infidelguy
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:57 pm
Post subject: Resurrection/post-Resurrection
accounts - Gastrich vs Johnny |
|
|
This is a formal
debate between Dr. Jason
Gastrich Ph.D. and JohnnySkeptic on the Reliability
of the Resurrection and post-Resurrection accounts.
Resolution: The Resurrection and post-Resurrection
accounts are congruent and altogether feasible,
likely, and even probable. Jason Gastrich will take
the affirmative and post first. Johnny Skeptic will
take the negative.
Parameters: 1.) Rounds: 8 2.)
Maximum words per round: 2,000 3.) Maximum time
between posts: 10 days
Peanut Gallery is set up for the
rest of us to comment on the debate. Anyone else
posting here besides the debaters will have their
posts removed immediately.
Have a nice
debate!
| |
| |
|
 |
JasonGastrich
|
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 10:29
pm Post subject: |
|
|
Round 1
Dear Johnny and IG Forums,
I hope
you’re well.
First, thanks goes to IG for
hosting this debate on his forum. I trust it will be
a good location with evenhanded moderation. I also
predict that it could be a good location for future
debates.
Thanks to Johnny Skeptic for
pursuing me as a debate opponent. It is my pleasure
to give evidences for the resurrection and support
the integrity of the resurrection and
post-resurrection accounts.
My argument for
the resurrection of Jesus Christ will be made in
three parts. They include: 1) The Empty Tomb, 2) The
Postmortem Appearances, and 3) The Origin of the
Disciples’ Belief in Jesus’ Resurrection.
The Empty Tomb
The following,
credible evidence of the historical account of the
burial story supports the empty tomb. It would’ve
been impossible for faith in the resurrection to
grow if Jesus’ body were in its tomb. Furthermore,
it would have been to the great pleasure of Jesus’
opponents if they could produce His body and quiet
His supporters.
Paul’s testimony gives us
early evidence for the historical accuracy of Jesus’
burial in the tomb.
1 Corinthians 15:3-5
reads, “. . . Christ died for our sins in accordance
with the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and
that He was raised on the third day in accordance
with the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas,
then to the Twelve.”
It’s obvious that Paul knew the stories
behind the traditions that He spoke of. We see this
in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. Plus, Paul’s two week
visit to Jerusalem in A.D. 36, recorded in Galatians
1:18, makes this conclusion sound.
Mark’s burial account is very old because
his gospel was written early and taken from early
source material.
Additionally,
1)
There wasn’t enough time for a legendary burial
story to formulate and circulate. 2)
Eyewitnesses were still alive and present to verify
the story and deny a false story. 3) Paul’s
likely knowledge of the pre-Markan source
The burial account hasn’t been saturated
with theology or apologetics.
Joseph of
Arimathea is a very unlikely person to make up. He
was part of the Jewish Sanhedrin. In light of the
overwhelming, religious, Jewish hostility toward
Jesus Christ, the character of Joseph certainly
couldn’t have been invented. Furthermore, Mark had
already said that the entire Sanhedrin had voted for
Jesus’ death. If one were to try and make something
up or change it, they wouldn’t have had a Jewish
member of the Sanhedrin begging for Jesus’ body to
be buried in his tomb.
The account of Joseph
laying the body in the tomb is likely historical.
These same types of tombs were used in that time
period. Plus, he would have laid the body in an
empty tomb with no other relatives’ bodies in it
because Jesus was considered a criminal and having
his body with his relatives’ bodies would have
defiled them.
Late on the Day of
Preparation, Jesus’ body was buried. This correlates
with Jewish tradition of removing the body before
nightfall and the gospel account of Joseph doing
this and burying Jesus, immediately.
Women
being present for the burial is likely historically
true. In fact, the women were present at Jesus’
death, burial, and resurrection. There is
consistency.
There is no good reason why a
made-up account would include women. The testimony
of women, in the first century, was inadmissible in
court. It was worthless. This is strong evidence for
the actual truth of the account. Surely, an
invention would have included the apostles being the
first ones to witness the resurrection.
In
Jesus’ time, the tombs and graves of Jewish martyrs
and holy men were honored and noted. Jesus’ tomb
would have been as well. This lends credibility to
the burial account that includes the women’s desire
to be present at the burial and anoint Jesus (Luke
23:55-56).
There isn’t any other burial
tradition in existence. If the account were
legendary, then there would have been competing
stories. However, we don’t have any; not even in
ancient, Jewish literature.
Paul undoubtedly
believed the tomb was empty due to the evidence.
a) 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 b) the Jewish concept of
resurrection c) his Pharisaic background and
verbiage d) shown by the phrase “on the third
day” e) revealed by the phrase “from the dead”
(Romans 4:24) f) 1 Corinthians 15:35-50 g)
articulated by his belief in the return of Christ (1
Thessalonians 4:14-17)
All of these points
reveal Paul’s faith in the resurrection of Jesus
Christ.
The empty tomb’s presence in Mark’s source
is evidence for its historicity.
The empty
tomb account is bound together by the burial
account. The similarities in verbs and syntax
bind the empty tomb account to the burial account
In reference to the resurrection, the
phrase “the first day of the week,” is used in Mark
16:2 instead of “on the third day.” This reveals an
early inclusion and not a late one. The “on the
third day” motif started later in the first century
and was widely used in the early church. If the
empty tomb account was legendary, then it surely
would have used the popular motif.
Peter and John investigating the empty
tomb is probable. Their visit to the tomb is found
in tradition (Luke 24:12, 24 and John 20:3) and
revealed by John’s testimony. Further, their
investigation logically follows Peter’s denial
because he would have wanted to see the tomb after
hearing about the resurrection. He also would have
been in the right city (Jerusalem) to do this.
If the resurrection were a hoax, then the
disciples wouldn’t have started the story in
Jerusalem and it would have been virtually
impossible for them to perpetuate such a story. The
tomb was in Jerusalem! Jesus’ opponents could have
squashed the myth in minutes by taking people to the
tomb; if it had Jesus’ body in it.
Jesus’ critics didn’t deny the empty tomb.
They accepted it. However, they claimed that someone
stole the body (Matthew 28:13). So, the earliest
Jewish polemic tried to explain away the empty tomb;
not deny it.
It was typical for the Jews to
enshrine the prophets’ tombs. However, Jesus’ tomb
was not enshrined. It wasn’t enshrined because His
bones were not in it and there wouldn’t have been
any significance to the tomb.
The Post
Mortem Appearances
Paul affirms the resurrection and the
post-mortem appearances of Jesus Christ in 1
Corinthians 15:3-8. Verses 5-8 reads, “After that,
he appeared to more than five hundred of the
brothers at the same time, most of whom are still
living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he
appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and
last of all he appeared to me also, as to one
abnormally born.”
The historicity of the
Gospels, in general, lend credibility to the
historicity of the resurrection accounts in them.
The resurrection couldn’t have been a myth
or legend. Not enough time had passed between the
actual death and burial of Jesus and an alleged
myth. It takes a couple of generations and 100-200
years before legends about actual events can begin.
This is evidenced in some of the Apocyrphal
traditions that are indeed myths. They were written
a couple hundred years after Christ and they portray
the language that we see present in myths and
legends.
