Satan is fighting for what is right against a tyrant (God)

Post Reply New Topic

If the Gospel of Mark is from AD 65-75, this is still 35 years after the death of Jesus and is very early by most ancient history standards. There is however a large amount of evidence for the Gospel of Mark being composed around AD 50 (William Lane Craig, ‘Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ’ Pg 89). Also there is a great deal of evidence that the resurrection account within the letters of Paul dates to within 5 years after the crucifixion (William Lane Craig, ‘Rediscovering the Historical Jesus: The Evidence for Jesus, Pg 16). Within Mark, the passion story dates from at least AD 37. (Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 2 vols., Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1976-77), 2: Pg 519).



I think I did not describe what I meant by resurrection properly. There are a few points in the OT as well in which people are raised from the dead ((Ezekiel 37; Isaiah 26, 19, Daniel 12.2). So resurrection itself was not new to Jewish culture. During the time between the Old Testament and the New Testament, the belief in resurrection flowered and is often mentioned in the Jewish literature of that period. In Jesus' day the Jewish party of the Pharisees held to belief in resurrection, and Jesus sided with them on this score in opposition to the party of the Sadducees. So the idea of resurrection was itself nothing new.

But the Jewish conception of resurrection differed in two important, fundamental respects from Jesus' resurrection. In Jewish thought the resurrection always (1) occurred after the end of the world, not within history, and (2) concerned all the people, not just an isolated individual. In contradistinction to this, Jesus' resurrection was both within history and of one individual person.

With regard to the first point, the Jewish belief was always that at the end of history, God would raise the righteous dead and receive them into His Kingdom. There are, to be sure, examples in the Old Testament of resuscitations of the dead; but these persons would die again. The resurrection to eternal life and glory occurred after the end of the world. We find this Jewish outlook in the gospels themselves. Thus, when Jesus assures Martha that her brother Lazarus will rise again, she responds, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day" (John 11.24). She has no idea that Jesus is about to bring him back to life. Similarly, when Jesus tells his disciples he will rise from the dead, they think he means at the end of the world (Mark 9.9-13). The idea that a true resurrection could occur prior to God's bringing the Kingdom of Heaven at the end of the world was utterly foreign to them. The greatly renowned German New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias writes,

'Ancient Judaism did not know of an anticipated resurrection as an event of history. Nowhere does one find in the literature anything comparable to the resurrection of Jesus. Certainly resurrections of the dead were known, but these always concerned resuscitations, the return to the earthly life. In no place in the late Judaic literature does it concern a resurrection to doxa (glory) as an event of history.'

The disciples, therefore, confronted with Jesus' crucifixion and death, would only have looked forward to the resurrection at the final day and would probably have carefully kept their master's tomb as a shrine, where his bones could reside until the resurrection. They would not have come up with the idea that he was already raised.

As for the second point, the Jewish idea of resurrection was always of a general resurrection of the dead, not an isolated individual. It was the people, or mankind as a whole, that God raised up in the resurrection. But in Jesus' resurrection, God raised just a single man. Moreover, there was no concept of the people's resurrection in some way hinging on the Messiah's resurrection. That was just totally unknown. Yet that is precisely what is said to have occurred in Jesus' case. Ulrich Wilckens, another prominent German New Testament critic, explains:

'For nowhere do the Jewish texts speak of the resurrection of an individual which already occurs before the resurrection of the righteous in the end time and is differentiated and separate from it; nowhere does the participation of the righteous in the salvation at the end time depend on their belonging to the Messiah, who was raised in advance as the 'First of those raised by God.' (1 Corinthians 15:20)'



There is little reason, based on the evidence that one can not conclude that God raised Jesus from the dead.



Sure, I can agree to this, I am taking issue with Vex’s position on written works. My demonstration was not the best, but surely you don’t think that ancent texts are completely without truth? Or that if a work is shown to be in any way flawed, that one should throw the whole thing out as if it had no legitimate historical account?

Well, yes, it is early by ancient history standards, but then so is the Cult of Scientology's reworking of L Ron Hubbard's life.

I'd generally have to say that claims of an earlier origination are more likely to emerge from conservative scholarship, which Craig is a part of. If one has their life staked upon the inerrancy of a text, then one is going to argue anything that makes that more probable.

As for Paul's letters being much sooner after the death of Christ, well... I can accept that. I just wouldn't regard Paul, who wasn't an eyewitness to the event, to necessarily be the best source, particularly given that there is dispute on what Paul means when he talks about the resurrection and spiritual bodies. That argument going into the Greek, a language that I am not familiar with to really seek a debate on that issue. That being said though, we have to recognize that you are arguing for an event that most contemporaries agree did not happen, as such, I think that gives us reason to believe, off-handedly, that it didn't happen. (particularly if we accept the claim of "stealing the body" to possibly be a fiction in the Christian text given a Jewish claim in one of their fictitious text that requires that the body of Jesus be findable)


Ok, but the problem is that the resurrection I spoke of concerned one individual within history. That is to say that it also stands against both assumptions, but is within a Jewish context. So, if these people are willing to be flexible with those assumptions, as noted from the text itself, then your case is significantly weakened.


