers).
> 
> It's an interesting thing to do. Years ago I too tried to do that. I was perhaps not motivated to prove my own religion correct, which is (I believe) the normal motivation, but if not it was incidental and not to my credit.
> 
> I wasted years on that project. I guess it's what I had to do, and I did it (in a sense), but still, I really wish I could have those years back.


1. I am not a proselytizer, in the sense that I want people to bow down to me and share in my particular world views. I wish to establish the basis of the Christian faith as a respectable intellectual choice, in order that people don't have to subscribe to or at least regard Christianity (which I support and respect, just as I regard every other worldview under the same lens), all the while thinking that it is an inane idea. _Apologia_ means formal defense, not proselytizing.

2. Men and women who work in Apologetics don't intellectually force anyone to do anything. We all do love it when our findings convince people to regard our beliefs in a new light, or even subscribe to them, but any inspired scientist can have some of the same passions without being blamed. They come from many denominational persuasions, and work in many different fields, mostly being classical history, biological science, philosophy, and cosmological science. They are people who make great contributions to our education and personal, intellectual edification today.


----------



## mmsbls

Lukecash12 said:


> Whatever you think my purpose is, it was already stated as otherwise in plain English. I even pointed out to you that I was clear enough in my OP as to this sort of issue, so please finally take it to heart that I was particular to express myself in a literal sense.


While I do think you stated your purpose in the OP, your words confused me, and I commented on that in post #33. I did not ask a question so perhaps you didn't think to respond.

You stated 2 goals, and I paraphrased the later - to point out that "the story that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is an excellent proof that Jesus Christ rose from the dead." I said that I assumed you meant something at least somewhat different. I am assuming that your term "resurrection story" means "the story that Jesus rose from the dead."

Did you intend to show that the fact that people told a certain story proves the content of that story? I understand how you stress the principle of embarrassment and multiple, independent attestation, but there are so many places where uncertainty becomes evident. Do you believe that any researcher would state with 90% confidence that any of the actors in the biblical story did not misrepresent any actions (lie or be mistaken)? If so, how would they possibly demonstrate that confidence level?

I admit I am almost completely unfamiliar with this field. I am a physical scientist (experimental physicist), and I know how difficult it is to specify uncertainty in my field. I would expect significantly greater uncertainties in fields involving human psychology especially is areas involving the distant past where access to material is so strongly limited, but my ignorance could prevent me from understanding various techniques. Perhaps you could just give me a sense of your confidence level in your conclusion.


----------



## Lukecash12

mmsbls said:


> While I do think you stated your purpose in the OP, your words confused me, and I commented on that in post #33. I did not ask a question so perhaps you didn't think to respond.
> 
> You stated 2 goals, and I paraphrased the later - to point out that "the story that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is an excellent proof that Jesus Christ rose from the dead." I said that I assumed you meant something at least somewhat different. I am assuming that your term "resurrection story" means "the story that Jesus rose from the dead."
> 
> Did you intend to show that the fact that people told a certain story proves the content of that story? I understand how you stress the principle of embarrassment and multiple, independent attestation, but there are so many places where uncertainty becomes evident. Do you believe that any researcher would state with 90% confidence that any of the actors in the biblical story did not misrepresent any actions (lie or be mistaken)? If so, how would they possibly demonstrate that confidence level?
> 
> I admit I am almost completely unfamiliar with this field. I am a physical scientist (experimental physicist), and I know how difficult it is to specify uncertainty in my field. I would expect significantly greater uncertainties in fields involving human psychology especially is areas involving the distant past where access to material is so strongly limited, but my ignorance could prevent me from understanding various techniques. Perhaps you could just give me a sense of your confidence level in your conclusion.


Thanks for being candid, and I can understand perfectly fine why many of you felt as you did. I should have established from the start my strictly literal methods of communication in this context. If it helps, you may not have been told before that I have high functioning autism and the only method of communication I am proficient in is the clinical, idiosyncratic variety. Because I am significantly deficient in instinctive, emotional reciprocity, I am incapable of using polemic like most people do. So, there is no reason to read any more into what I say than what it is that I explicitly said; Should you wonder about things such as motivation, reconnaissance is wise, especially so with someone who is developmentally disabled.

Now you've given me a great deal of pleasure with the types of questions you've asked. Those are basic philosophical considerations that are the foundation of a great deal of the work done in recording history, and are what a historian considers first before reading hundreds of manuscripts, not after. There are hundreds of methods out there that are agreed upon by a critical consensus of scholars, but it would better serve us to concern ourselves with the philosophy that is most relevant right now.


----------



## mmsbls

Lukecash12 said:


> I should have established from the start my strictly literal methods of communication in this context. If it helps, you may not have been told before that I have high functioning autism and the only method of communication I am proficient in is the clinical, idiosyncratic variety. Because I am significantly deficient in instinctive, emotional reciprocity, I am incapable of using polemic like most people do. So, there is no reason to read any more into what I say than what it is that I explicitly said; Should you wonder about things such as motivation, reconnaissance is wise, especially so with someone who is developmentally disabled.


Understood.



Lukecash12 said:


> Now you've given me a great deal of pleasure with the types of questions you've asked. Those are basic philosophical considerations that are the foundation of a great deal of the work done in recording history, and are what a historian considers first before reading hundreds of manuscripts, not after. There are hundreds of methods out there that are agreed upon by a critical consensus of scholars, but it would better serve us to concern ourselves with the philosophy that is most relevant right now.


I look forward to your response.


----------



## Couchie

Lukecash12 said:


> 1. The empty tomb... The conspiracy theory that the disciples took the body and lied, stands in either ignorance or methodological error in that we can be certain that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's (because of the principle of embarrassment and unanimity of all four gospels) tomb and that *His tomb was watched over by Romans (unanimity)*.


That the tomb was watched over by Romans is *not* unanimous between the 4 gospels, indeed it only appears in Matthew. The addition of the Roman guards to the story was likely an attempt by the author of Matthew to quell the rampant rumours that the disciples (perhaps just a few of them) had done exactly that.



Lukecash12 said:


> 2. The postmortem appearances. This is attested to by:
> 
> See Acts 2:41-47; 4:1-4, 8-21, 29-31; 5:17-32, 40-42.
> 
> For their willingness to die, see Jn 21:18-19; Acts 7:57-60; 12:1-3; 21:13; 25:11; Rom 14:8; 1 Cor 15:30-32; 2 Cor 4:7-14; 11:23-32; Phil 1:20-24; cf. 2 Pet 1:13-15. We have early references to the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul (Clement of Rome Corinthians 5) and two accounts of the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus (Josephus Antiquities 20:9:1; Hegesippus in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 2:23). Eusebius records that James the brother of John, Peter and Paul all died for their faith (Ecclesiastical History 2:9, 25).
> http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/in...for-xp-res.htm
> 
> So we have numerous and independent biblical references to eyewitnesses, actual eyewitness testimony, and extrabiblical references to just how confident the eyewitnesses were.


They could also be liars, delusional, even demon possessed if we're willing to consider the supernatural, I understand posession was about as common as the common cold back then and exorcism one of Jesus' favorite pastimes.

Dying for the faith bit, its almost disturbing how little regard the "God-inspired" biblical authors give to these so-called martyrs which apparently would go on to form the crux of most Christian apology, only James gets a passing "oh by the way" mention in Acts and there's no evidence of martyrdom; the rest are left to the non-biblical domain of the muddy hearsay record keeping of Hippolytus and Eusebius several centuries later. Apparently God thought such details making the finished Bible less important than the large amount of useless clutter in Leviticus.



Lukecash12 said:


> 3. The origin of the Christian faith...
> 
> _...What is responsible for the changes in the disciples? *The New Testa*ment is unmistakably clear that Jesus' resurrection appearances were the intervening events, the catalyst between their confusion and exaltation. *Critical scholars are in total agreement here. Ben Meyer states it clearly: "That it was the Easter experiences which affected [the disciples'] trans*formation is beyond reasonable doubt." 48 Hugo Staudinger agrees: "Only the appearances of Jesus brought about a new change of mood in them." 49 N. T. Wright declares: "the first generation of Christians ... an*nounced and celebrated the victory of Jesus over evil. . . . That was the basis of their remarkable joy." 50...
> _
> ...the disciples didn't rigorously attest to and die for an ideology, they did it all for an event that they witnessed.


Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; *but some doubted*. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

This is "exaltation"???


----------



## Lukecash12

Let's take a look at this part of your post to reference for the philosophy I am going to use:



> Did you intend to show that the fact that people told a certain story proves the content of that story? I understand how you stress the principle of embarrassment and multiple, independent attestation, but there are so many places where uncertainty becomes evident. Do you believe that any researcher would state with 90% confidence that any of the actors in the biblical story did not misrepresent any actions (lie or be mistaken)? If so, how would they possibly demonstrate that confidence level?


Well, the best method for this setting is the _Minimal Facts Method_. And I quote:



> The minimal facts approach, as pioneered by Gary Habermas, requires two criteria for an event to be considered historical: (1) data that is well evidenced and (2) data that is accepted by virtually every scholar.





> Therefore, this approach will _not_ be arguing that Christians are justified by faith in the resurrection as an historical event. Nor will it assume the Bible is inerrant, or trustworthy.


Refer to this for my practice of the minimal facts method:

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/c...anham, MD: Rowman Littlefield, forthcoming)."

The "elite eight":

1. *Jesus' death by crucifixion.*
All of the earliest biblical and secular texts agree to this, which I documented pretty well in this thread. Jesus was subjected to a unique execution, in that he was scourged, flogged, and forced to carry his own cross (which probably weighed 75 pounds) before being crucified. Luke (the eminent one when it came to diligent sourcing) records that the Romans followed through with one of their methods of assuring that a criminal was dead, and had him stabbed in the side with a spear after crucifying him. A dissenter would be hard pressed to find an early contemporary text that disagrees with this.

2. *Jesus' burial. *
Four independent accounts, that were based on eyewitnesses, agree that Joseph of Arimathea had Jesus buried in the tomb that Joseph himself possessed. Because Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin, the principle of embarrassment is also an important consideration, because recording this had the potential to weaken each author's case. Paul records this fact in 1st Corinthians 15 as well, but doesn't mention Joesph of Arimathea.

That Jesus was buried and stayed buried for three days (agreed to by those same accounts) supports the fact that He had to have died at some point. I don't think I'm taking too much personal license for someone who doesn't have a degree in medicine, to assert that it would be nonsensical to say that a man who had been treated in such a manner and then left buried for three days would have survived.

3. *His death caused the disciples to lose hope and experience despair.*
This claim is multiply attested by independent sources, and scholars unanimously agree that they must have been despondent to have their Mashiac deposed like a criminal. "In Jewish culture, according to Deuteronomy 21:23, "anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse"".

Not only that, but we can use the principle of embarrassment to weed out two more highly acceptable facts: (a) Peter deserted Christ, and even said that he didn't know Him. (b) If the disciples hadn't deserted Christ, one of them would have taken it upon him/her self to give Him a proper burial. (c) The disciples went into hiding.

4. *The empty tomb.*
This claim is multiply attested by independent sources. The principle of embarrassment applies here because all four Gospels cite women as the first witnesses to the empty tomb. This would be considered very detrimental to one's case in ancient Israel, because women weren't allowed to come forward as witnesses for any proceeding.