The resurrection account in the
non-canonical Gospel of Peter is considered a legend
because its authorship does not fall within the
lifetime of the first disciples. Plus, it contains
symbols and events common to legends. In contrast,
the resurrection account we find in Mark is a simple
and straightforward account of what happened.
The living eyewitnesses knew what happened
and what didn’t happen. They wouldn’t have allowed
myths to creep into the truth. Plus, the apostles
guarded the truth and tradition.
The
resurrection wasn’t simply witnessed by one or two
people. We don’t have just one or two accounts or
testimonies. We have all of the following of Jesus
appearances to:
1. The women 2. Peter
3. The Twelve 4. The Tiberias appearance
5. The Galilee appearance 6. The
appearance to 500 believers 7. James 8. Paul
Origin of the Disciples’ Belief in the Resurrection
The resurrection was at the center of the belief
system of the earliest Christians. If it did not
happen, then what caused this belief?
Jewish
religious belief didn’t cause the belief in Jesus’
resurrection. They only knew the resurrection of
believers at the end of the world. Plus, according
to their religious writings and scriptures, they
didn’t know of a resurrection for a single person.
Conclusion
The resurrection
appearances have multiple attestations. These
include Pauline, Gospel traditions (Johanine and
Synoptic), and New Testament attestations.
The resurrection has plenty of
dissimilarity. It cannot be traced to Jewish
religious beliefs and it cannot be a retrojection of
Christian theology.
The resurrection
accounts that all tell us how the women found the
tomb first would have been embarrassing. This fact
would have been something to cover up in a fictional
or exaggerated account.
There was no
expectation of a dying or rising Messiah. The
disciples’s faith cannot be explained in this way.
The conversion of James and Paul, the Jewish
assertion that the body was stolen, and the
disciples’ awesome transformation after the
resurrection attest to its validity. There had to
have been a cause for these effects and the
resurrection is the best explanation.
Mark’s account of the resurrection doesn’t
share any devices of confabulation with myths such
as the Gospel of Peter. There is no evidence of
apologetical or theological exaggeration.
There is coherence between the following
three, independently established facts: the empty
tomb, the post mortem appearances, and the origin
for the disciples’ belief in the resurrection. Plus,
there is coherence in Paul’s teachings on the
essence of the resurrection body, Jesus’ physical
appearances after His crucifixion, and the empty
tomb.
Sincerely, Jason Gastrich
Director, Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
ADMIN: Post Count 1,644
_________________ Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
Over 200,000 web pages! http://www.jcsm.org/
____________________
The Skeptic's
Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained Over
4,000 answers to the tough questions about the
Bible! http://skepticsannotatedbible.org/
| |
|
JohnnySkeptic
|
| Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 7:41 am
Post subject: The Resurrection/post Resurrection
accounts |
|
|
In my first post,
I inadvertently went over the 2,000 word limit.
Following is my revised post.
My own
alternate burial hypotheses:
Joseph of
Arimathea knew of Jesus’ prediction that he would
rise from the dead, but like most of the other
admirers of Jesus, he didn’t believe the claim. He
wanted to protect the good name of his beloved
friend by giving the impression that he rose from
the dead, so instead of burying the body in his own
tomb, which in his view if inspected would contain
the body, he buried the body in another tomb in the
same cemetery that he also owned.
Joseph quite naturally wouldn’t have left
his own tomb open, so he put a stone in front of the
entrance in order to give the appearance that the
body was inside.
Dr. Gary Habermas is widely
acknowledged as the chief defender of the
Resurrection. I once debated the empty tomb with a
Christian at the Theology Web. He mentioned a study
that Habermas conducted where Habermas found that
75% of the scholars whose writings he studied
believe that the body was buried in Joseph of
Arimathea’s tomb, and that 25% believe that the body
was not buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb.
I asked the Christian what the world views
of the scholars were, who the scholars were, how
many scholars there were, upon what evidence the 75%
based their conclusions, and how Habermas chose
whose writings to consult, but he couldn’t answer
any of my questions. Well-known skeptic Farrell Till
says that there are plenty of scholars who do not
believe that the body was buried in Joseph of
Arimathea’s tomb.
Christians often ask skeptics “Why would
the New Testament writers have invented a false
religion?” Well, the very same question could be
asked of the writers of all religious books. Lying
and/or innocent but inaccurate revelations are
obvious reasons to start a new religion, and
Christians will have to admit that historically, the
use of these motives has been widespread and quite
typical among humans. Why should anyone conclude
otherwise regarding Christianity?
Regarding the issue of legendary
corruption, in a debate with Christian apologist
Michael Horner, Farrell Till said the following:
“And I want to get to this matter that you
need two or three generations before a legend has
time to develop. We talked about history. History
doesn't agree with that, and I'm going to throw some
names out to you: Wyatt Earp, Buffalo Bill, Wild
Bill Hickok, Jesse James. How many legends developed
about these people in their own lifetime before they
were dead? You know, Wyatt Earp died just four years
before I was born. Who will ever know the truth
about the shootout at the O.K. Corral, because there
have been so many legends built around that?”
Regarding claimed eyewitnesses who supposedly saw
Jesus after he rose from the dead, what we need are
external corroborative sources regarding how many
people claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, and
whether the sources were second hand, third hand
etc. As far as I know, there are not any first hand
sources in the entire New Testament. There might not
even be any second hand sources. Paul’s claimed
vision of Jesus is by no means an acceptable first
hand source. Paul did not claim that he saw Jesus.
All that he claimed was that he heard a voice that
claimed to be Jesus.
The anonymous Gospel writers always wrote
in the third person. None of them ever claimed to
have seen the risen Jesus, none of them ever said
who their sources were, and none of them ever said
whether their sources were second hand, third hand
etc.
As far as eyewitnesses still being
around as Jason said “to verify the story and deny a
false story,” consider the following:
Rodney Stark, Ph.D., sociology, wrote a
book titled ‘The Rise of Christianity,’ for which he
received a Pulitzer Prize nomination. He is a
prolific author, with over 50 books and
publications, and he is a college professor of
sociology and comparative religion. In ‘The Rise of
Christianity’ Stark estimates the size of the
Christian Church at various times. He estimates that
there were 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D., or in my
own words only about the size of three good size
high schools. If Stark’s estimate is anywhere near
being reliable, then there is no doubt whatsoever
that the numbers of Christians claimed in the New
Testament are lies, calling into question New
Testament claims of miracles, including the
resurrection of Jesus. People who will tell a few
lies will always tell more lies.
Stark’s nomination for a Pulitzer Prize
was justified. His bibliography in ‘The Rise of
Christianity’ is twenty pages long, attesting to the
fact that he has a lot of corroborative support from
a good number of scholars. Consider the following:
“This book raises, simply and brilliantly, just the
kinds of questions anyone concerned with early
Christianity should ask.” The Christian Century
“Compelling reading…highly recommended.” Library
Journal
“Anyone who has puzzled over
Christianity’s rise to dominance in the Roman
Empire…must read [this book]. Here is theoretical
brashness combined with disarming common sense, a
capacious curiosity, and a most uncommon ability to
tell a complicated story in simple prose.” Wayne
Meeks, Yale University
“A provocative,
insightful, challenging account of the rise of
Christianity.” Andrew Greely, National Opinion
Research Center, University of Chicago
“This brilliant and highly provocative
book will revolutionize the way people think about
both biblical scholarship and church history….[This
is a] book nobody interested in the study of
religion can ignore.” Irving Hexham, University of
Calgary
“Exciting and stimulating, highly
readable, and full of new perspectives, Rodney
Stark’s book will surely bring about a revolution in
thinking about the growth in the numbers of
Christians in the Roman world.” Roger S. Bagnall,
Columbia University
“There is no book quite like this one on
early Christian history….[Stark’s] views, stated
with candor and clarity, are fresh and
insightful….There is much to learn here.” Robert L.