Problem: We're dealing with a Jewish cult on the fringes of society. Upholding that it sticks to the original assumptions of Judaism is very very very questionable. We've had cults of individuality that have become cults of personality in the modern era. A Jewish cult that violates one of the Jewish assumptions isn't that odd, especially in an age filled with spiritual conflict. You might as well argue that Joseph Smith really did find those Golden Tablets.


How would YOU know what they would or would not have come up with? The disciples radically reinterpreted all of the Old Testament, so saying that they would have upheld that one belief seems ridiculous. I don't believe that this lends enough probabilistic weight to even make the resurrection worth speaking of. Many cults defy cultural norms.


So? Jewish cult. I mean, why not start talking about how Ayn Rand was divinely inspired because she defended outright egoism, an idea foreign and offensive to the average person, one that would not occur in general.


There is little reason, based upon the evidence that one cannot conclude that I am an angel from the heavens coming to test you.

It just makes little coherent sense. We have the same problem with a large number of historical miracle claims.


I think that ancient texts are weak evidence, and frankly... I don't really outright disagree with Vex's position. The Iliad is a fictional tale and myth. I'd say that the other scholars were right to reject it. Unlike Vex, I have no problems with a few scholars trying to explore the fictions to find information. However, that does not really hold the text strongly, it is only a recognition that diverse sources can be valuable.

So does the fact that Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist mean I cannot take him at his word when he talks on the subject? It would be wrong to think that just because a person has a point of view he can’t tell objective facts about the past. Think of accounts of the Holocaust, for example, against modern day deniers of the Holocaust, people who say that the Holocaust never occurred. Well, those Jewish survivors of the Holocaust have a vested interest, a passionate interest, in saying that these events really did happen, that they really did undergo this persecution and so forth, but that doesn’t mean that their testimony is discounted or doesn’t give the objective facts, or anything of that sort. So a person’s passionate interest in having a point of view or having a story to tell doesn’t just automatically invalidate the truth of what he’s saying. Also, I did not just quote Dr. Craig out of anticipation of you mentioning just this point. The Gospel of Mark was written long before AD 50, there is sufficient evidence to conclude from analysis of the language within the Papyrus that this is the case. Also had it been composed after this date it would have included information on the destruction of Jerusalem (a pretty big event).




Well the thing is that I am not talking about Paul when I mention the passion story within his text. That story has been verified to have come from an earlier text that Paul had access to (the same story is at the root of the passion story in Mark and this story lacks the kind of legendary development that you are implying). At the same time that biblical scholarship has come to a new appreciation of the historical credibility of Paul's information, however, it must be admitted that skepticism concerning the appearance traditions in the gospels persists. This lingering skepticism seems to me to be entirely unjustified. It is based on a presuppositional antipathy toward the physicalism of the gospel appearance stories. But the traditions underlying those appearance stories may well be as reliable as Paul's. For in order for these stories to be in the main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have been supplanted by unhistorical. This factor is typically neglected in New Testament scholarship, as A. N. Sherwin-White points out in Roman Law and Roman Society tn the New Testament. Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is an eminent historian of Roman and Greek times, roughly contemporaneous with the NT. According to Professor Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman history are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence what really happened. He chastises NT critics for not realizing what invaluable sources they have in the gospels. The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for the rate of legendary accumulation, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states for these to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be 'unbelievable'; more generations are needed. All NT scholars agree that the gospels were written down and circulated within the first generation, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. Indeed, a significant new movement of biblical scholarship argues persuasively that some of the gospels were written by the AD 50's. This places them as early as Paul's letter to the Corinthians and, given their equal reliance upon prior tradition, they ought therefore to be accorded the same weight of historical credibility accorded Paul. It is instructive to note in this connection that no apocryphal gospel appeared during the first century. These did not arise until after the generation of eyewitnesses had died off. These are better candidates for the office of 'legendary fiction' than the canonical gospels. There simply was insufficient time for significant accrual of legend by the time of the gospels' composition. Thus, I find current criticism's skepticism with regard to the appearance traditions in the gospels to be unwarranted. The new appreciation of the historical value of Paul's information needs to be accompanied by a reassessment of the gospel traditions as well.