The account lacks legendary development, the reliability of the burial story tells us that everyone knew where the tomb was (Joseph having been rich and famous), the tomb was not considered a shrine by early Christians (as pointed out by D.G. Dunn, which in light of the practice of tomb veneration in that period meant that the tomb had to be empty), the claim of a resurrected Christ made by the disciples was unanimously termed _anastasis_ and _egeiro_, Greek words for a physical (bodily) event, meaning that the only implication for the tomb was that it was empty, the Jewish authorities could very well have had the body exhumed in order to disprove the claim if it hadn't been true (given that tomb's location was common knowledge and Jesus' method of execution was distinct), and finally: Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Matthew record that the Jewish authorities called shenanigans on the disciples, saying that they had stolen the body from the tomb (which means that by way of enemy attestation we can confirm the empty tomb as well).

5. *The disciples had real experiences that they believed were literal appearances of the resurrected Jesus.*
I'd like to make an observation first before we evaluate this one:_Even Bart Ehrman (one of the most staunch critics of the resurrection hypothesis) agrees with this fact._
There are several early and independent sources that agree to this (the Gospels, Acts, and Pauls Epistle to the Corinthians), and the one from Corinthians 15 I'd like you to note especially (because it is extremely early, and I touched on it within my first few posts). Clement and Polycarp document this as well as Josephus in the Aramaic (sorry I said "arabic" earlier) manuscript of the TV that I referred to everyone in the OP.

James and Paul were two skeptics, one a naturalist and the other a man who was on a campaign to *kill* Christian, who were documented by many texts in the NT, Josephus, and a slew of early church fathers, as having been convinced of this in spite of their skepticism. The NT and the writings of the church fathers document Paul's martyrdom, and James' martyrdom is documented by those two as well as Josephus.

And now some final considerations: The disciples claimed this in an honor and shame society, it was an original idea that they weren't likely to conjure up alone (given their eschatological background in Judaism), and because many of them independently attest to the same thing using the same definition, this means that they couldn't have all had the same subjective vision; Not only is it medically impossible for a group of people to share in the same subjective vision independently, but two of them were staunch skeptics!

6. *The disciples were transformed and were willing to suffer and die for their beliefs.*
_Once again, even Bart Ehrman agrees at least that Paul, James, and Peter can be regarded in this manner._
As I've established before, the disciples were first hand witnesses to the event they attested to, and witnesses can be psychologically and sociologically diagnosed in order to consider their claims, as opposed to a third party that can't prove a thing by believing very hard in something. It was original to them, and they came up with it at the very time that they would have been most discouraged to come up with it (re: honor and shame).

This is multiply attested to (the book of Acts, Paul's Epistles, Josephus, and the early church fathers), and we can apply the principle of embarrassment to the fact that Paul, a persecutor of Christians, had become a Christian himself. Finally, this builds on the established fact that they martyred themselves after having previously been deserters, persecutors, or skeptics.

7. *James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was converted when he believed he saw the resurrected Jesus.*
John and Mark record James as being skeptical, as well as early church fathers. This holds some more water because of the principle of embarrassment, what with Jesus' own brother being skeptical of him, and James being documented by the church fathers and Acts as an early leader of the church.

Paul, in his most historically reliable text, records James as having converted after seeing Jesus (re: 1st Corinthians 15). Lastly, Josephus and the church fathers record that James was martyred for Christ.

8. *Paul, the famous church persecutor, converted after he believed he saw the risen Jesus.*
_Bart Ehrman agrees to this as well._
The book of Acts, the church fathers, and Paul himself, recorded that he was a persecutor of the Christians who became one because he saw the risen Jesus. The principle of embarrassment can be used in the same manner as I just used it with James.

Lastly, Clement, Polycarp, and Tertullian (_three of the earliest_ church fathers), as well as Acts and Paul himself, record that he suffered beatings, stoning, flogging, captivity, and execution for his witness.

The "final four":

1. *The resurrection message was central in early christian preaching.*
This is recorded by 1st Corinthians 15 (very early and thus reliable), and Acts 4:33 (written by the enormously diligent Luke). Without it, the Christian movement had no good reason to survive under the likes of Nero and Vespasian. Lastly, it had to have been a teaching that belonged to the Christians because it is attested to by every Gospel, several Epistles, and wasn't something that would have been constructed by any other movement, given the Jewish eschatology of that time period.

2. *The resurrection was especially claimed in Jerusalem.*
Tacitus record this. Tacitus was opposed to the Christian beliefs, so we can consider this enemy attestation.

What does this tell us? It tells us that the resurrection teaching originated in Jerusalem, and thus adds water to the idea that the disciples were the ones who starting telling people of the resurrection. Not only that, but it stood it's ground in the area where the event happened and survived amidst it's strongest opposition over the facts (re: exhuming the body).

3. *The Christian church was established and grew.*
Amidst opposition from emperors like Nero, Caligula, and Vespasian, the church was established and grew quickly (recorded by Acts, Revelation, 1st Peter, and Paul's Epistles).

This is a worthwhile consideration when it comes to explanatory scope (re: the OP), and I will touch on it with my conclusion.

4. *Sunday was featured as the primary day of worship.*
This was well documented by the church fathers, and wouldn't have happened had the day not been made significant by the resurrection, considering that they previously worshiped on the day of the Sabbath.

*Conclusion:*

Considering that all of these are facts that are agreed upon by an overwhelming majority of scholars (which Gary Habermas records exquisitely well in his book, _The Verdict of History_), let's consider the resurrection hypothesis according to explanatory scope and power.

Explanatory scope of the resurrection hypothesis: Unlike many other theses, it accounts for all twelve facts, especially numbers 5, 6, 7, and 8 from the "elite eight", and numbers 2, 3, and 4 from the "final four".

Explanatory power of the resurrection hypothesis: It is more convincing than other theories especially in the numbers I mentioned, because it doesn't suppose that they all had the same subjective vision independently, and it is consistent with considerations of the sociology and psychology of those in 1st century Judea.

Now, how is it possible for the resurrection to have happened? Well, if we allow the supposition that it's possible the universe was made by way of intelligent design (which I'm very willing to discuss), then it isn't a violation of the laws of physics to suppose that the individual who created the universe (the one who made a set of observable and distinguishable natural laws in the first place) has the ability to superimpose Himself above naturalism if He chooses to.

Areas of scholarly consensus that I claimed are cited all throughout the article I based this upon, and all throughout this work by Gary Habermas:

http://garyhabermas.com/articles/J_...-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm

Also of interest, because it is more exhaustive and still corroborates my claims (even in the faces of thousands of classical historians and NT critics), is Gary Habermas' book, _The Verdict of History_. Gary Habermas gives us an extensive amount of research as to today's scholarly consensus on the resurrection, referring to us scholars who publish works in English, French, and German.


----------



## Almaviva

Lukecash12 said:


> Whatever you think my purpose is, it was already stated as otherwise in plain English. I even pointed out to you that I was clear enough in my OP as to this sort of issue, so please finally take it to heart that I was particular to express myself in a literal sense.
> 
> Is it so hard to believe that I say what I mean and I mean what I say? Are men to be crucified for words they haven't said?


Sorry. You're right.
I think I'm still reacting a bit to the fact that you rubbed me the wrong way at the beginning, but I do recognize that you have explained your position quite nicely and I give you credit for this, and thank you for adopting a more tactful approach.
I over-reacted. I was a bit frustrated with Dr.Mike too, but we have exchanged private messages about it and I think we both (Dr.Mike and I) understand each other better, now.
Carry on with an interesting discussion, I shall remain hands-offish from now on.


----------



## Lukecash12

Almaviva said:


> Sorry. You're right.
> I think I'm still reacting a bit to the fact that you rubbed me the wrong way at the beginning, but I do recognize that you have explained your position quite nicely and I give you credit for this, and thank you for adopting a more tactful approach.
> I over-reacted. I was a bit frustrated with Dr.Mike too, but we have exchanged private messages about it and I think we both (Dr.Mike and I) understand each other better, now.
> Carry on with an interesting discussion, I shall remain hands-offish from now on.


No problem; as I expressed in post 107, I understand why you felt as you did. Am I correct in assuming that you aren't normally exposed to people who have the same diagnosis as me, as well as people who work in the field of apologetics?


----------



## Lukecash12

From Couchie:



> That the tomb was watched over by Romans is *not* unanimous between the 4 gospels, indeed it only appears in Matthew. The addition of the Roman guards to the story was likely an attempt by the author of Matthew to quell the rampant rumours that the disciples (perhaps just a few of them) had done exactly that.


I'd like to point out that you were mistaken by way of syntax, in the assumption that the article meant that the four gospels were unanimous on the fact of the Romans guarding the tomb. It says that they were unanimous about the issue of Joseph burying Jesus, and gives a vague reference to unanimity on the case of the Romans guarding the tomb.

Now, this fact is peripheral to the 12 facts I submitted using the minimal facts method, because the disciples would not have been able to move the boulder, it's recorded that the tomb was found with the burial cloth still in it (not expected behavior from grave robbers), and four independent sources verify this.



> They could also be liars, delusional, even demon possessed if we're willing to consider the supernatural, I understand posession was about as common as the common cold back then and exorcism one of Jesus' favorite pastimes.
> 
> Dying for the faith bit, its almost disturbing how little regard the "God-inspired" biblical authors give to these so-called martyrs which apparently would go on to form the crux of most Christian apology, only James gets a passing "oh by the way" mention in Acts and there's no evidence of martyrdom; the rest are left to the non-biblical domain of the muddy hearsay record keeping of Hippolytus and Eusebius several centuries later. Apparently God thought such details making the finished Bible less important than the large amount of useless clutter in Leviticus.


1. I've established that independent people can't experience the same subjective vision.

2. I've established the martyrdom of Paul and James.



> Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
> 
> This is "exaltation"???


Paul and James were skeptics, and then martyrs, weren't they? Even Josephus records James martyrdom, and I can prove that Paul wrote first hand about his martyrdom, as well as cite many NT texts and quote church fathers.


----------



## Lukecash12

And, in order to further augment my claims thus far, I'd like to refer you all back to the ICOT (re: post 4, in a link to an article by Kenneth E. Bailey), which was in place and capable of controlling claims about a historical fact for over a thousand years. And I quote:



> Fifth are well-told accounts of the important figures in the history of the village or community. These are often told in the present tense, irrespective of their age. For example, in the cliffs behind the village of Dayr Abu Hinnis, in the south of Egypt, there are Middle Kingdom cave-stone quarries that were inhabited by Christians during the times of Roman persecution. Local Christian villagers tell visitors, 'When the Romans came, we escaped to the mountains and our men sneaked down to the river at night to get water.' As we will note, the same villagers tell stories of the founding of the monastery that gave birth to their village. I know that they are telling stories from the fourth century and before. They know the account only as the ziman (from long ago). If there is a central figure critical to the history of the village, stories of this central figure will abound. These stories are local and can be heard only in the village that considers these recollections important for its identity.


It is agreed almost unanimously by classical historians that legendary development can't accumulate about important details until the reports given originated with people 3-4 generations removed from the events. This consideration should be augmented moreso when the topic is near eastern peoples, according to the observations of Kenneth E. Bailey. Now, remember the fact that the NT was written all within the 1st and 2nd generations, and the earliest church fathers all wrote in the second century.


----------



## Almaviva

Lukecash12 said:


> No problem; as I expressed in post 107, I understand why you felt as you did. Am I correct in assuming that you aren't normally exposed to people who have the same diagnosis as me, as well as people who work in the field of apologetics?


 For the first part of your question (my exposure to people with high-functioning autism), no, much the opposite (I guess I was right after all that the peoples skills part was missing from your original post; this explains that, so I kind of "diagnosed" you correctly when I complained of the tactless initial approach - I just didn't add two and two but now it makes sense).