Wilkin, University of Virginia
“Rodney Stark
answers the question of how early Christianity
became a successful religious movement with
significantly greater clarity than anyone else has
to date.” Jeffrey K. Hadden, University of Virginia.
What is the minimum number of claimed eyewitnesses
that it takes to make a good case for the
Resurrection, and how can we be reasonably certain
how many people claimed to have seen Jesus after he
rose from the dead?
Jason said “There isn’t
any other burial tradition in existence. If the
account were legendary, then there would have been
competing stories. However, we don’t have any; not
even in ancient, Jewish literature.” Jason is using
an argument from silence, a tactic that Christians
often accuse skeptics of using. The best argument
from silence that I can think of, and which
Christians reject as an argument from silence, is
the complete lack of any external records of the
plagues in Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea,
supposed events that had hundreds of thousands, in
not millions of supposed eyewitnesses. If true, the
stories would have been passed down from generation
to generation and been recorded by historians, but
they weren’t.
There are some very good reasons for the
lack of competing stories. Consider the following:
Elaine Pagels: For nearly 2,000 years,
Christian tradition has preserved and revered
orthodox writings that denounce the Gnostics, while
suppressing and virtually destroying the Gnostic
writings themselves. Now, for the first time,
certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the
other side of the coin: how Gnostics denounced the
orthodox. The 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth'
polemicizes against orthodox Christianity,
contrasting it with the 'true church' of the
Gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of
light, the author says: '...we were hated and
persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant
(pagans), but also by those think they are advancing
the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly
empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb
animals.'"
Dr. Larry Taylor: How does this
apply to the story of Jesus? Simply that all of the
early critics are dead. Skeptical opinions were
banned. Christian opinions, other than those of the
establishment, were banned. Books were destroyed,
and later, heretics were burned.
Jason said
“Jesus’ critics didn’t deny the empty tomb. They
accepted it. However, they claimed that someone
stole the body (Matthew 28:13). So, the earliest
Jewish polemic tried to explain away the empty tomb;
not deny it.” Typical of Christian apologists, Jason
frequently calls upon the Bible to be its own
witness. That simply will not do. What we need are
corroborative external 1st century sources regarding
what critics said.
Jason said “Paul affirms
the resurrection and the post-mortem appearances of
Jesus Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Verses 5-8
reads, ‘After that, he appeared to more than five
hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of
whom are still living, though some have fallen
asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the
apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as
to one abnormally born.’” Again, what we need are
corroborative external 1st century sources. I invite
Jason to make a case based upon external 1st century
records regarding how many disciples there were,
what their names were, how long they lived, what
they believed, and what they publicly said about the
Resurrection.
In Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case For
Christ,’ William Lane Craig mentions “multiple,
independent attestations.” Even if there were
multiple attestations, what evidence is there that
they were independent? I asked ancient historian
Richard Carrier (a number of articles by Carrier can
be found at the Secular Web) about this. He said
“All four accounts are not independent. Matthew and
Luke without doubt follow Mark and embellish upon
Mark. Therefore, at most we have two independent
accounts, not four. But John shows strong evidence
of borrowing and modifying material from Luke --
therefore, it is doubtful we even have two
independent sources (and there is no evidence they
are independent either -- e.g. it cannot be shown
that John didn't get the empty tomb idea straight
from Mark). It appears there is only one actual
source: Mark. Every other source simply follows him,
or follows someone else who followed him.”
The Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says that the
gospel of Mark “is attributed to John Mark (Acts
12:12; 15:37), an associate of Paul and a disciple
of Peter, whose teachings the Gospel may reflect. It
is the shortest and the earliest of the four
Gospels, presumably written during the decade
preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Most scholars agree that it was used by Matthew and
Luke in composing their accounts; more than 90
percent of the content of Mark's Gospel appears in
Matthew's, and more than 50 percent in the Gospel of
Luke.”
Even if I believed that Jesus rose from
the dead, I would still not be a Christian. God’s
motives are suspect, and logically, it is impossible
to worship someone whose motives are largely
unexplained.
From Christians' point of view,
if they became skeptics and it eventually turns out
that the Bible is true, they will spend eternity in
hell. On the other hand, from skeptics' point of
view, if they became Christians and it eventually
turns out that they will become dust in the ground,
they will be no worse off than before they became
Christians. Therefore, skeptics are free to follow
the evidence wherever it leads completely free of
coercive influences.
In conclusion, a writer
is only as good as his source(s), and Jason hasn’t
told us which and how many sources the New Testament
writers used, and whether the sources were second
hand, third hand, etc.
Johnny Skeptic
ADMIN: Post Count 1,963
Last edited by
JohnnySkeptic on Wed Jun 01, 2005 6:17 am; edited 1
time in total
| |
| |
|
 |
infidelguy |
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 6:15 am
Post subject: |
|
|
NOTE: Jason
Gastrich complained about a +600 word overpost by
Johnny Skeptic made May 26th, 2005. Johnny has made
the changes as of June 1st, 2005. Mr. Gastrich has
requested 10 days to respond to Johnny's latest
post. June 11th 2005, is when we expect to see Mr.
Gastrich's latest post.
| |
| |
|
 |
JasonGastrich
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:18 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Readers and
Johnny,
I hope you’re well. Thanks for
following the debate.
Although I do expect
Johnny to address the points I made in my initial
post, I will begin by taking apart his burial
hypothesis.
| Quote: |
My own alternate burial
hypotheses:
Joseph of Arimathea knew of
Jesus’ prediction that he would rise from the
dead, but like most of the other admirers of
Jesus, he didn’t believe the claim. |
Hypotheses are based on
facts. What facts do you base yours on? How do you
know that Joseph knew Jesus’ predictions to rise
from the dead? Where is your proof of this?
The scriptures teach us that even His
closest followers - His apostles - didn’t really
understand the resurrection prophecies until after
He was raised from the dead (see passages like Luke
24 and the verses below). However, you assert that a
religious Jew who is absent from the rest of the New
Testament actually knew and understood Jesus’
claims? This is awfully far fetched.
Mark 9:31, 32 “For He taught His disciples
and said to them, ‘The Son of Man is being betrayed
into the hands of men, and they will kill Him. And
after He is killed, He will rise the third day.’ But
they did not understand this saying, and were afraid
to ask Him.”
Luke 9:44, 45 “‘Let these words
sink down into your ears, for the Son of Man is
about to be betrayed into the hands of men.’ But
they did not understand this saying, and it was
hidden from them so that they did not perceive it;
and they were afraid to ask Him about this saying.”
