Resurrection/Post-Resurrection Accounts - Dr. Jason Gastrich vs. Johnny Skeptic

infidelguy

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 · Last edited by JohnnySkeptic on Wed Jun 01, 2005 6:17 am; edited 1 time in total

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

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.

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.

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.