About apologetics, I've been minimally exposed to them by reading some arguments, and losing interest rapidly. Because see, I am completely, entirely, 100% skeptical of all things that even remotely concern religion. My position actually goes beyond atheism, to a rather extreme anti-religion personal stance (I firmly believe that it is one of the most detrimental forces that have ever plagued humankind). I'm afraid that if I continue, I'll be disrespectful of your beliefs, so I'll just leave it at this. In other words, nothing that you may say will ever convince me (that's why I said "it won't work, though") since my position in these matters is rather written in stone. Just as much as I lost interest rapidly when reading some texts in the field of apologetics, I tried hard to read your posts above and again at one point I was rolling my eyes so I stopped.

On the other hand, like I said, it is only a _personal _stance, because I wouldn't try to force my views on the matter onto anybody (even this much that I'm saying, it's just because you asked), and I am generally rather respectful of religious _individuals, _and adopt the idea that "if this is what works for them, fine" (it is rather organized religion that irks me).

About individuals, another thing that I detest is proselytism. I don't go out of my way trying to convince people of my utter skepticism in religious matters, and I really hate it when people knock on my door and disturb my peace by trying to give me some sort of leaflet about what they call The Lord. I tend to rapidly say "thanks but no thanks" and close the door on them - softly, although I rather feel like slamming it while yelling "get out of my property!."


----------



## Lukecash12

Almaviva said:


> For the first part of your question (my exposure to people with high-functioning autism), no, much the opposite (I guess I was right after all that the peoples skills part was missing from your original post; this explains that, so I kind of "diagnosed" you correctly when I complained of the tactless initial approach - I just didn't add two and two but now it makes sense).
> 
> About apologetics, I've been minimally exposed to them by reading some arguments, and losing interest rapidly. Because see, I am completely, entirely, 100% skeptical of all things that even remotely concern religion. My position actually goes beyond atheism, to a rather extreme anti-religion personal stance (I firmly believe that it is one of the most detrimental forces that have ever plagued humankind). I'm afraid that if I continue, I'll be disrespectful of your beliefs, so I'll just leave it at this. In other words, nothing that you may say will ever convince me (that's why I said "it won't work, though") since my position in these matters is rather written in stone. Just as much as I lost interest rapidly when reading some texts in the field of apologetics, I tried hard to read your posts above and again at one point I was rolling my eyes so I stopped.
> 
> On the other hand, like I said, it is only a _personal _stance, because I wouldn't try to force my views on the matter onto anybody, and I am generally rather respectful of religious _individuals, _and adopt the idea that "if this is what works for them, fine" (it is rather organized religion that irks me).
> 
> About individuals, another thing that I detest is proselytism. I don't go out of my way trying to convince people of my utter skepticism in religious matters, and I really hate it when people knock on my door and disturb my peace by trying to give me some sort of leaflet about what they call The Lord. I tend to rapidly say "thanks but no thanks" and close the door on them - softly, although I rather feel like slamming it while yelling "get out of my property!."


Ah yes... You'll find that people who pursue apologetics are never as intrusive as proselytizers, and only practice their field in public areas where it is permitted.


----------



## Almaviva

Lukecash12 said:


> Ah yes... You'll find that people who pursue apologetics are never as intrusive as proselytizers, and only practice their field in public areas where it is permitted.


 Thankfully. This is one of such areas, and it is indeed permitted, especially when done in a civil manner like yours (after the initial glitch that by now has been fully explained and justified).


----------



## science

Lukecash (or anyone interested in proving the resurrection of Jesus), I'd like to ask some hypothetical questions. 

My father died when I was 7. I went to the funeral, and so did many others, many of whom saw the dead body. He's been dead now for more than 2 decades. Of course he is no more thoroughly dead now than he was when he'd been dead for three days.

Ok, here's the 1st hypothetical: A man shows up today at my door, claiming to be my father risen from the dead. What kind of proof should I require in order to believe him? 

2nd hypothetical: A woman shows up today at my door, claiming that my father rose from the dead, spent a few weeks with her, and then floated into heaven. What proof should I require in order to believe her?

3rd hypothetical: I receive a letter from a woman who claims that my father had risen from the dead, spent a few weeks with her, and then floated into heaven. The woman herself, unfortunately, has been killed - though she died insisting that her story was true. What proof should I require before believing the letter? 

4th hypothetical: Same as number 3, but now the letter is delivered by the woman's son. In the letter, the woman tells me that my father, while he was with her after his resurrection but before his ascension, instructed me to give her son 10% of my property and submit to the political leaders of his choice. If I do so, he is reported to have said, I too will be able to rise from the dead and ascend into heaven. What kind of proof should I require before believing these claims and obeying these instructions?


----------



## Edward Elgar

science said:


> What kind of proof should I require before believing these claims and obeying these instructions?


The only proof you have is the letter. You can choose to believe it or not. However, if the claims made in the letter defy all known laws of nature it's reasonable that you should doubt the validity of the letter.

The same can be said of the multitude of religious scriptures that humanity has access to.

Freedom is the power to say 2 + 2 = 4.

All else follows.


----------



## mmsbls

@Lukecash12: Thanks for the time you took to reply to my post (and others). This thread is a bit different than others here in that it takes more time to read and digest the posts and then respond. I will read yours carefully and probably have further questions. It might take me a bit of time to respond (especially since I know so little about the original subject matter and the research).


----------



## Lukecash12

From science:



> My father died when I was 7. I went to the funeral, and so did many others, many of whom saw the dead body. He's been dead now for more than 2 decades. Of course he is no more thoroughly dead now than he was when he'd been dead for three days.


Understood.



> Ok, here's the 1st hypothetical: A man shows up today at my door, claiming to be my father risen from the dead. What kind of proof should I require in order to believe him?


If you are like James, then you can satisfy yourself by touching him, physically recognizing him. He must have died in a unique manner.



> 2nd hypothetical: A woman shows up today at my door, claiming that my father rose from the dead, spent a few weeks with her, and then floated into heaven. What proof should I require in order to believe her?


She's just one person. It's very possible that she has had a subjective vision, and you don't know anything about here from a sociological or psychological perspective. Seeing as she's not your dad, then you would need multiple, independent attestation, and good attestation at that.



> 3rd hypothetical: I receive a letter from a woman who claims that my father had risen from the dead, spent a few weeks with her, and then floated into heaven. The woman herself, unfortunately, has been killed - though she died insisting that her story was true. What proof should I require before believing the letter?


The same problem arises with subjective visions, and lack of clinical knowledge as to this woman's mental state and stability.



> 4th hypothetical: Same as number 3, but now the letter is delivered by the woman's son. In the letter, the woman tells me that my father, while he was with her after his resurrection but before his ascension, instructed me to give her son 10% of my property and submit to the political leaders of his choice. If I do so, he is reported to have said, I too will be able to rise from the dead and ascend into heaven. What kind of proof should I require before believing these claims and obeying these instructions?


Multiple, independent, and extraordinary witness. An accumulation of evidence to rival the evidence I gathered using the minimal facts method.


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> From science:
> 
> Understood.
> 
> If you are like James, then you can satisfy yourself by touching him, physically recognizing him. He must have died in a unique manner.
> 
> She's just one person. It's very possible that she has had a subjective vision, and you don't know anything about here from a sociological or psychological perspective. Seeing as she's not your dad, then you would need multiple, independent attestation, and good attestation at that.
> 
> The same problem arises with subjective visions, and lack of clinical knowledge as to this woman's mental state and stability.
> 
> Multiple, independent, and extraordinary witness. An accumulation of evidence to rival the evidence I gathered using the minimal facts method.


I'd need such excellent proof, so that the proof being wrong would be more miraculous than for the event itself to have happened. That is impossible, even in hypothetical #1. Perhaps the guy isn't my father. Perhaps the dead guy wasn't my father. Perhaps he wasn't dead. Perhaps aliens, undetected, snatched my father just before his death, left a replica corpse in his place, held him hostage for twenty years, persuaded him that he'd been dead, and have returned him. No matter what evidence is compiled, there must be some explanation(s) for it that will be more plausible than the claim that my father actually died for a substantial period of time and came back to life.

It gets worse in hypotheticals #2 and #3, and then hypothetical #4 is transparently fraud.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> I'd need such excellent proof, so that the proof being wrong would be more miraculous than for the event itself to have happened. That is impossible, even in hypothetical #1. Perhaps the guy isn't my father. Perhaps the dead guy wasn't my father. Perhaps he wasn't dead. Perhaps aliens, undetected, snatched my father just before his death, left a replica corpse in his place, held him hostage for twenty years, persuaded him that he'd been dead, and have returned him. No matter what evidence is compiled, there must be some explanation(s) for it that will be more plausible than the claim that my father actually died for a substantial period of time and came back to life.
> 
> It gets worse in hypotheticals #2 and #3, and then hypothetical #4 is transparently fraud.


I have to agree mostly. There needs to be extraordinary evidence. But let's quit bandying about and address the minimal facts case I made. Certainly, you have more to participate here than characterization.

What about the methodology I displayed? What do you think of explanatory scope and power, multiple and independent testimony, the principles of embarrassment and enemy attestation, secular attestation, dating texts, sociological context, skeptical witnesses, the discrete research done to determine if something is based on eye witness testimony, and the nature of subjective visions?


----------



## Couchie

Lukecash12 said:


> I'd like to point out that you were mistaken by way of syntax, in the assumption that the article meant that the four gospels were unanimous on the fact of the Romans guarding the tomb. It says that they were unanimous about the issue of Joseph burying Jesus, and gives a vague reference to unanimity on the case of the Romans guarding the tomb.


I never read any such article, it appears _you_ are mistaken on the syntax, for you wrote: "_His tomb was watched over by Romans (*unanimity*)_". There is no such unanimity.

Matthew goes on to write:

Matthew 28:11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

This account reeks fabrication:
1. Why would the guards report back to Jewish priests, and not their Roman superiors.
2. Why would they accept money to lie about being asleep, the punishment for which under Roman law would have been execution, on the word that the priests will "satisfy" the governor. There's no use for money when you're dead.
3. It's just a stupid story: how could the guards have known that it was disciples who stole the body if they were asleep?

So although you would have us cast the stolen-body hypothesis aside merely by labelling it "ignorance or methodological error" Matthew's author at least felt threatened enough by its credence that it required this additional insertion.



Lukecash12 said:


> Now, this fact is peripheral to the 12 facts I submitted using the minimal facts method, because the disciples would not have been able to move the boulder, it's recorded that the tomb was found with the burial cloth still in it (not expected behavior from grave robbers), and four independent sources verify this.


And yet according to Mark, the 2 Marys went to the tomb the night Jesus was laid in it, saw the stone guarding it, and then went home and _went about preparing spices with which to anoint the body_. The women set out the day after the Sabbath for the to the tomb _fully expecting to be able to access the body and anoint it with spices_, and only on the way it occurs to them the problem of how they are going to move the stone. This can only be explained by:

1. Access to the tomb was not actually that difficult, and a capable feat by the disciples or others. It could be that "oh dear, how are we going to move the boulder" is a lazy fabrication by Mark's author or a later addition attempting gospel harmony (Let's not forget that the entire second half of Mark 16 does not appear in the earliest manuscripts and is believed to be an insertion), or perhaps it's accurate, it would make sense that moving the stone was beyond the capabilities of women, but not necessarily men, and the women had forgotten to take men along with them: after all, according to John, Mary's initial reaction to the opened tomb is that people had indeed it rolled the boulder aside and taken the body, and not any kind of resurrection.

2. Access to the tomb is actually difficult, guarded, sealed, and so heavy as to be beyond the capabilities of 11 men, which would require that the 2 Marys be stupid beyond belief.

The only sources for burial clothes being in the tomb is Luke and John, if the disciples stole the body they could have left them behind purposely, if it was grave robbers or other people there's no reason besides faith to assume these aren't further fabrications of the authors of Luke and John attempting to discredit the stolen-body rumours circulating at the time.