John 20:11-15 “But Mary stood outside by
the tomb weeping, and as she wept she stooped down
and looked into the tomb. And she saw two angels in
white sitting, one at the head and the other at the
feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. Then they
said to her, ‘Woman, why are you weeping?’ She said
to them, ‘Because they have taken away my Lord, and
I do not know where they have laid Him.’ Now when
she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus
standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus.
Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, why are you weeping? Whom
are you seeking?’ She, supposing Him to be the
gardener, said to Him, ‘Sir, if You have carried Him
away, tell me where You have laid Him, and I will
take Him away.’”
| Quote: |
| He wanted to protect the good
name of his beloved friend |
Where is the proof that
Jesus was Joseph’s “beloved friend”? Are you just
making this stuff up? Furthermore, Jesus had
countless disciples and much closer friends. Why
would Joseph risk his reputation and possibly even
his life just to perpetuate a lie?
| Quote: |
| by giving the impression that he
rose from the dead, so instead of burying the
body in his own tomb, which in his view if
inspected would contain the body, he buried the
body in another tomb in the same cemetery that
he also owned. |
As we can see, this is a
very poor and unsupported hypothesis. What would
Joseph of Arimathea (who was a religious Jew in the
Sanhedrin) have to gain by lying about Jesus’ body?
Furthermore, why isn’t he mentioned any more in the
scriptures?
| Quote: |
| Christians often ask skeptics
“Why would the New Testament writers have
invented a false religion?” Well, the very same
question could be asked of the writers of all
religious books. Lying and/or innocent but
inaccurate revelations are obvious reasons to
start a new religion, and Christians will have
to admit that historically, the use of these
motives has been widespread and quite typical
among humans. Why should anyone conclude
otherwise regarding Christianity?
|
Instead of setting up straw
man arguments (which is exactly what you did here,
you set up a weak argument, called a straw man, then
knocked it down), why don’t you work on answering my
assertions from my Round 1 post?
Nonetheless, this isn’t the question I’m
asking you. If you want to debate me, then
concentrate on my questions. Here is one for you.
Why would Jesus’ disciples knowingly die
for a lie? Why and how would they fully know that
Jesus was actually in the tomb, yet die horrible
deaths for their faith in Him? How could this be so?
Answer: their willingness to die (and the fact that
they did die horrible deaths) for their faith in the
risen Christ is powerful evidence that He indeed
rose from the dead.
| Quote: |
Regarding the issue of legendary
corruption, in a debate with Christian apologist
Michael Horner, Farrell Till said the following:
“And I want to get to this matter that
you need two or three generations before a
legend has time to develop. We talked about
history. History doesn't agree with that, and
I'm going to throw some names out to you: Wyatt
Earp, Buffalo Bill, Wild Bill Hickok, Jesse
James. How many legends developed about these
people in their own lifetime before they were
dead? |
I don’t know. Is your
argument solely based on a rhetorical question?
Facts, please.
| Quote: |
| You know, Wyatt Earp died just
four years before I was born. Who will ever know
the truth about the shootout at the O.K. Corral,
because there have been so many legends built
around that?” |
As far as I know, nobody
claimed that Wyatt Earp rose from the dead, so this
is awfully disanalogous. Wyatt Earp’s friends didn’t
tell people that he rose from the dead, either.
| Quote: |
| Regarding claimed eyewitnesses
who supposedly saw Jesus after he rose from the
dead, what we need are external corroborative
sources regarding how many people claimed to
have seen the risen Jesus, and whether the
sources were second hand, third hand etc. As far
as I know, there are not any first hand sources
in the entire New Testament. There might not
even be any second hand sources. Paul’s claimed
vision of Jesus is by no means an acceptable
first hand source. Paul did not claim that he
saw Jesus. All that he claimed was that he heard
a voice that claimed to be Jesus.
|
This isn’t true. Read the
following from Luke’s gospel (who also wrote Acts).
Luke 1:1-4 reads, “Inasmuch as many have taken in
hand to set in order a narrative of those things
which have been fulfilled among us, just as those
who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and
ministers of the word delivered them to us, it
seemed good to me also, having had perfect
understanding of all things from the very first, to
write to you an orderly account, most excellent
Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those
things in which you were instructed.”
| Quote: |
| The anonymous Gospel writers
always wrote in the third person. None of them
ever claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, none
of them ever said who their sources were, and
none of them ever said whether their sources
were second hand, third hand etc.
|
Who? Nonetheless, this is
untrue. See above.
(Snip: I can’t believe
you just wasted a full page by posting brief, book
reviews. Aren’t book reviews appeals to authority?)
Instead of telling us that Stark estimated there
were around 7000 Christians around 100 A.D., you
should be arguing that his methodology was true.
Instead of telling us that other people liked his
book, you should be presenting an argument that
these particular estimates are accurate. I’ll be
waiting, but until then, don’t expect me to respond
to book reviews or appeals to authority.
| Quote: |
| Jason said “Jesus’ critics
didn’t deny the empty tomb. They accepted it.
However, they claimed that someone stole the
body (Matthew 28:13). So, the earliest Jewish
polemic tried to explain away the empty tomb;
not deny it.” Typical of Christian apologists,
Jason frequently calls upon the Bible to be its
own witness. That simply will not do. What we
need are corroborative external 1st century
sources regarding what critics said. |
Untrue. If the Bible were a
book written by one human, then you would be right.
However, it isn’t. The Bible is a book written by 40
people, so if we compare its accounts, it can be its
own witness.
| Quote: |
| Jason said “Paul affirms the
resurrection and the post-mortem appearances of
Jesus Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Verses 5-8
reads, ‘After that, he appeared to more than
five hundred of the brothers at the same time,
most of whom are still living, though some have
fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then
to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared
to me also, as to one abnormally born.’” Again,
what we need are corroborative external 1st
century sources. |
Why? This is nothing more
than you avoiding my argument.
| Quote: |
| From Christians' point of view,
if they became skeptics and it eventually turns
out that the Bible is true, they will spend
eternity in hell. On the other hand, from
skeptics' point of view, if they became
Christians and it eventually turns out that they
will become dust in the ground, they will be no
worse off than before they became Christians.
Therefore, skeptics are free to follow the
evidence wherever it leads completely free of
coercive influences. |
If a skeptic can remain a
non-Christian despite coercive influences, then a
skeptic can become a Christian despite coercive
influences. Not all Christians are Christians due to
coercive influences.
Now, as I look back at
my Round 1 post, I notice that you didn’t address a
lot of it. It also seems that you had most of your
Round 1 post already prepared. I’m going to repeat a
couple of things that you still need to address.
The first issue I’ll repeat is one you probably
neglected because it answers one of your first
points; probably a point that you created before the
debate began.
In response to a possible legend:
In reference to the resurrection, the
phrase “the first day of the week,” is used in Mark
16:2 instead of “on the third day.” This reveals an
early inclusion and not a late one. The “on the
third day” motif started later in the first century
and was widely used in the early church. If the
empty tomb account was legendary, then it surely
would have used the popular motif.
Another overlooked point:
If the
resurrection were a hoax, then the disciples
wouldn’t have started the story in Jerusalem and it
would have been virtually impossible for them to
perpetuate such a story. The tomb was in Jerusalem!