The problem you are creating for yourself is that you are now requiring an event from outside of the history to account for the empty tomb. This sort of legendary story telling only starts to emerge in the later writings. The most forceful way to appreciate this point is to compare it with the accounts of the empty tomb found in apocryphal gospels of the second century. For example, in the gospel of Peter a voice rings out from heaven during the night, the stone rolls back of itself from the door of the tomb, and two men descend from Heaven and enter the tomb. Then three men are seen coming out of the tomb, the two supporting the third. The heads of the two men stretch up to the clouds, but the head of the third man overpasses the clouds. Then a cross comes out of the tomb, and a voice asks, "Hast thou preached to them that sleep?" And the cross answers, "Yea". In the Ascension of Isaiah, Jesus comes out of the tomb sitting on the shoulders of the angels Michael and Gabriel. These are how real legends look: unlike the gospel accounts, they are colored by theological motifs.

As to the story surrounding the idea that the disciples stole the body. Both the Jewish story and the Gospel accounts
indicate that the tomb was guarded by a Jewish soldier. The event you are talking about is attacked as a possiblilty in the Book of Matthew. In Matthew 28, we find the Christian attempt to refute the earliest Jewish polemic against the resurrection. That polemic asserted that the disciples stole away the body. The Christians responded to this by reciting the story of the guard at the tomb, and the polemic in turn charged that the guard fell asleep. Now the noteworthy feature of this whole dispute is not the historicity of the guards but rather the presupposition of both parties that the body was missing. The earliest Jewish response to the proclamation of the resurrection was an attempt to explain away the empty tomb. Thus, the evidence of the adversaries of the disciples provides evidence in support of the empty tomb.




The disciples did not radically reinterpret the OT. They were not theologians. The only learned Rabbi among them was the one that was crucified. As to the idea that the resurrection can be dismissed:

This is a fact which is almost universally acknowledged among New Testament scholars, for the following reasons:

1. The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances which is quoted by Paul in I Cor. 15. 5-7 guarantees that such appearances occurred. These included appearances to Peter (Cephas), the Twelve, the 500 brethren, and James.
2. The appearance traditions in the gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of these appearances. This is one of the most important marks of historicity. The appearance to Peter is independently attested by Luke, and the appearance to the Twelve by Luke and John. We also have independent witness to Galilean appearances in Mark, Matthew, and John, as well as to the women in Matthew and John.

3. Certain appearances have earmarks of historicity. For example, we have good evidence from the gospels that neither James nor any of Jesus’ younger brothers believed in him during his lifetime. There is no reason to think that the early church would generate fictitious stories concerning the unbelief of Jesus’ family had they been faithful followers all along. But it is indisputable that James and his brothers did become active Christian believers following Jesus’ death. James was considered an apostle and eventually rose to the position of leadership of the Jerusalem church. According to the first century Jewish historian Josephus, James was martyred for his faith in Christ in the late AD 60s. Now most of us have brothers. What would it take to convince you that your brother is the Lord, such that you would be ready to die for that belief? Can there be any doubt that this remarkable transformation in Jesus’ younger brother took place because, in Paul’s words, “then he appeared to James”?


Even Gert Lüdemann, the leading German critic of the resurrection, himself admits, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” (Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.)

That is how 99.999 percent of crimes are solved. Clues and circumstantial evidence of past events reveal what most likely happened.

Since most of us were not direct witnesses to past events happening elsewhere and elsewhen we have no choice but to rely on clues, evidence and reason.

ruveyn

The problem here goes back to the long-standing divide between conservative biblical studies and mainstream biblical studies. The people in the mainstream regard the conservatives as just apologists, rather than as honest scholars. Frankly, I see no reason not to agree with them on this point, and simply go on my way, as I am really not that interested in all of these efforts anyway, especially since I have a relatively deflationary view of the value of historical texts. Richard Dawkins, except on a few issues, actually represents the mainstream, so he's not really an issue.

Honestly, scholars disagree with your point arguing that references in Mark 13 suggest that the author knew about the destruction, suggesting either immediately before or immediately after 70 AD, at a point where it was knowable. Even further, there is some church history supporting this. Irenaeus, a church father, held that Mark was written after the death of Peter, and Peter was held to have died in 65 AD.


Honestly, just looking at contemporary culture and the rate of accumulation of falsehood we see within contemporary culture, we have clear evidence of this happening rapidly in many cases. This can be found in the typical urban legend. This can be found in most cults period, as various elements of history often must be falsified for those religious expressions to continue. Even further, it is also found in history, a common point by scholar Bob Price is that Sabbatai Sevi's cult had very very rapid development of legends, with even the witnesses proclaiming the falsehood of some stories, but these false stories persisting. Heck, the fact that Rastafarianism, based upon the Christhood of a living monarch who disagreed with the religion strongly, could persist in spite of that still brings up great grounds for skepticism towards the writings of any individual cult.