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> I have to agree mostly. There needs to be extraordinary evidence. But let's quit bandying about and address the minimal facts case I made. Certainly, you have more to participate here than characterization.
> 
> What about the methodology I displayed? What do you think of explanatory scope and power, multiple and independent testimony, the principles of embarrassment and enemy attestation, secular attestation, dating texts, sociological context, skeptical witnesses, the discrete research done to determine if something is based on eye witness testimony, and the nature of subjective visions?


I think it's not nearly enough. You've got fewer than a dozen texts, purporting to be by eye-witnesses. It is far easier for me to imagine those texts being untrustworthy than that a thoroughly dead person came back to life; or that the person wasn't really dead; or that the earliest witnesses were misunderstood by later people who reported what they said; etc....

You severely underestimate the quality of proof that would be needed to establish that such an incredible event took place.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> I think it's not nearly enough. You've got fewer than a dozen texts, purporting to be by eye-witnesses. It is far easier for me to imagine those texts being untrustworthy than that a thoroughly dead person came back to life; or that the person wasn't really dead; or that the earliest witnesses were misunderstood by later people who reported what they said; etc....
> 
> You severely underestimate the quality of proof that would be needed to establish that such an incredible event took place.


I established pretty well why they should be regarded as eye witness accounts. Either quote the facts and reasoning I used, and challenge them with facts and reasoning (as opposed to general statements like "You've got fewer than a dozen texts, purporting to be by eye-witnesses. It is far easier for me to imagine those texts being untrustworthy than that a thoroughly dead person came back to life"), or just flap your jaws some more and see me politely exercise my right to ignore you in this thread.

Surprised? I'm not campaigning politically, trying to sell people change and hope ("chope"), hehe.


----------



## Lukecash12

Couchie said:


> I never read any such article, it appears _you_ are mistaken on the syntax, for you wrote: "_His tomb was watched over by Romans (*unanimity*)_". There is no such unanimity.
> 
> Matthew goes on to write:
> 
> Matthew 28:11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.
> 
> This account reeks fabrication:
> 1. Why would the guards report back to Jewish priests, and not their Roman superiors.
> 2. Why would they accept money to lie about being asleep, the punishment for which under Roman law would have been execution, on the word that the priests will "satisfy" the governor. There's no use for money when you're dead.
> 3. It's just a stupid story: how could the guards have known that it was disciples who stole the body if they were asleep?
> 
> So although you would have us cast the stolen-body hypothesis aside merely by labelling it "ignorance or methodological error" Matthew's author at least felt threatened enough by its credence that it required this additional insertion.


1. Why not? It was a Jew that was causing trouble, and the Roman government worked in concert with the Jewish government during that period. The Jewish authorities were just as likely a group to consult, especially because it was their problem; Jesus was Jewish after all, and they were the ones who wanted Him executed.
2. Because it was a Jewish problem, and the Sanhedrin would have been able to satisfy the governor just fine. The Roman government was very cooperative until emperors like Nero took over, because all they wanted was tax revenue and no insurrections.
3. Who else would have stolen it? Who in Jerusalem would be sympathetic with a criminal, and a blasphemer too?



> And yet according to Mark, the 2 Marys went to the tomb the night Jesus was laid in it, saw the stone guarding it, and then went home and _went about preparing spices with which to anoint the body_. The women set out the day after the Sabbath for the to the tomb _fully expecting to be able to access the body and anoint it with spices_, and only on the way it occurs to them the problem of how they are going to move the stone. This can only be explained by:
> 
> 1. Access to the tomb was not actually that difficult, and a capable feat by the disciples or others. It could be that "oh dear, how are we going to move the boulder" is a lazy fabrication by Mark's author or a later addition attempting gospel harmony (Let's not forget that the entire second half of Mark 16 does not appear in the earliest manuscripts and is believed to be an insertion), or perhaps it's accurate, it would make sense that moving the stone was beyond the capabilities of women, but not necessarily men, and the women had forgotten to take men along with them: after all, according to John, Mary's initial reaction to the opened tomb is that people had indeed it rolled the boulder aside and taken the body, and not any kind of resurrection.
> 
> 2. Access to the tomb is actually difficult, guarded, sealed, and so heavy as to be beyond the capabilities of 11 men, which would require that the 2 Marys be stupid beyond belief.
> 
> The only sources for burial clothes being in the tomb is Luke and John, if the disciples stole the body they could have left them behind purposely, if it was grave robbers or other people there's no reason besides faith to assume these aren't further fabrications of the authors of Luke and John attempting to discredit the stolen-body rumours circulating at the time.


1. Not quite so, because it was customary for the women to dress their dead relatives with spices, and it was policy for the Romans to allow family and friends to perform burial rites after their relatives were crucified. The women would have been allowed to visit the tomb and carry on with their customs.

2. It would have been very heavy. In order to go on to be with God in the eschatological resurrection, it was a Jew's belief that their bodies must be protected until they decayed down to bones, when they would make an arrangement of the bones and place it in a stone ossuary, sealing it away until the end of the world. Joseph was a member of the religious elite, and would have had a pretty nice arrangement in order to see that his body wasn't disturbed until the bodily resurrection at the end of the world.


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> I established pretty well why they should be regarded as eye witness accounts. Either quote the facts and reasoning I used, and challenge them with facts and reasoning (as opposed to general statements like "You've got fewer than a dozen texts, purporting to be by eye-witnesses. It is far easier for me to imagine those texts being untrustworthy than that a thoroughly dead person came back to life"), or just flap your jaws some more and see me politely exercise my right to ignore you in this thread.
> 
> Surprised? I'm not campaigning politically, trying to sell people change and hope ("chope"), hehe.


I'm glad you're enjoying yourself, but the point is solid.

I learned it from Kierkegaard. His point was that with something like a resurrection, for which no evidence could possibly be persuasive, faith is required. Christianity in this sense inherently requires faith. The best you could get with evidence is to establish that there is no strong evidence against the resurrection. In this case, of course, there is no strong evidence in any direction.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> I'm glad you're enjoying yourself, but the point is solid.
> 
> I learned it from Kierkegaard. His point was that with something like a resurrection, for which no evidence could possibly be persuasive, faith is required. Christianity in this sense inherently requires faith. The best you could get with evidence is to establish that there is no strong evidence against the resurrection. In this case, of course, there is no strong evidence in any direction.


I don't see anything being established here. Why don't you at least establish these things:

1. Why is it that no evidence could possibly be persuasive? You do realize that this smacks right against everything academic, right?

2. What do you consider to be evidence? Do you realize that Cartesian proof is something that everyone in every academic field ignores?

3. No, the best I could get with evidence is to point towards the resurrection being fact. You considering it this way is just the same as abusing mathematical nomenclature, in that you refuse to agree to what you consider is evidence for a historical claim, so we must assume that you don't abide by any historical claims. If we don't even discuss the possibility of a resurrection, which a creator of the universe capable of resurrecting someone is very possible given the modern cosmological arguments, then we are obstructing the academic process, not preferring it.



> In this case, of course, there is no strong evidence in any direction.


Bits like this are why I don't normally debate with people who don't support any of their claims. They are perfectly content to skirt around any kind of a real discussion, because they don't want to participate in the intellectual exercise they've been invited to; Instead, they make clear their position over and over, and act as if they are standing on the high ground. I don't invite people to formal debate with me, in order for us to discuss "chope" like Obama and McCain.


----------



## Couchie

Lukecash12 said:


> 1. Why not? It was a Jew that was causing trouble, and the Roman government worked in concert with the Jewish government during that period. The Jewish authorities were just as likely a group to consult, especially because it was their problem; Jesus was Jewish after all, and they were the ones who wanted Him executed.
> 2. Because it was a Jewish problem, and the Sanhedrin would have been able to satisfy the governor just fine. The Roman government was very cooperative until emperors like Nero took over, because all they wanted was tax revenue and no insurrections.
> 3. Who else would have stolen it? Who in Jerusalem would be sympathetic with a criminal, and a blasphemer too?


All _possible_, but lacking any evidence. Perhaps we should use your "minimal facts" approach:

1. The Gospel of Matthew is the sole testament that Roman guards stood by the tomb.
2. Rumours were circulating during the time of Matthew's authorship that the disciples took the body.

(2) Gives Matthew a clear motive to fabricate (1).

3. Matthew makes 2 claims: 1st, that the Pharisees requested Pilate to supply guards for the tomb; 2nd, that the Pharisees paid off the guards to keep quiet about the resurrection.

How would Matthew know about (3), even quoting their conversations? Especially the 2nd, which is a secret conversation between Pharisees and guards paid to keep quiet? Which is more likely, that Matthew's author actually acquired this information, without any explanation as to how, which would have required either the Pharisees or guards to divulge it to a third party when they each had clear motives not to, or Matthew made it up when he had a clear motive to do so?



Lukecash12 said:


> 1. Not quite so, because it was customary for the women to dress their dead relatives with spices, and it was policy for the Romans to allow family and friends to perform burial rites after their relatives were crucified. The women would have been allowed to visit the tomb and carry on with their customs.
> 
> 2. It would have been very heavy. In order to go on to be with God in the eschatological resurrection, it was a Jew's belief that their bodies must be protected until they decayed down to bones, when they would make an arrangement of the bones and place it in a stone ossuary, sealing it away until the end of the world. Joseph was a member of the religious elite, and would have had a pretty nice arrangement in order to see that his body wasn't disturbed until the bodily resurrection at the end of the world.


Not only did you not make an effort to reply to my point, but you just contradicted yourself. In (2) you claim the body is protected, "sealed away until the end of the world" and the body undisturbed, yet in (1) you say entrance to the tomb will be granted to anyone who comes along with some spices?


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> I don't see anything being established here. Why don't you at least establish these things:
> 
> 1. Why is it that no evidence could possibly be persuasive? You do realize that this smacks right against everything academic, right?
> 
> 2. What do you consider to be evidence? Do you realize that Cartesian proof is something that everyone in every academic field ignores?
> 
> 3. No, the best I could get with evidence is to point towards the resurrection being fact. You considering it this way is just the same as abusing mathematical nomenclature, in that you refuse to agree to what you consider is evidence for a historical claim, so we must assume that you don't abide by any historical claims. If we don't even discuss the possibility of a resurrection, which a creator of the universe capable of resurrecting someone is very possible given the modern cosmological arguments, then we are obstructing the academic process, not preferring it.
> 
> Bits like this are why I don't normally debate with people who don't support any of their claims. They are perfectly content to skirt around any kind of a real discussion, because they don't want to participate in the intellectual exercise they've been invited to; Instead, they make clear their position over and over, and act as if they are standing on the high ground. I don't invite people to formal debate with me, in order for us to discuss "chope" like Obama and McCain.


We've already gone over #1, and it is the crux here.

If Joe tells me that he had turned himself into pure spirit, floated across the Grand Canyon, and then physically reconsituted himself on the other side, I wouldn't believe him without extraordinary evidence. Again, there must be ten thousand explanations for any set of evidence that are more plausible than Joe's story. So there is probably no set of evidence that could persuade me. Even if I myself were an eyewitness to the event, I would not believe Joe's story.

Move it a step back: if half a dozen people tell me that they saw Joe turn himself into pure spirit, float across the Grand Canyon, and physically reconsistute himself on the other side, I wouldn't believe them without even more extraordinary evidence.

And a step further back: if there are half a dozen 2000-year-old texts recording that people saw Joe do this miracle, I wouldn't believe the texts without super-extraordinary evidence.

And finally: if the carriers of the texts also instructed me to give ten percent of my property away, I would require super-duper extraordinary evidence.