Jesus’ opponents could have squashed the myth in
minutes by taking people to the tomb; if it had
Jesus’ body in it.
Yet another:
The historicity of the Gospels, in
general, lend credibility to the historicity of the
resurrection accounts in them.
Finally:
Origin of the Disciples’
Belief in the Resurrection
The resurrection
was at the center of the belief system of the
earliest Christians. If it did not happen, then what
caused this belief?
Jewish religious belief didn’t cause the
belief in Jesus’ resurrection. They only knew the
resurrection of believers at the end of the world.
Plus, according to their religious writings and
scriptures, they didn’t know of a resurrection for a
single person.
There were a number of
unanswered issues, but I take it readers have
already recognized this. Nonetheless, as the final,
unanswered point asks, if the resurrection did not
happen, then what caused this belief?
Sincerely, Jason Gastrich
_________________ Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
Over 200,000 web pages!
http://www.jcsm.org/
____________________
The Skeptic's
Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained Over
4,000 answers to the tough questions about the
Bible! http://skepticsannotatedbible.org/
| |
| |
|
 |
|
|
 |
JohnnySkeptic |
| Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:39 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Greetings
everyone,
William Lane Craig calls the
Gospels “multiple, independent attestations,” but
there is no good evidence at all that the Gospels
are independent. Ancient historian Richard Carrier
says “All four accounts are not independent. Matthew
and Luke without doubt follow Mark and embellish
upon Mark. Therefore, at most we have two
independent accounts, not four. But John shows
strong evidence of borrowing and modifying material
from Luke -- therefore, it is doubtful we even have
two independent sources (and there is no evidence
they are independent either -- e.g. it cannot be
shown that John didn't get the empty tomb idea
straight from Mark). It appears there is only one
actual source: Mark. Every other source simply
follows him, or follows someone else who followed
him.”
The Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition
says that the Gospel of Mark “is attributed to John
Mark (Acts 12:12; 15:37), an associate of Paul and a
disciple of Peter, whose teachings the Gospel may
reflect. It is the shortest and the earliest of the
four Gospels, presumably written during the decade
preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Most scholars agree that it was used by Matthew and
Luke in composing their accounts; more than 90
percent of the content of Mark's Gospel appears in
Matthew's, and more than 50 percent in the Gospel of
Luke.”
The Gospel’s are woefully inadequate
non-eyewitnesses attestations that cannot even be
reasonably proven to be second hand attestations.
Christians are well aware that it is
important for them to claim that the Gospel stories
were circulating soon after the death of Jesus, and
Jason is no exception. He gave it a try, but not a
very good one. In Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case For
Christ,’ William Craig says “We can tell from the
language, grammar, and style that Mark got his empty
tomb story—actually, his whole passion narrative –
from an earlier source. In fact, there’s evidence it
was written before A.D. 37, which is much too early
for legend to have seriously corrupted it.”
Regarding this matter, Richard Carrier told me
“Craig argues that the Markan empty tomb story
predates Mark based on incredibly specious reasoning
not accepted by objective experts in the field. His
argument is entirely rooted in the presumption that
the story is not theologically adorned and that it
contains semitisms (i.e. Greek phrases that indicate
an underlying Hebrew text or speaker). But the
latter
evidence is useless, because such semitisms
are used even by Luke and others, and so do not
indicate date--semitic speakers of Greek were
still around and still members of Christian
communities for hundreds of years, and so the fact
that Mark was writing like a Hebrew tells us
nothing about when he wrote. Also, the key
Hebraicism that Craig claims to find comes verbatim
from the Septuagint, and therefore is not from any
pre-Markan empty tomb ‘source.’ In short,
Craig's argument that the empty tomb story predates
37 AD is absurd.”
Actually, there is no good
evidence that the empty tomb story predated 50 AD.
Jason said:
“Why would Jesus’ disciples
knowingly die for a lie?”
Other than the New Testament, who says
that they did?
Regarding my quotes from
Farrell Till regarding myths and legends, Jason
said:
“As far as I know, nobody claimed that
Wyatt Earp rose from the dead, so this is awfully
disanalogous. Wyatt Earp’s friends didn’t tell
people that he rose from the dead, either.”
It is not disanalogous at all. The issue
is how long it takes for myths and legends to
develop, not specifically what myths and legends
claim happened. At infidels.org,
readers will find a debate between Farrell Till
and Michael Horner. One of the topics discussed was
how long it takes for myths and legends in general
to occur, not specifically what myths and legends
claim happened. By the way, Till got the last word.
Horner gave up his argument on myths and legends and
proceeded to other matters.
Jason said:
“If the resurrection
were a hoax, then the disciples wouldn’t have
started the story in Jerusalem and it would have
been virtually impossible for them to perpetuate
such a story.”
Who says that the disciples
were able to perpetuate the story to any sizeable
extent? No reliable external records confirm such a
notion. The books of Acts claims that there were
“many thousands” of Christians not long after Jesus
died, but there are no good reasons to assume that
the claim was anything more than Christian
propaganda designed to make the Christian Church
look good.
Jason said:
“The tomb was in Jerusalem! Jesus’
opponents could have squashed the myth in minutes by
taking people to the tomb; if it had Jesus’ body in
it.”
Jason assumes that is was well-known
that Jesus was buried in Joseph’s tomb, but that
claim is far from being reasonably established. Gary
Habermas is widely acknowledged as the chief
defender of the Resurrection. He conducted research
regarding the empty tomb and stated that 75% of the
scholars whose writings he consulted, handpicked by
him of course, believe that Jesus was buried in
Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, and that 25% did not
believe that Jesus was buried in Joseph’s tomb.
First of all, there is no evidence that that the
percentages reflect the views of the majority of
scholars. Second of all, the opinions of 25% of the
scholars are sufficient enough to question the
Gospel accounts. A murder suspect cannot be
convicted if 25% of the jurors believe that he is
innocent.
Regarding Joseph, the Britannica
2002 Deluxe Edition says “according to all four
Gospels.” The Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia says
“according to all four Gospels of the New Testament,
a rich Jew of Arimathea, probably a member of the
Sanhedrin.” What we need is external corroboration,
but as usual, Jason doesn’t have any. _
Jason said:
“The resurrection was at the
center of the belief system of the earliest
Christians. If it did not happen, then what caused
this belief?”
“What caused this belief?”
Probably lying and/or innocent but inaccurate
revelations, the very same factors that account for
all religious beliefs.
It is important to
note that although some skeptics claim that there
were mass hallucinations, there is no need for them
to make such a claim. Just a few innocent but
inaccurate revelations and/or a few lies could
easily have done the job.
If Jesus did not
rise from the dead, then the Christian Church would
not likely have been able to begin to grow rapidly
until after the deaths of the supposed still living
eyewitnesses, which would have been late in the 1st
century. Until then, most people would have said
“Hey, we were there, and we didn’t see the risen
Jesus.” There are no good reasons to exclude such a
possibility.
Historically, it has been quite
natural for humans to dream up all sorts of
religions. Why should anyone make an exception in
the case of Christianity?
Jason said:
“Jewish religious
belief didn’t cause the belief in Jesus’
resurrection. They only knew the resurrection of
believers at the end of the world.”