----------



## Lukecash12

@Couchie:

Hmmm... Regarding the assumption that Matthew had ulterior motives because he was the only one to mention the conspiracy about a grave robbery, JPH addressed this quite nicely in his article titled "Dan Barker's Easter Challenge Answered":



> The major factor to recall is that which we have described here.
> 
> The Gospel writers did not have unlimited paper and ink at their disposal; this was expensive stuff, and anyone who wants to question this point need to explain why it is not relevant. The Resurrection narratives were at the end of their works, so they were constrained to be as succinct as possible in their reportage -- more than they would be for any other part of their narrative.
> 
> Also relevant is the point of "who knew what, when". The same exact knowledge could certainly have not been accessible to each and every Gospel writer.





> The oral nature of the original material, as we describe here.
> 
> Variations in oral tradition in no way contradicts the idea of inerrancy. The idea of inspiration as wooden and mechanical in all cases is something that the Scriptures never demand. Nor is there any indication that such variations were considered "erroneous" by the ancients, under whose paradigms we are compelled to work here. Skeptics must show that such variations were considered problematic by ancient commentators, not merely impose 21st-century literary values upon the text.
> 
> Albert Lord, in his essay entitled "The Gospels as Oral Traditional Literature" which appears in The Relationships Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, remarks generally upon oral traditional narratives as having "textual fluidity", such that they are "constantly being repeated without concern for word-for-word retelling of a set, established text." [37] One may compare the material in the link and note differences which are very much like those in the Gospels -- with no place to claim "error" or "contradiction" between them as the substantial message remains the same.


So, Matthew's material there could have come from a different oral tradition, could have been something he decided to focus on as opposed to the other authors because he had almost filled the scroll. Should this not be convincing to you, that Matthew had to pick and choose what he wanted to record, you should know some of these things:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/asilent.html


> Our focus is an argument of this nature:
> 
> X event is recorded in the Bible. It is a remarkable and amazing event.
> It is unlikely that references to events as remarkable as X would have been omitted in any historical accounts written by people who supposed to be present when they happened.
> Silence on such a remarkable event should lead us to either a) question the accuracy of another writer's report that X happened, or b) conclude that the account was not written by an eyewitness to, or one informed of, X, and this leads us to question the viability of the rest of their account as well.
> 
> Applied to the NT, this is often used against Matthew's report of an earthquake and resurrected saints (which we will use as a template for the rest of this article), or John's lack of mention of the darkness at the crucifixion, or expanded, to any event of unusual nature reported by only one writer (like many of John's sign-miracles). The argument is also often extended to secular sources, and lack of a record among other persons, a matter that Glenn Miller has addressed here and which we have also touched upon here; see our analysis of responses to this here.
> 
> Just making such a claim, though, is not enough. One must actually name preserved sources and explain why they ought to have mentioned a certain event, not merel vaguely claim that it "ought to" have been preserved elsewhere; for an example of this exercised in practice, see here.





> First: Few people in the ancient world were literate -- in fact less than 10% were to the extent needed to write documents (as opposed to, for example, people literate enough only to sign their names). Many published documents, like the Roman Acta Diurna, were read aloud by the literate to the non-literate majority. This by itself cuts down the number of possible written witnesses to any event.
> 
> Second: Few ancient works are preserved to this day. This again cuts down the number of written witnesses available to us.
> 
> Third: Persons outside Jesus' social ingroup would not want or care to preserve the events of Jesus' life orally. They would not be transmitted and collected by the general public of that age -- ancient people were of a colleectivist nature; theire main concern was their own group. Beyond this, as Miller points out, ideological enemies would be unlikely to keep such tradition alive, and indeed would if anything wish to dishonor the subject by aiding in the "dying out" of any honoring oral tradition.
> 
> See for example here to understand this in terms of an honor-shame dialectic, and why a Josephus or a Tacitus would not record such things as ie, the feeding of the 5000 -- even if they did happen to think it was a true story.





> Assumption #2 -- They Would Have Made Room
> 
> John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
> 
> It does not take much to see that each Gospel writer does include things that are unique. Some of these are non-spectacular events, but both Luke and John are alone in reporting certain miraculous events, especially John.
> 
> Does this raise doubts as to their veracity? Why should Matthew, Mark and Luke have omitted the Cana water-to-wine miracle or the raising of Lazarus? Why should John have missed out on the raising of Jairus' daughter?
> 
> We could multiply these examples and for each note that we have some (or all) of the same questions as we do above. But let's just assume for the sake of argument that all the information of this sort in the four Gospels was available to all four authors to report. How then could they have missed reporting any of it?
> 
> The answer to this may be found in two social sub-factors:
> 
> The nature of composition of ancient books
> The unique purposes of each Gospel writer -- keeping in mind that all of the Gospels were written for Christians, not as evangelistic documents intended to "convince" any non-believer to become a Christian (though intended rather to affirm what is already believed)
> 
> The quote of John above is hyperbolic, but it does make a point. The ministry of Jesus lasted at least two years (for a defense of this point see here). This allows for a ministry of around 4000-5000 hours (take out time to sleep, eat, travel, etc) which any writer of a life of Jesus had to select from.
> 
> If you were asked to write a biography of Jesus, what would you write about? Before you answer, there are some restrictions you need to keep in mind.
> 
> First of all, you are limited to using only about 20 sheets of paper.
> 
> What, you say? No more than that? No. Office Depot won't be open for another 1900 years, and neither will WalMart, or Eckerd's, or any other place you are thinking of buying paper.
> 
> You're also not going to be writing on paper. You'll be writing on a scroll, and scrolls are both expensive and go no larger than a certain size. As Gamble reports in Books and Readers in the Early Church [44-50, 266], and Achtemeier in his JBL article, "Omne Verbatim Sonat"[11f]:
> 
> Scrolls could be fashioned to any length desired, but practically speaking, the mean length was seven to ten meters. "A roll of ten to eleven meters was too cumbersome for the reader to handle...authors of long new works made their own divisions by taking the customary length of rolls into account."
> A roll of papyrus of typical quality "cost the equivalent of one or two days' wages, and it could run as high as what the labourer would earn in five or six days..."
> While at times it was easy to get paper when you could afford it, there were times when this was NOT the case. Achtemeir reports that at one point in the reign of Tiberius, the Senate was asked to assume responsibility for the allocation of paper. But even at the most plentiful, paper never made it usual to print multiple copies of anything; the publication of 1000 copies of a work was significant enough for Pliny to give it notice.
> 
> Now maybe if you are wealthy, or know someone who is, you can get another scroll and do a "Life of Jesus, Part 2", perhaps a shorter half. But if you do, bear in mind that generations beyond you (and how can you anticipate WalMart, or the printing press?), in order to preserve your work, will have to also buy two scrolls. If you want your work to get out to people, that's not a very smart move.
> 
> Your work is going to cost more to keep around than a work with one scroll. So you'd better plan carefully what you want to put on those scrolls.
> 
> By the way, writing is cumbersome and difficult with comfortable chairs and writings desks not in the picture -- unless, again, you are very wealthy. So, better keep it simple. (See more on this issue here.)
> 
> Okay, so now you have scrolls and some ink. Are you ready?
> 
> Not so fast! Did you ever have to write an essay of exactly a certain number of pages? No more or less than the decided amount? There should be no problem here with writing too little; Jesus did plenty of stuff, and was around enough time, and did enough teaching, to draw material from. But you're only going to be able to fit a certain amount on those scrolls.
> 
> So think for a while. What is more important to write about? His crucifixion and resurrection already have to go in there; that was the defining time in his life, and it is the heart of the kerygma.
> 
> What else? The miracles? The teachings? His birth? You have to decide what you want to present, and how, before you ever put a pen to that scroll. Bear in mind if you don't do this carefully, you'll waste the entire scroll and either have to buy a new one, or will have to cut out the sheet you made the mistake on and connect it all back together. Small mistakes can be fixed, but if you start to do a whole story, you can't just change your mind and start over!
> 
> And there's another problem. The crucifixion and resurrection have to go in, but they will be at the end of the story, and you can't just write backwards from the end of the scroll. So you need to plan this account carefully. You need to decide what out of those 5000 hours you want to include, in advance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you start? You start by taking notes, and this was the normal procedure for composition in this day. A Mark or a Luke will not have been an "exception" -- there was none. Eventually, this is where the "codex" or leaf book would have come in. Although the codex eventually evolved into the modern book, at this stage, according to scholars like Gamble, it was used for "school exercises, accounts, notes, first-drafts, and so forth," as well as being used for archival items like birth certificates.
> 
> These loose notes would NOT be taken on the scroll intended for the composition -- they would be put on scraps of whatever was handy, or on a reusable wax tablet or wooden board.
> 
> So now you have a collection of notes, full of stories and teachings to choose from. Now what?
> 
> Well, if you are an ancient writer, writing a story is not just a matter of putting down things in order. You also want to establish a certain theme, or use certain techniques, to make the story run smoothly. (Biographies in the ancient world were often written topically rather than chronologically.)
> 
> After all, most of your "readers" will actually be hearers. 90-95% of those who get acquainted with your Gospel will have to remember its contents. Your contemporaries all have good memories, because they are used to oral tradition, but that's partly because writers know ways to make memory easier.
> 
> Our Gospel writers took different approaches to this problem. On a macro level, Matthew divided his work into five sections of teaching interspersed with miracle stories (an imitation of the five books of the Pentateuch) and also begins with a genealogy and closes his work with an edict (the Great Commission), just like Chronicles opened with a genealogy and closed with Cyrus' decree in 2 Chronicles.
> 
> Mark used his "sandwich" technique of intercalating a small story between two parts of another story. Luke wrote his work around the theme of traveling to Jerusalem (and wrote Acts around the theme of the gospel being preached around the Empire, with Jerusalem as a return point); he was also writing for the purpose of defending Paul at trial (see here). John built his account around important "signs".
> 
> These are but three of numerous examples of memory and/or literary techniques in the Gospels -- and each technique, used differently, would mean different results in order, and different results in selection of material.
> 
> But what of that selection? If you are a Matthew or a Mark writing a Gospel for the first time, what do you choose to offer? What miracles or teachings "stick out" the most and will tell readers the most about Jesus as a person? What events were most memorable?
> 
> By now it will be easy to guess that the constraints of selection would have a major impact on what appears in a Gospel and would explain a great many of the differences across the Gospels. In some cases selection will be subjective. Selection will also be ruled by available space. Matters of judgment being subjective, this is why a Mark may prefer to offer two loaves and fishes routines, while Matthew may prefer to add more teaching instead.
> 
> On this matter as well, we have further input from Byrskog's Story as History concerning the selectivity of ancient historians in their reports [256f]. The rhetoriticians as writers "knew that certain matters had better not be included. One should avoid an excess of unnecessary facts and words, Cicero says. Other rhetoriticians said very much the same."


----------



## Couchie

Copying and pasting lengthy articles in debates is generally considered bad form; not only could you get in trouble with copyrights, but it kills the conversation and kind of gives the impression that you expect your opponents to do your work for you. I would suggest summarizing the relevant key points in your own words and then linking to the articles for further reading.

In my brief skim of your posting, I can not discern where it explains how Matthew could have obtained information on the secretive dealings of Pharisees and Roman Guards, could you kindly point it out?


----------



## Lukecash12

> Copying and pasting lengthy articles in debates is generally considered bad form; not only could you get in trouble with copyrights, but it kills the conversation and kind of gives the impression that you expect your opponents to do your work for you. I would suggest summarizing the relevant key points in your own words and then linking to the articles for further reading.


I cited my source. Also, I did say that there were constraints on the writing process, and then gave the article in order to enumerate and elaborate, so you had a good idea of what was in the article already; Just some confirmation. It was essentially pretty simple:

1. Money didn't grow on trees, and papyrus would have cost the writer 4-6 days wages. That's not good when you need just about every bit of your wages every day to keep on keeping on (considering that Matthew quit his publican trade).
2. Considering that, you had to write everything you wanted to write on a scroll that was 5-7 meters long. No do-overs or takesies backsies. So, what are your goals in writing it, then? You have to be very certain.



> In my brief skim of your posting, I can not discern where it explains how Matthew could have obtained information on the secretive dealings of Pharisees and Roman Guards, could you kindly point it out?


How was it a secret, if the disciples didn't steal the body? If the Romans and Jewish authorities said the body was stolen, then it wasn't a secret to the Christians that they collaborated and lied.



> All possible, but lacking any evidence. Perhaps we should use your "minimal facts" approach:
> 
> 1. The Gospel of Matthew is the sole testament that Roman guards stood by the tomb.
> 2. Rumours were circulating during the time of Matthew's authorship that the disciples took the body.
> 
> (2) Gives Matthew a clear motive to fabricate (1).


It's a possible motive, but it doesn't throw much doubt on Romans standing guard. Jesus was considered a political insurrectionist, and the Jewish authorities wanted to stamp out the religion, so some Romans probably did stand guard.



> 3. Matthew makes 2 claims: 1st, that the Pharisees requested Pilate to supply guards for the tomb; 2nd, that the Pharisees paid off the guards to keep quiet about the resurrection.


All logical consequences if the disciples didn't steal the body. There isn't much of anything fantastical about either statement.



> How would Matthew know about (3), even quoting their conversations? Especially the 2nd, which is a secret conversation between Pharisees and guards paid to keep quiet? Which is more likely, that Matthew's author actually acquired this information, without any explanation as to how, which would have required either the Pharisees or guards to divulge it to a third party when they each had clear motives not to, or Matthew made it up when he had a clear motive to do so?


Did he need to acquire it, or was it obvious? If the Roman guards were lying then plainly they must have been bribed.



> Not only did you not make an effort to reply to my point, but you just contradicted yourself. In (2) you claim the body is protected, "sealed away until the end of the world" and the body undisturbed, yet in (1) you say entrance to the tomb will be granted to anyone who comes along with some spices?


1. The Romans standing guard could have opened the tomb. It would have been their responsibility, as upholders of the policy of Rome, to let the Jewish women perform their burial rites.

2. It was not just anyone. It was family members and disciples.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> We've already gone over #1, and it is the crux here.
> 
> If Joe tells me that he had turned himself into pure spirit, floated across the Grand Canyon, and then physically reconsituted himself on the other side, I wouldn't believe him without extraordinary evidence. Again, there must be ten thousand explanations for any set of evidence that are more plausible than Joe's story. So there is probably no set of evidence that could persuade me. Even if I myself were an eyewitness to the event, I would not believe Joe's story.
> 
> Move it a step back: if half a dozen people tell me that they saw Joe turn himself into pure spirit, float across the Grand Canyon, and physically reconsistute himself on the other side, I wouldn't believe them without even more extraordinary evidence.
> 
> And a step further back: if there are half a dozen 2000-year-old texts recording that people saw Joe do this miracle, I wouldn't believe the texts without super-extraordinary evidence.
> 
> And finally: if the carriers of the texts also instructed me to give ten percent of my property away, I would require super-duper extraordinary evidence.


1. There is no context whatsoever for Joe doing this.
2. Joe didn't convince five hundred people, whom in turn became excellent sources for our diligent historian Luke.
3. Skeptics, persecutors, and deserters became martyrs. They could only have been convinced that much, being first hand witnesses as opposed to a third party, by touching Jesus and talking to Jesus.
4. The early Christians didn't hatch get rich quick schemes. They suffered under emperors like Nero, Caligula, and Vespasian, and then died.
5. Once again concerning the tithing deal: we are discussing a historical event, not biblical doctrine.


----------



## Couchie

> 1. Money didn't grow on trees, and papyrus would have cost the writer 4-6 days wages. That's not good when you need just about every bit of your wages every day to keep on keeping on (considering that Matthew quit his publican trade).
> 2. Considering that, you had to write everything you wanted to write on a scroll that was 5-7 meters long. No do-overs or takesies backsies. So, what are your goals in writing it, then? You have to be very certain


.


> How was it a secret, if the disciples didn't steal the body? If the Romans and Jewish authorities said the body was stolen, then it wasn't a secret to the Christians that they collaborated and lied.


Now you have again contradicted yourself. First you say Matthew had to be *concise and certain* due to a lack of money for ink (interesting that a god that can part seas and raise people from the dead allows his inspiration to be constrained by something so mundane). Then you offer that all Matthew knew was that 'the Romans and Jewish authorities said the body was stolen". Ignoring that there's no evidence that it was even these authorities who first perpetrated the rumour, Matthew goes on to write:

_Matthew 28:11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day._

Matthew's account is NOT a concise statement that the Pharisees started the rumour, which is what you say all he needed to know to write his account, but it offers _specific_ details: he knows that only _some_ of the guards went to the city, that the chief priests consulted and plotted with the elders first rather than act on their own accord, quotes exactly what was told to the guards, and knows that it was specifically money used to persuade the guards and not blackmail or something else. Matthew is either adding his own unnecessary speculations, by which your own need for certainty argument he never would have done, or inventing wildly the entire thing, which would explain why he goes into this level of detail as it fleshes out his coverup story.



> 1. The Romans standing guard could have opened the tomb. It would have been their responsibility, as upholders of the policy of Rome, to let the Jewish women perform their burial rites.
> 
> 2. It was not just anyone. It was family members and disciples.


If guards were there to do it, why were the women concerned about who would open the tomb?

Why is it inconceivable that disciples or theives could have moved the boulder, but Roman Guards would have had no trouble with the task?


----------



## Philip

Lukecash12 said:


> 1. There is no context whatsoever for Joe doing this.
> 2. Joe didn't convince five hundred people, whom in turn became excellent sources for our diligent historian Luke.
> 3. Skeptics, persecutors, and deserters became martyrs. They could only have been convinced that much, being first hand witnesses as opposed to a third party, by touching Jesus and talking to Jesus.
> 4. The early Christians didn't hatch get rich quick schemes. They suffered under emperors like Nero, Caligula, and Vespasian, and then died.
> 5. Once again concerning the tithing deal: we are discussing a historical event, not biblical doctrine.


but what if joe is actually the new jesus and his bible just hasn't been written yet..


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> 1. There is no context whatsoever for Joe doing this.
> 2. Joe didn't convince five hundred people, whom in turn became excellent sources for our diligent historian Luke.
> 3. Skeptics, persecutors, and deserters became martyrs. They could only have been convinced that much, being first hand witnesses as opposed to a third party, by touching Jesus and talking to Jesus.
> 4. The early Christians didn't hatch get rich quick schemes. They suffered under emperors like Nero, Caligula, and Vespasian, and then died.
> 5. Once again concerning the tithing deal: we are discussing a historical event, not biblical doctrine.


1. What context could possibly make a difference?

2. 500 people being wrong is possible. Happens all the time. Resurrection from the dead is impossible. Even if a historian did interview 500 people who claim they saw a guy risen from the dead - which I doubt that Luke did (and if you're so sure he did, which language were the interviews in?) - and verify that they all believe they're telling the truth, there must be some explanation more plausible than that they were right.

3. I don't think it's so hard to persuade people.

4/5. Not sure why you're thinking about "get rich quick schemes." The followers of Jesus gained status within their community (the churches) by their beliefs. But "the tithing deal" really is relevant. All of the texts you're offering as evidence have been handled by highly motivated individuals. You quoted an Arabic translation of Josephus, declaring with certainty that it hadn't been influenced by Christians. But that quote passed from Josephus, to an Arab _Christian_, Agapius the Historian, who in turn was quoted by a later Arab Christian, al-Makin. (Arab Christians did and do exist, though Protestants are typically unaware of them.) There were probably a multitude of anonymous scribal editors in the chain as well, and we can only speculate as through whose hands Josephus passed on his way to Agapius. And that was the text _least_ likely to have been affected by factors other than a strict concern for historical accuracy.

You are willing to play pretty fast and loose with claims like this, because like those authors you're trying to reach a certain conclusion. Whether you're trying to persuade yourself or others doesn't make much difference. On the other hand, you're going to have sharp, critical eyes for evidence or arguments that you don't like. I'm not accusing you; this is a human thing. Motivated reasoning. We all do it, mostly without realizing it; we probably can't help it, even if we try not to. All of the evidence you could have has been passed through at least dozens, maybe hundreds of hands, all of whom were similarly motivated. And at the end of that - you think we should believe that these texts constitute pristine, overwhelming evidence in favor of a claim that nearly 2000 years ago there were 500 reliable witnesses to an event that I wouldn't believe _even if I witnessed it with my own eyes_?


----------



## Lukecash12

@Science:



> 1. What context could possibly make a difference?


There was a tradition thousands of years old, that there would be a Messiah. Then Jesus was born in Bethlehem, had Nazarene stomping grounds, etc. Enough to convince Rabbi Pinchas LaPide of His compatibility with the prophecies. Is there such a strong case that it bludgeons you in the head? No, but it's still a very strong case, and it's respectable to stand by, even to a Rabbi that believes in orthodox Jewish theology.



> 2. 500 people being wrong is possible. Happens all the time. Resurrection from the dead is impossible. Even if a historian did interview 500 people who claim they saw a guy risen from the dead - which I doubt that Luke did (and if you're so sure he did, which language were the interviews in?) - and verify that they all believe they're telling the truth, there must be some explanation more plausible than that they were right.


You are projecting an anachronistic world onto a Near Eastern culture from a specific time period. Sure, people today will go and jump on the UPC or Jehovah's Witness bandwagon, but they don't have the same honor and shame pressures and religious environment as some in 1st century Jerusalem.

And doubt all you want what Luke did. I can't do anything in a debate for your doubts, when you aren't willing to explain them. How did Luke, in a world where it was extremely difficult to gather correct facts about culture, religion, geography, and politics, know better than Josephus what the temple looked like, etc.? He had to have been extremely diligent; Just look at the list of things he got right that he normally shouldn't have, which I provided right at the beginning. If you are going to doubt that Luke gathering an enormous amount of eye witness testimony through a ton of travel, then you must admit that you are having doubts in the face of well evidenced facts.



> 3. I don't think it's so hard to persuade people.


How's about I just persuade someone whose life's mission is to kill me that he should forsake his previous understanding of eschatology and monotheistic theology, and then give up his standing amongst the religious elite and suffer dreadful persecution for the rest of his life, living like a hated nomad?



> 4/5. Not sure why you're thinking about "get rich quick schemes." The followers of Jesus gained status within their community (the churches) by their beliefs.


They were flogged, stoned, thrown in jail, crucified, burnt to death by Romans, made a spectacle of in Rome with dogs chasing them and ripping them apart, and were called heretics by the Jews they grew up going to synagogue with. Gentiles who came to Christ were derided and persecuted as well, divorcing themselves from the Greek philosophy and mythos that they had been led to since childhood, thus looking like primitives to their neighbors. A lot of people didn't want to do business with them, and publicly lynched them.

Everyone lost status, and lost a lot of physical comfort.



> But "the tithing deal" really is relevant. All of the texts you're offering as evidence have been handled by highly motivated individuals.


Instead of trying to use the power of suggestion as if it bulldozes over well established cases, you ought to be held to the academic standard of actually making a case for whatever motivation you think they had. All sorts of things are possible, but I can tell you right now that taking a journal or article to be reviewed by peers before publishing, you would find that they don't accept a laundry list of suggestions as if it was a strong case.