What do
Jews have to do with anything? In spite of what the
book of Acts claims, there is no good evidence that
Christianity has ever been popular among an
appreciable number of Jews.
Jason said:
“There were a number of unanswered issues,
but I take it readers have already recognized this.”
Yes, there are a number of unanswered issues, such
as how many provably independent sources do we have
regarding the burial of Jesus and the Resurrection,
were the sources that the New Testament writers used
second hand, third hand etc., what credible external
corroborative sources can Jason provide regarding
the burial and Resurrection of Jesus, how large was
the 1st century Christian Church, and what credible
external sources can Jason provide regarding the
martyrdom of the disciples?
The most important aspect of the
Resurrection accounts is the eyewitnesses. Jason
needs to provide external corroboration regarding
how many people claimed to have seen the risen
Jesus, but as usual, he doesn’t have any.
Jason, what was the point of the
appearances? Was it to provide tangible evidence for
what faith alone obviously was not able to provide?
In your opinion, how many people did Jesus have to
appear to in order to provide that generation and
subsequent generations sufficient evidence that he
had risen from the dead?
In my previous post I said “Even if I
believed that Jesus rose from the dead, I would
still not be a Christian. God’s motives are suspect,
and logically, it is impossible to worship someone
whose motives are largely unexplained.” I would
appreciate it if Jason would tell us why anyone
should worship an entity who they have never met and
never had an opportunity to question. Presidential
candidates are voted for after they explain their
motives, intentions and past actions in great
detail, not before. Jason needs to tell us upon what
evidence he has concluded that all of God’s motives,
intentions and past actions are good.
Johnny
Skeptic
Admin Post Count: 1509
| |
| |
|
 |
JasonGastrich
 |
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:02
am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello IG Forum
and Johnny,
I hope that all is well.
Johnny opens his last post with:
Matthew and Luke without doubt follow Mark
and embellish upon Mark . . . But John shows strong
evidence of borrowing and modifying material from
Luke . . . It appears there is only one actual
source: Mark. Every other source simply follows him,
or follows someone else who followed him.
In
a debate, one needs to not just assert, but to argue
and prove. In my humble opinion, mere assertions
deserve mere assertions in response; or even less.
I’m going to give Johnny a chance to support his
statements above; not that they will help his case
any, but since it’s the angle he wishes to take, he
needs to provide some proof and argue his case. When
he does, I’ll be happy to rebut..
Now, I had
to snip a few paragraphs. It seems that Johnny
thinks he is debating someone else. He needs to
address my arguments and avoid worrying about other
people’s arguments. I suppose this is a sort of
straw man tactic. He isn’t going to be accountable
for answering Lee Stroebl or William Lane Craig.
However, he is responsible for answering me and
trying to rebut my arguments. I challenge him to
begin trying to do so. Furthermore, I believe that
Johnny should apologize to readers who were
expecting more from this exchange. It seems that he
quickly goes off topic and ignores my arguments.
| Quote: |
Jason said:
“Why would
Jesus’ disciples knowingly die for a lie?”
|
| Quote: |
| JOHNNY: Other than the New
Testament, who says that they did?
|
The New Testament is a
credible testimony of several accounts of what
happened. They are congruent, harmonious accounts as
well. Until Johnny can give us a reason to doubt the
accounts, we have no reason to avoid entertaining
them. Furthermore, their inerrancy and the inerrancy
of the rest of the scriptures that can be verified
helps us to even trust the accounts; as historians
do.
| Quote: |
Regarding my quotes from Farrell
Till regarding myths and legends, Jason said:
“As far as I know, nobody claimed that
Wyatt Earp rose from the dead, so this is
awfully disanalogous. Wyatt Earp’s friends
didn’t tell people that he rose from the dead,
either.” |
| Quote: |
| JOHNNY: It is not disanalogous
at all. The issue is how long it takes for myths
and legends to develop, not specifically what
myths and legends claim happened. |
Not exactly. This analogy
doesn’t work for several reasons. First, the legends
surround Earp do not involve supernatural phenomena.
They involve natural things that have been observed.
If a legend sprouted up about Earp robbing a bank
that he really didn’t rob, at least it’s feasible.
How could a legend close to the actual event
regarding the resurrection of Christ be feasible?
Answer: it isn’t feasible at all.
A legend
on the magnitude of someone rising from the dead
would have taken a great deal of time after Christ’s
death. Why? Because:
1. The Pharisees would
have exposed such a lie 2. The followers of
Christ wouldn’t have died for something they knew
was a lie 3. The empty tomb was verifiable in
the very place where this legend allegedly arose
| Quote: |
Jason said:
“If the
resurrection were a hoax, then the disciples
wouldn’t have started the story in Jerusalem and
it would have been virtually impossible for them
to perpetuate such a story.” |
[quote]JOHNNY: Who says
that the disciples were able to perpetuate the story
to any sizeable extent?[quote]
This isn’t
the issue. The issue is where the
story/account/legend began. It began in Jerusalem.
There was an empty tomb there. Why would it begin
there and how would it begin there? People could
walk to the tomb and prove it or disprove it! Only a
truthful account Christ’s resurrection could begin
in Jerusalem.
| Quote: |
| JOHNNY: No reliable external
records confirm such a notion. |
You have yet to show why
the gospels and the book of Acts are not reliable
accounts.
| Quote: |
Jason said:
“The tomb
was in Jerusalem! Jesus’ opponents could have
squashed the myth in minutes by taking people to
the tomb; if it had Jesus’ body in it.”
|
| Quote: |
| JOHNNY: Jason assumes that is
was well-known that Jesus was buried in Joseph’s
tomb, but that claim is far from being
reasonably established. |
Would you care to argue
about the tomb and make a case for why you think
Jesus wasn’t buried in it?
| Quote: |
| Regarding Joseph, the Britannica
2002 Deluxe Edition says “according to all four
Gospels.” The Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia
says “according to all four Gospels of the New
Testament, a rich Jew of Arimathea, probably a
member of the Sanhedrin.” What we need is
external corroboration, but as usual, Jason
doesn’t have any. |
We only need “external
corroboration” if there is sufficient reason to
doubt all of the accounts that we do have.
| Quote: |
Jason said:
“The
resurrection was at the center of the belief
system of the earliest Christians. If it did not
happen, then what caused this belief?” |
| Quote: |
| JOHNNY: “What caused this
belief?” Probably lying and/or innocent but
inaccurate revelations, the very same factors
that account for all religious beliefs. |
These assertions can
certainly be addressed after they are supported.
| Quote: |
| It is important to note that
although some skeptics claim that there were
mass hallucinations, there is no need for them
to make such a claim. Just a few innocent but
inaccurate revelations and/or a few lies could
easily have done the job.
|
Who lied? Why did they lie?
Why would Jesus’ followers die for their faith in
something they just made up?
| Quote: |
| Historically, it has been quite
natural for humans to dream up all sorts of
religions. Why should anyone make an exception
in the case of Christianity?
|
Because of the proof. There
is far greater proof for Jesus’ life, death, and
resurrection than there is for the religious
characters that were dreamt up.
| Quote: |
Jason said: “Jewish
religious belief didn’t cause the belief in
Jesus’ resurrection. They only knew the
resurrection of believers at the end of the
world.” |
| Quote: |
| JOHNNY: What do Jews have to do
with anything? In spite of what the book of Acts
claims, there is no good evidence that
Christianity has ever been popular among an
appreciable number of Jews. |
First, the book of Acts is
a credible testimony. Next, the number of Jews would
believed isn’t the issue. Finally, I said the above
because I’m making a case for the resurrection and
showing certain things that couldn’t be. You have
yet to give us any reason to believe your
assertions, so I hope you begin supporting them next
round.
| Quote: |
| The most important aspect of the
Resurrection accounts is the eyewitnesses. Jason
needs to provide external corroboration
regarding how many people claimed to have seen
the risen Jesus, but as usual, he doesn’t have
any. |
Untrue. This is only a
possibility if Johnny is able to discredit the
accounts we do have.
| Quote: |
| Jason, what was the point of the
appearances? Was it to provide tangible evidence
for what faith alone obviously was not able to
provide? In your opinion, how many people did
Jesus have to appear to in order to provide that
generation and subsequent generations sufficient
evidence that he had risen from the dead? |
Jesus predicted His
resurrection. He wanted to prove that He could
conquer death. His resurrection reveals to us
several things.
1. Jesus Christ is who He
said He was 2. He can give us eternal life if we
believe in Him and repent from our sins 3. He is
a God of His promises and He will honor them
4. He knows the future
| Quote: |
| In my previous post I said “Even
if I believed that Jesus rose from the dead, I
would still not be a Christian. God’s motives
are suspect, and logically, it is impossible to
worship someone whose motives are largely
unexplained.” I would appreciate it if Jason
would tell us why anyone should worship an
entity who they have never met and never had an
opportunity to question. Presidential candidates
are voted for after they explain their motives,
intentions and past actions in great detail, not
before. Jason needs to tell us upon what
evidence he has concluded that all of God’s
motives, intentions and past actions are good. |
God has revealed Himself in
the Bible. That is His revealed will for humankind.
God also reveals Himself to people when they seek
Him. He will reveal His personal will for each
person through prayer and supplication.
Those that seek find. When you seek Him
with all of your heart, you will find Him.
Sincerely, Jason Gastrich http://www.jcsm.org/
_________________ Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
Over 200,000 web pages! http://www.jcsm.org/
____________________
The Skeptic's
Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained Over
4,000 answers to the tough questions about the
Bible! http://skepticsannotatedbible.org/
| |
| |
|
 |
|
JohnnySkeptic |
| Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 6:59 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Jason wrote:
The New Testament is a credible testimony
of several accounts of what happened.
Johnny: Why are they credible? What are
the criteria for what is credible and what is not
credible?
Jason wrote:
They are
congruent, harmonious accounts as well.
Johnny: Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate
Dictionary define “congruous” as “being in
agreement, harmony, or correspondence.” The Gospels
in fact frequently disagree with on another, or at
the very least are inconsistent enough to be
discredited in any modern court of law.
A
good example of an inconsistency is where in
Matthew, upon arriving at the tomb, Mary Magdalene
and the other Mary see an angel, and the angel tells
them that Jesus has risen from the dead. In John,
however, it is Jesus himself who causes Mary, in her
uncorroborated second visit to the tomb, to believe
that he has risen from the dead. John 20:13-16 say
“And they (the angels) say unto her, Woman, why
weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have
taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have
laid him. And when she had thus said, she turned
herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not
that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why
weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him
to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou
have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid
him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her,
Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him,
Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
Notice the
words in verse 14 “and when she had thus said,”
indicating that right after that, still not knowing
that Jesus had risen from the dead, she saw Jesus.
The New International Version says “At this (or
right after that), she turned around and saw Jesus
standing there…….”
Matthew says that Mary
learned that Jesus rose from the dead on her first
visit to the tomb, but John says that it was on her
second visit to the tomb.
Jason wrote:
Furthermore, their inerrancy and the inerrancy of
the rest of the scriptures that can be verified
helps us to even trust the accounts; as historians
do.
Johnny: What qualifies various texts as
being Scripture? For instance, what indicates that
Paul’s letters to various churches were anything
more than ordinary letters?
Regarding my
comments about myths and legends, Jason said:
Not exactly. This analogy doesn’t work for several
reasons. First, the legends surrounding Earp do not
involve supernatural phenomena. They involve natural
things that have been observed.
Johnny: All
the more reason to distrust the claim that Jesus
rose from the dead. Today, the existence of natural
phenomena is easily provable. The existence of
supernatural phenomena is not easily provable.
Many Christians insist that the methodology for
examining claims of the supernatural should be
exactly the same as the methodology for examining
ordinary historical claims. Such a notion is
preposterous. Everyone agrees that ordinary
historical events have always occurred everywhere in
the world every day, and that they will continue to
occur every day for everyone to see. On the other
hand, the odds are astronomical against someone 1)
being the only begotten Son of God, 2) being
conceived by the Holy Spirit, 3) being born of a
virgin, 4) never committing a sin, 5) dying for the
sins of mankind, 6) performing many miracles, 7)
walking on water, bodily rising from the dead, and
9) one day returning to earth.
Jason wrote:
If a legend sprouted up about Earp robbing
a bank that he really didn’t rob, at least it’s
feasible. How could a legend close to the actual
event regarding the resurrection of Christ be
feasible? Answer: it isn’t feasible at all.
A legend on the magnitude of someone
rising from the dead would have taken a great deal
of time after Christ’s death. Why? Because:
“The Pharisees would have exposed such a
lie.”
Johnny: Who says they didn’t? Jason is
using an argument from silence, but Christians
themselves frequently criticize skeptics for using
arguments from silence. Since Jason wants to bring
up arguments from silence, then I ask him why the
extraordinary claims of the plagues in Egypt and the
parting of the Red Sea appear nowhere outside of the
Bible?
Consider the following:
Elaine Pagels: For nearly 2,000 years,
Christian tradition has preserved and revered
orthodox writings that denounce the Gnostics, while
suppressing and virtually destroying the Gnostic
writings themselves. Now, for the first time,
certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the
other side of the coin: how Gnostics denounced the
orthodox. The 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth'
polemicizes against orthodox Christianity,
contrasting it with the 'true church' of the
Gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of
light, the author says: ‘...we were hated and
persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant
(pagans), but also by those think they are advancing
the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly
empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals.’
Larry Taylor: “How does this apply to the story of
Jesus? Simply that all of the early critics are
dead. Skeptical opinions were banned. Christian
opinions, other than those of the establishment,
were banned. Books were destroyed, and later,
heretics were burned.”
“The followers of
Christ wouldn’t have died for something they knew
was a lie.”
Johnny: Outside of the New Testament, who
says that they did die for their beliefs?
“The empty tomb was verifiable in the very
place where this legend allegedly arose.”
Johnny: Says who? Can Jason produce a
sizeable consensus of modern historians who agree
with him? Well of course he can’t. He frequently
accuses me of making unsupported assertions, and yet
that is exactly what he frequently does himself.