> You quoted an Arabic translation of Josephus, declaring with certainty that it hadn't been influenced by Christians. But that quote passed from Josephus, to an Arab Christian, Agapius the Historian, who in turn was quoted by a later Arab Christian, al-Makin. (Arab Christians did and do exist, though Protestants are typically unaware of them.)


Sorry about that, you're right and what I had meant to say was that the text probably wasn't touched by Eusebius. It contains no Christian claims about divinity or Messiaship:

_At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders._

And here's a reconstruction of it by Robert Eisler made to be completely unfavorable:

_Now about this time arose an occasion for new disturbances, a certain Jesus, a wizard of a man, if indeed he may be called a man, who was the most monstrous of men, whom his disciples call a son of God, as having done wonders such as no man has ever done.... He was in fact a teacher of astonishing tricks to such men as accept the abnormal with delight.... And he seduced many Jews and many also of the Greek nation, and was regarded by them as the Messiah.... And when, on the indictment of the principal men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to the cross, still those who before had admired him did not cease to rave. For it seemed to them that having been dead for three days, he had appeared to them alive again, as the divinely-inspired prophets had foretold -- these and ten thousand other wonderful things -- concerning him. And even now the race of those who are called 'Messianists' after him is not extinct._

Most scholars basically agree at this point that at the least it affirms that Jesus was a religious teacher, says that he was crucified by Pilate, and that it was written by Josephus.



> There were probably a multitude of anonymous scribal editors in the chain as well, and we can only speculate as through whose hands Josephus passed on his way to Agapius. And that was the text least likely to have been affected by factors other than a strict concern for historical accuracy.


"Probably a multitude?" There's no reason for there to be a multitude. You only edit something whenever you change languages, etc. Not only that, but the early Christians preserved a lot of classical works (contributing to the Renaissance), and didn't do any funny business with Philo or Tacitus' works; And for that matter they are generally considered to be good editors by historians today. Behavior like you want to ascribe to them would be the exception, and not the rule.



> You are willing to play pretty fast and loose with claims like this, because like those authors you're trying to reach a certain conclusion. Whether you're trying to persuade yourself or others doesn't make much difference. On the other hand, you're going to have sharp, critical eyes for evidence or arguments that you don't like.


Dude, I read and write peer reviewed articles.



> I'm not accusing you; this is a human thing. Motivated reasoning. We all do it, mostly without realizing it; we probably can't help it, even if we try not to.


You are committing the ad hominem fallacy, which is what a demagogue would do (if you notice, this sentence is both a declaration of ad hominem and an example of it). If my reasoning is irrational, then point it out on rational grounds, not fallacious grounds.



> All of the evidence you could have has been passed through at least dozens, maybe hundreds of hands, all of whom were similarly motivated.


It's up to you to point out motivation, instead of using suggestion in order to make exception look like rule.



> And at the end of that - you think we should believe that these texts constitute pristine, overwhelming evidence in favor of a claim that nearly 2000 years ago there were 500 reliable witnesses to an event that I wouldn't believe even if I witnessed it with my own eyes?


I've made the case for this, and cited every fact. At the very least, you have the burden of actually addressing the points I made using the minimal facts method.


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> @Science:
> 
> There was a tradition thousands of years old, that there would be a Messiah. Then Jesus was born in Bethlehem, had Nazarene stomping grounds, etc. Enough to convince Rabbi Pinchas LaPide of His compatibility with the prophecies. Is there such a strong case that it bludgeons you in the head? No, but it's still a very strong case, and it's respectable to stand by, even to a Rabbi that believes in orthodox Jewish theology.
> 
> You are projecting an anachronistic world onto a Near Eastern culture from a specific time period. Sure, people today will go and jump on the UPC or Jehovah's Witness bandwagon, but they don't have the same honor and shame pressures and religious environment as some in 1st century Jerusalem.
> 
> And doubt all you want what Luke did. I can't do anything in a debate for your doubts, when you aren't willing to explain them. How did Luke, in a world where it was extremely difficult to gather correct facts about culture, religion, geography, and politics, know better than Josephus what the temple looked like, etc.? He had to have been extremely diligent; Just look at the list of things he got right that he normally shouldn't have, which I provided right at the beginning. If you are going to doubt that Luke gathering an enormous amount of eye witness testimony through a ton of travel, then you must admit that you are having doubts in the face of well evidenced facts.
> 
> How's about I just persuade someone whose life's mission is to kill me that he should forsake his previous understanding of eschatology and monotheistic theology, and then give up his standing amongst the religious elite and suffer dreadful persecution for the rest of his life, living like a hated nomad?
> 
> They were flogged, stoned, thrown in jail, crucified, burnt to death by Romans, made a spectacle of in Rome with dogs chasing them and ripping them apart, and were called heretics by the Jews they grew up going to synagogue with. Gentiles who came to Christ were derided and persecuted as well, divorcing themselves from the Greek philosophy and mythos that they had been led to since childhood, thus looking like primitives to their neighbors. A lot of people didn't want to do business with them, and publicly lynched them.
> 
> Everyone lost status, and lost a lot of physical comfort.
> 
> Instead of trying to use the power of suggestion as if it bulldozes over well established cases, you ought to be held to the academic standard of actually making a case for whatever motivation you think they had. All sorts of things are possible, but I can tell you right now that taking a journal or article to be reviewed by peers before publishing, you would find that they don't accept a laundry list of suggestions as if it was a strong case.
> 
> Sorry about that, you're right and what I had meant to say was that the text probably wasn't touched by Eusebius. It contains no Christian claims about divinity or Messiaship:
> 
> _At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders._
> 
> And here's a reconstruction of it by Robert Eisler made to be completely unfavorable:
> 
> _Now about this time arose an occasion for new disturbances, a certain Jesus, a wizard of a man, if indeed he may be called a man, who was the most monstrous of men, whom his disciples call a son of God, as having done wonders such as no man has ever done.... He was in fact a teacher of astonishing tricks to such men as accept the abnormal with delight.... And he seduced many Jews and many also of the Greek nation, and was regarded by them as the Messiah.... And when, on the indictment of the principal men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to the cross, still those who before had admired him did not cease to rave. For it seemed to them that having been dead for three days, he had appeared to them alive again, as the divinely-inspired prophets had foretold -- these and ten thousand other wonderful things -- concerning him. And even now the race of those who are called 'Messianists' after him is not extinct._
> 
> Most scholars basically agree at this point that at the least it affirms that Jesus was a religious teacher, says that he was crucified by Pilate, and that it was written by Josephus.
> 
> "Probably a multitude?" There's no reason for there to be a multitude. You only edit something whenever you change languages, etc. Not only that, but the early Christians preserved a lot of classical works (contributing to the Renaissance), and didn't do any funny business with Philo or Tacitus' works; And for that matter they are generally considered to be good editors by historians today. Behavior like you want to ascribe to them would be the exception, and not the rule.
> 
> Dude, I read and write peer reviewed articles.
> 
> You are committing the ad hominem fallacy, which is what a demagogue would do (if you notice, this sentence is both a declaration of ad hominem and an example of it). If my reasoning is irrational, then point it out on rational grounds, not fallacious grounds.
> 
> It's up to you to point out motivation, instead of using suggestion in order to make exception look like rule.
> 
> I've made the case for this, and cited every fact. At the very least, you have the burden of actually addressing the points I made using the minimal facts method.


I think you're wrong almost point by point.

The "messiah" idea was at most hundreds, not thousands of years old. But this is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.

There is no evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. But this too is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.

There were loads of "new religious movements" at the time. Lots of messiahs. All kinds of cults spreading through the Roman Empire and its satellites. But this too is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.

Your example of persuasion proves _my_ point. But this too is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.

You misunderstand the nature of status. Take a modern suicide bomber. Of course he suffers, and within some society, loses status relative to what he would have had as an ordinary engineer. But within his own group of friends, his status goes through the roof. So for the early Christians. They went from being nobodies to being important within their groups. But this too is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.

You brought up Paul. As a Christian he became one of the most important Christian leaders in the world, with at least half a dozen churches looking up to him. Would he have had so much as a Jewish rabbi? He was never going to be accepted in Palestine because he was from the diaspora; he wasn't even going to be accepted in Alexandria. All in all, from a cynical point of view, he made a good, sound decision, making himself the leader of several communities in Asia Minor. But this too is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.

"Most scholars" do not basically agree... Actually, the most common view on that is that it was a later Christian interpolation. Now when I say "most common" I mean outside of Bible colleges. I'm talking about the relatively secular world of scholars, not the Bible college world of Ravi Zacharias and others you mentioned. But this too is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.

Which brings up a point about "peer review." You're boasting a lot about that. Give me an example of a journal that one of your articles has appeared in. My sense is that, given your misunderstanding about the age of the concept of "messiah," given your misunderstanding about the creativity of new religious movements in the Roman and Jewish worlds around the time of Jesus, you can't actually be a scholar of the period. Given that you think that "most scholars" accept the version of Josephus that you're promoting, I'd guess that you're in a soundly evangelical Christian context, not subject to the kind of criticisms that someone like E. P. Sanders (my own hero) would face. But this too is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.

You seem not to realize that texts were copied and re-copied over and over, and at any particular copying something is going to be changed, accidentally or on purpose, and in the latter case, from a wide variety of motivations. But this too is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.

The point about motivated reasoning was not primarily about you or me, though we both do it. It was about all of the people who've handled the texts that you're placing almost unreserved confidence in. I have a great deal of skepticism about ancient texts, whether they are Buddhist or Confucian or Sumerian or what. But this too is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.

Here is what matters. _I wouldn't believe that a guy rose from the dead even if I personally saw him die, and then saw him dead, and then saw him alive again. No matter how great the quality of your 2000 year old texts and 500 eye-witnesses, there must be some explanation more coherent than that someone rose from the dead - even for the eyewitnesses themselves, never mind us 2000 years later._ Given that the same "meticulously researched" texts say he was born of a virgin, turned water into wine, walked on water, commanded the weather, raised Lazarus from the dead, and so on - sorry man, there's too much there for me to buy.

Anyone who believes such stories _wants_ to believe them. They are not susceptible to proof.


----------



## Lukecash12

> I think you're wrong almost point by point.


Well good for you. It has been demonstrated by this point that your goals here are adverse to the goal of the thread: formal debate. What does formal debate entail? Establishing standards, using cited facts, and especially no use of ad hominem.



> The "messiah" idea was at most hundreds, not thousands of years old. But this is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.


Prove it. Of course, I would have used my expertise to date the tradition, but you set the burden of proof upon yourself by supplying us with your more radical date of the tradition.



> There is no evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. But this too is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.


There are several independent sources, written by the first generation, and first party.



> There were loads of "new religious movements" at the time. Lots of messiahs. All kinds of cults spreading through the Roman Empire and its satellites. But this too is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.


Really? That may hold water if you would say 2-5 in a hundred year period is a lot. Plus, you haven't pointed out the relevance of this yet to be cited observation.



> Your example of persuasion proves my point. But this too is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.


Ah, very nice literary device. I can see that you are trying to be as irritating as possible, so once I've finished responding to your material there is something in store for you.



> You misunderstand the nature of status. Take a modern suicide bomber. Of course he suffers, and within some society, loses status relative to what he would have had as an ordinary engineer. But within his own group of friends, his status goes through the roof. So for the early Christians. They went from being nobodies to being important within their groups. But this too is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.


Use textual criticism and manuscript evidence to point out that Paul had those motives, then. Point out to us how it is that he must have felt, as a member of the religious elite, that it would be a good idea to forsake his own comfort and position relative to basically everyone in the world he knew, to latch on to a group of people that he was previously having stoned. There must be evidence corroborating your position, if you are so indebted to it?