Who witnessed the body put in Joseph’s tomb? Matthew
and Mark say Joseph, Mary Magdalene and the other
Mary. John says Joseph and Nicodemus. Jason asks
people to stake heaven, hell and all of eternity of
this kind of evidence? In typical fashion, Matthew,
Mark and John do not reveal their sources, which
were by no means provably Joseph, Nicodemus, Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary.
In my previous
post I wrote:
Who says that the disciples were able to
perpetuate the story to any sizeable extent?
Jason replied: This isn’t the issue. The
issue is where the story/account/legend began. It
began in Jerusalem.
Johnny: And where else
would it have begun? In Rome?
Jason wrote:
There was an empty tomb there. Why would
it begin there and how would it begin there?
Johnny: “How would it begin.” How do the
stories in all religions begin?
Jason wrote:
You have yet to show why the gospels and the book of
Acts are not reliable accounts.
Johnny: As I
said previously, “You have no eyewitness testimonies
at all, and you can’t even reasonably prove that you
have any second hand or third hand evidence.”
Jason wrote:
Would you care to argue about
the tomb and make a case for why you think Jesus
wasn’t buried in it?
Johnny: As the
claimant, just like a claimant in a lawsuit, would
you care to argue about the tomb and make a case for
why you think Jesus was buried in it? You seek to
change the widely accepted burden of proof into the
burden of disproof. That is not the way it works,
Jason.
Regarding external corroboration for
Jesus being buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb,
Jason wrote:
We only need “external
corroboration” if there is sufficient reason to
doubt all of the accounts that we do have.
Johnny: Why is there sufficient reason to believe
the accounts that we do have? We need external
corroboration because Jason hasn’t given us any good
reasons at all to believe that Jesus was buried in
Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, and instead he asks me
to make a case why I think that Jesus was not buried
in Joseph’s tomb. It is not my current position that
Jesus was not buried in Joseph’s tomb, only that
there are not any good reasons at all to believe
that he was buried in Joseph’s tomb.
Jason
wrote:
Who lied? Why did they lie?
Johnny: Who lied indeed? That is just the
point. The Gospel writers and Paul never revealed
any of the sources. They themselves might not have
lied. Their sources might have lied, or at least
there are not any good reasons at all to rule out
such a possibility, and there are not any good
reasons at all to rule out the possibility of
innocent but inaccurate revelations, which in fact
Jason will have to admit have been quite common in
various religious books.
Jason wrote:
Why would Jesus’ followers die for their
faith in something they just made up?
Johnny: As usual, Jason calls upon the
Bible to be its own witness without providing any
external corroboration whatsoever.
Jason
wrote:
You have yet to give us any reason to
believe your assertions, so I hope you begin
supporting them next round.
Johnny: And I
hope that you begin supporting your assertions in
the next round. My counter arguments have been made
subsequent to your initial, primary assertions. The
only reason that I have made counter arguments is
because you asked for them. You asked me how I
account for this belief. As the claimant, how do you
account for it? You have no eyewitness testimonies
at all, and you can’t even reasonably prove that you
have any second hand or third hand evidence.
Johnny wrote:
The most important aspect of the
Resurrection accounts is the eyewitnesses. Jason
needs to provide external corroboration regarding
how many people claimed to have seen the risen
Jesus, but as usual, he doesn’t have any.
Regarding Paul’s claim that Jesus appeared
to over 500 people in one place at one time, noted
skeptic scholar Dr. Robert Price told me “there is
no reference to it until a variant reading in a copy
of the Acts of Pilate/Gospel of Nicodemus from the
4th century!” Jason previously mentioned the words
“congruent” and “harmonious,” but you can’t have
congruence and harmony with only a single
uncorroborated claim. There are not any good reasons
at all for anyone to believe that the story of the
500 eyewitnesses was written by Paul, or even that
it was written in the 1st century.
Jason replied:
Untrue. This is
only a possibility if Johnny is able to discredit
the accounts we do have.
Johnny: I don’t
need to discredit anything. Again Jason attempts to
change the widely accepted burden of proof into the
burden of disproof. There is no rule of logic that
states that all assertions are true until proven
false. Courts of law certainly don’t work that way.
| |
| |
|
 |
infidelguy |
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 1:22 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
Jason Gastrich
has requested a 7 day extension because he is
moving. I have granted it. _________________
---- "Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not
even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to
deny the obvious." - Sam Harris - An Atheist
Manifesto
| |
| |
|
 |
JasonGastrich
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:21
pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Readers and
Johnny,
I hope you’re well.
| Quote: |
Jason wrote:
The New
Testament is a credible testimony of several
accounts of what happened.
Johnny: Why
are they credible? What are the criteria for
what is credible and what is not credible?
|
I think I’ve already went
over this. Nonetheless, see the following page that
shows some other works of antiquity and how we
accept them with far less proof and credibility. “Is
the New Testament Historically Reliable?” Link:
http://www.jcsm.org/BibleLessons/NTHistoricallyReliable.htm
| Quote: |
Jason wrote:
They are
congruent, harmonious accounts as well.
Johnny: Merriam-Webster’s 11th
Collegiate Dictionary define “congruous” as
“being in agreement, harmony, or
correspondence.” The Gospels in fact frequently
disagree with on another, or at the very least
are inconsistent enough to be discredited in any
modern court of law.
|
First, you are obviously
unfamiliar with what it takes to accept a work of
antiquity. These works are not subject to courtrooms
or courtroom procedures. Your analogy reveals your
ignorance in this matter.
Furthermore, you have yet to prove even
one contradiction in the scriptures. On the other
hand, I’ve written an exhaustive and convincing
rebuttal to the entire Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, by
Steve Wells.
| Quote: |
A good example of an
inconsistency is where in Matthew, upon arriving
at the tomb, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
see an angel, and the angel tells them that
Jesus has risen from the dead. In John, however,
it is Jesus himself who causes Mary, in her
uncorroborated second visit to the tomb, to
believe that he has risen from the dead. John
20:13-16 say “And they (the angels) say unto
her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto
them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and
I know not where they have laid him. And when
she had thus said, she turned herself back, and
saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was
Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest
thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to
be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou
have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast
laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith
unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith
unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
Notice the words in verse 14 “and when
she had thus said,” indicating that right after
that, still not knowing that Jesus had risen
from the dead, she saw Jesus. The New
International Version says “At this (or right
after that), she turned around and saw Jesus
standing there…….” |
This is an awfully poor
synopsis of the scriptures and it’s a very poor
argument about these verses and their alleged
contradiction.
Where are the verses in
Matthew? How do they contradict?
Johnny’s
argument is awfully contrived and incoherent, but I
hope he clarifies it for next round. Is this
mentioned by the SAB? Perhaps they addressed it and
I can share with you my answer. Or perhaps you can
convince them to include it if you can articulate
it.
In the meantime, here are two responses
to two of the SAB’s assertions.
SAB: John 20:11-12 - John says that
Mary Magdalene saw two angels. But Matthew says
there was only one angel (28:2), Mark claims it was
a young man (16:5), and Luke says the women saw two
men (24:3-4).
SAB: Corrected and Explained
* John records that Mary saw two angels (no sex
mentioned), in white, sitting in the tomb. Matthew
mentions a conversation with a different angel - a
male angel that was sitting on the stone (outside
the tomb). Mark records a young man sitting in the
| | | | |