> You brought up Paul. As a Christian he became one of the most important Christian leaders in the world, with at least half a dozen churches looking up to him. Would he have had so much as a Jewish rabbi? He was never going to be accepted in Palestine because he was from the diaspora; he wasn't even going to be accepted in Alexandria. All in all, from a cynical point of view, he made a good, sound decision, making himself the leader of several communities in Asia Minor. But this too is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.


Had *so much*? He was flogged, stoned, imprisoned, and executed. Not to mention that he was reviled by just about everyone he knew (especially the people he was close to before his conversion), aside from the new group he joined. What splendor is there in having a half dozen confused groups looking up to you, while you take on the brunt of the world's cruelty?



> "Most scholars" do not basically agree... Actually, the most common view on that is that it was a later Christian interpolation. Now when I say "most common" I mean outside of Bible colleges. I'm talking about the relatively secular world of scholars, not the Bible college world of Ravi Zacharias and others you mentioned. But this too is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.


Cite your facts, my friend. I referred to you _The Verdict of History_, which is a survey of the work of thousands of scholars who have published works in English, German, and French. My view of the subject of scholarly consensus is on an international scale, and my personal library is full of hundreds of opinions contrary to my own. Should you doubt that, I don't mind citing many more scholars that agree with Habermas' survey.



> Which brings up a point about "peer review." You're boasting a lot about that. Give me an example of a journal that one of your articles has appeared in. My sense is that, given your misunderstanding about the age of the concept of "messiah," given your misunderstanding about the creativity of new religious movements in the Roman and Jewish worlds around the time of Jesus, you can't actually be a scholar of the period. Given that you think that "most scholars" accept the version of Josephus that you're promoting, I'd guess that you're in a soundly evangelical Christian context, not subject to the kind of criticisms that someone like E. P. Sanders (my own hero) would face. But this too is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.


Look me up on the Philosophia Christi, Theologyweb, the Moody Bible Institute, Simpspon University's "Tozer Theological Seminary", and on the University of the Pacific. Also: You are committing an ad hominem fallacy by assuming that whatever context I come from has to do with the validity of my assertion. Moreover: I don't come from a soundly Evangelical context. I am a non-denominational Christian whose viewpoint has changed numerous times, and it shouldn't be certain to anyone that I actively try to emulate a group, given my diagnosis. Lastly: E.P. Sanders does not represent the majority of scholarship at all, and I have already cited that.



> You seem not to realize that texts were copied and re-copied over and over, and at any particular copying something is going to be changed, accidentally or on purpose, and in the latter case, from a wide variety of motivations. But this too is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.


1. Ad hominem fallacy.
2. There has to be a reason to edit a text, which you haven't displayed. That they were copied "over and over" is completely unsubstantiated (by you), and that you think that mere suggestion of something is enough to blow up someone's position is unacceptable in the setting of formal debate.



> The point about motivated reasoning was not primarily about you or me, though we both do it. It was about all of the people who've handled the texts that you're placing almost unreserved confidence in. I have a great deal of skepticism about ancient texts, whether they are Buddhist or Confucian or Sumerian or what. But this too is a distraction, it doesn't really matter.


Motivated reasoning, huh? Well then I guess it's up to you to find and display those motivations. We can't just assume they exist in the very same form you want them to exist in for your position.



> Here is what matters. I wouldn't believe that a guy rose from the dead even if I personally saw him die, and then saw him dead, and then saw him alive again. No matter how great the quality of your 2000 year old texts and 500 eye-witnesses, there must be some explanation more coherent than that someone rose from the dead - even for the eyewitnesses themselves, never mind us 2000 years later. Given that the same "meticulously researched" texts say he was born of a virgin, turned water into wine, walked on water, commanded the weather, raised Lazarus from the dead, and so on - sorry man, there's too much there for me to buy.


Great. It isn't too hard to see that you've drawn together a dense little paragraph of facts that you've neglected to cite, and that you don't intend to make public your reasoning. We know very well your position, that absolutely nothing can convince you. However, we don't know at all why that is your position, and what standards you use in order to rationalize the world around you.



> Anyone who believes such stories wants to believe them. They are not susceptible to proof.


"I see" says the blind man. Don't worry, though. Your participation in this thread has been profitable. You see, as a Christian I study my early church fathers on a regular basis, and I agree with many of my peers in Apologetics and those polemicists from the ancient world, that once a person shows utter disdain (even contempt) for participating in a goal oriented discussion, that it is appropriate for a Christian to use rhetoric to point out how unpalatable your opponent's behavior is; This practice of polemics is really the last resort, in order that the person who is being unreasonable doesn't set the same hedge in front of other people.

So, I'll ply these examples of polemic against you, which I've tempered with the site's standards:

1. Demonstrate that you know what the scholarly consensus is, instead of just saying you know what it is.
2. Either cite every one of your facts, or refer me back to facts that have been cited.
3. Directly respond to your opponent point by point, with the same respect that you have been given. You have been dismissing every point I've made (most often not even addressing them) as if I'm subhuman, and I cannot say anything of substance. All the while, I've been apportioning to you the deference that there can be substance to what you are saying, and asking you to cite your facts, as well as directly responding to your criticism.
4. Apologize for calling a man a liar, and making a snide request for the people he works with, as if they aren't real. This is completely disrespectful and improper in this setting; Not to mention that you would have been told who I work with had you just asked.

And now that you've publicly had your ear pulled, the polemic I used should help to ensure that you aren't a stumbling block for others, who are receptive to seeing people ridiculed. We worked our way to this point, and you were complicit in the process of ensuring strong polemic was used.

For Almaviva:

I don't mean to cause any trouble here and he will probably go on my ignore list in order to make sure this isn't a headache for you, and in order that this thread can keep going. At no point have I directly said anything ad hominem to him, which is demonstrable from a literal reading, and at no point have I shown disdain for any other code of conduct here, so far as I know.


----------



## Lukecash12

> Now you have again contradicted yourself. First you say Matthew had to be concise and certain due to a lack of money for ink (interesting that a god that can part seas and raise people from the dead allows his inspiration to be constrained by something so mundane). Then you offer that all Matthew knew was that 'the Romans and Jewish authorities said the body was stolen". Ignoring that there's no evidence that it was even these authorities who first perpetrated the rumour, Matthew goes on to write:
> 
> Matthew 28:11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.
> 
> Matthew's account is NOT a concise statement that the Pharisees started the rumour, which is what you say all he needed to know to write his account, but it offers specific details: he knows that only some of the guards went to the city, that the chief priests consulted and plotted with the elders first rather than act on their own accord, quotes exactly what was told to the guards, and knows that it was specifically money used to persuade the guards and not blackmail or something else. Matthew is either adding his own unnecessary speculations, by which your own need for certainty argument he never would have done, or inventing wildly the entire thing, which would explain why he goes into this level of detail as it fleshes out his coverup story.


Considering that this specific line of argumentation has been peripheral from what I set out to do with the _Minimal Facts Argument_, I'll politely respond to it once more, but I don't have an interest in discussing it any more unless you can express to me it's relevance.

1. I don't see where the contradiction is. I purported that Matthew had deduced a conspiracy, so he could very well have felt certain about the issue. I've already supplied why he probably felt there was a conspiracy. Also, it appears to fit the definition of concise, because it only took him all of five verses to describe the conspiracy, saying that they met in the city and agreed to lie about the empty tomb.
2. Would all the guards have left their post?
3. It's not that grand of a deduction that the people involved in a conspiracy consulted amongst themselves. Taking a look at the Greek, the phrase "kai sunachthentes meta tOn presbuterOn sumboulion" which translates directly to this phrase before an expert applies Greek grammar and syntax to it: "And being-together-led with the seniors together-counsel". So, we can see that they were already assembled together when the guards came, given the word "sunachthentes", because it's base word "sunago" means that they were assembled. This swings just a bit more in favor of my supposition that Matthew wrote his account according to what he considered natural consequences.

Now, I'd like to point out that as one who works with history, I don't normally find it favorable to espouse conspiracies. The reasons that I personally trust the account is because of the numerous demonstrations Matthew has given his readers that warrant some trust, and the conspiracy is very plausible and not contrived.



> If guards were there to do it, why were the women concerned about who would open the tomb?
> 
> Why is it inconceivable that disciples or theives could have moved the boulder, but Roman Guards would have had no trouble with the task?


1. I don't quite understand what you are saying there, so I'd appreciate it if you quoted the text and we went from there with your assertion.

2. You don't see any difference in man power between a group of disciples or thieves, and Roman guards dispatched there to guard the tomb who were told to allow the people to practice their customs? They would have been prepared for the occasion.


----------



## Almaviva

Lukecash12 said:


> "I see" says the blind man. Don't worry, though. Your participation in this thread has been profitable. You see, as a Christian I study my early church fathers on a regular basis, and I agree with many of my peers in Apologetics and those polemicists from the ancient world, that once a person shows utter disdain (even contempt) for participating in a goal oriented discussion, that it is appropriate for a Christian to use rhetoric to point out how unpalatable your opponent's behavior is; This practice of polemics is really the last resort, in order that the person who is being unreasonable doesn't set the same hedge in front of other people.
> 
> So, I'll ply these examples of polemic against you, *which I've tempered with the site's standards:*
> 
> 1. Demonstrate that you know what the scholarly consensus is, instead of just saying you know what it is.
> 2. Either cite every one of your facts, or refer me back to facts that have been cited.
> 3. Directly respond to your opponent point by point, with the same respect that you have been given. You have been dismissing every point I've made (most often not even addressing them) as if I'm subhuman, and I cannot say anything of substance. All the while, I've been apportioning to you the deference that there can be substance to what you are saying, and asking you to cite your facts, as well as directly responding to your criticism.
> 4. Apologize for calling a man a liar, and making a snide request for the people he works with, as if they aren't real. This is completely disrespectful and improper in this setting; Not to mention that you would have been told who I work with had you just asked.
> 
> *And now that you've publicly had your ear pulled, the polemic I used should help to ensure that you aren't a stumbling block for others, who are receptive to seeing people ridiculed. *We worked our way to this point, and you were complicit in the process of ensuring strong polemic was used.
> 
> For Almaviva:
> 
> I don't mean to cause any trouble here and he will probably go on my ignore list in order to make sure this isn't a headache for you, and in order that this thread can keep going. At no point have I directly said anything ad hominem to him, which is demonstrable from a literal reading, and at no point have I shown disdain for any other code of conduct here, so far as I know.


Why am I not surprised? These topics always end like this.
No, Lukecash, you didn't temper your points with the site's standards.
Because see, our standard here is not really one of trying to ridicule another member or to publicly pull another member's ear.
You're utterly wrong about our standards.
It's not just the letter of what you post, it's also the spirit.
Nobody ELSE is interested in this slug-fest. If you guys want to have a go at each others' throats, please kindly do it by PM. You don't need to subject other members to this kind of adversarial tone which is frankly quite tiresome.
This thread has overstayed its welcome. 
I had decided not to issue any penalties and will stick to my word on this, but I'll close the thread.
There will be no real loss, because if you want the discussion to proceed - it's basically just you and Couchie and Science at this point - the three of you are perfectly entitled to continuing through private messages, or you can start a private group with this issue as its topic, and invite to the discussion the few who are interested in continuing it.
We, the other members, certainly don't need the aggravation.
Good bye.


----------



## Krummhorn

Almaviva said:


> . . . If you guys want to have a go at each others' throats, please kindly do it by PM. You don't need to subject other members to this kind of adversarial tone which is frankly quite tiresome.
> This thread has overstayed its welcome.


I concur ... and as another option, anyone can create their own *Social Group* for these types of discussions.

In a Social Group the organizer can invite whom they want to be part of the discussion ... we normally do not intervene nor moderate the Social Groups, unless we are asked to do so.


----------