I'd have to argue that from what I understand, most scholarship, except for conservative scholarship, which as I stated, is distrusted as shoddy by a number of historians, places the date as later, particularly given the sheer number of failings within Mark, and the great reliance of the other Gospels upon Mark. There are a few writings that go this line of thinking that are respected, but... generally, I am going to have to hold to my skepticism on this. I know the basics of the issues. I have a collection of various writings by scholars, one that was vetted by Bruce Metzger, a very well-known scholar in the field. I generally see no reason to give ground on this issue, as regardless of what you argue, the probability is still astoundingly low.

s.
I don't have to accept your premise that it only starts in later writings, especially given that the existence of a large number of falsehoods in these writings is recognized as texts are distorted, facts that are deeply incongruous with other historical efforts are present when they should not be, and so on and so forth.

Even further, a lot of the Gospel is covered with theological motif. The Gospel of John is often considered the worst.


There is no evidence of adversaries outside of the Gospel, and we don't even know if they were strawmen, or even serious opponents. The issue is that Jewish writings after the emergence of Christianity do assume that there is a body. I forget the text used, but basically it claims that a magical ritual was done using Christ's remains to prove that he was a fake. That being said, early Christianity wasn't large enough for it to likely have much contact with Judaism. As was pointed out in another thread, Christian growth was not phenomenal.


No, they did. It is clear, because of the efforts they had to show "prophecies were fulfilled" even though these weren't prophecies. Even further, I really am not going to make a distinction on who did what here, as my basic point, that the OT was violated by Christianity still is relevant in terms of assessing the honesty of the movement. It is a fact that the OT was very very violated in terms of its interpretation.


The issue is that we don't have verification of a large number of these appearances. I'd really bet that there is very significant overstatement, especially given how bad that the Bible, and other historical documents at the time are with numbers. Even further, appearances occurring isn't something I really find that strange. Even a basic knowledge of psychology can allow for hallucinations, and even some level of mass hysteria and shared hallucinations. (shared hallucinations possibly being a matter of both parties influencing what the other saw, and even memories being altered after the event to promote sameness)


Yes, actually there could be doubt. I mean, frankly, if Jesus is a wonderfully wise, miracle causing Messiah, I have real reason to doubt it would take James that long to convert. Rather, a post-death conversion really strikes me as being more suspicious, because of the emotions involved when someone dies.


Ok? I don't see this as an issue. Any basic study of psychology will point out that hallucinations are actually a very common experience. Large portions of the population at a given point in time currently experience some level of hallucination. Some number also have low-grade psychological symptoms similar to schizophrenia, but not full-blown. A significant number have recently gone through or are going through a period of psychological disorder.... etc.

I mean, my basic point is pretty simple and pretty similar to Hume's point:
We have a background knowledge of the likelihood that any individual miracle is true. This knowledge sets miraculous claims as generally being quite low, so long as we are being fair. As such, the miraculous claim of Christ being raised from the dead is also pretty unlikely. Probably even the least likely thing we can imagine to happen. Even further, the apologist's rebuttal, still fails because the probability of Christ being risen by God is going to have to go back to the probability of God, and given all of the qualities of the Christian God, the likelihood of such a being existing is very unlikely, if not 0.

Your assumptions relating to mainstream and conservative biblical studies is flawed. The rejection of the historical validity of the resurrection of Jesus was a component of liberal theology. Liberal theology, as the mainstream view, lost its influence by the end of the First World War. The simple manner in which you have cast aside the evidence I have put to you does not do the source material or your argument credit. The information relating to the early publication date of Mark can be attested to by the study of the language in the papyrus. Also your discussion of Mark 13 also does not do your argument justice, since you are citing apocalyptic language (specifically Jesus talking about the end of the world) and applying it to whatever event you want. There is no logical way that you can infer that this is a discussion of the destruction of the Temple. Also the basic account mentions synagogs (note the plural) not the temple. Considering the significance of the temple, the disciples would have specifically mentioned it. Also you mention St. Irenaeus in refutation to my citing of the papyrus study. Considering that St. Irenaeus neither had the papyrus nor the technology to analyse the structure of the language, this cannot be considered a refutation. Secondly, St. Irenaeus represented our understanding of the Book in the second century, imagine if I used second century astronomy to refute the discovery of a new exoplanet.



Well it is no surprise to me that legendary elements appear faster in modernity than they did in the first century AD. The speed at which the proliferation of information occurs accounts for this factor. The truth is, I have never seen anyone take this position in this argument, that seventeenth century and modern accounts can disprove the rate of legendary elements accumulation within a story. A simple disproof of this is that in the apocryphal Gospels, there is the appearance of legendary elements (as I cited previously), one can track them as if they are on a graph. Also there is no evidence of legendary accumulation (this is agreed with by mainstream scholarship) within the four facts one need agree to in order to postulate the conclusion that Christ was raised from the dead.


You have opened a can of worms by mentioning the world hallucination. However, it is worth noting that this concept has been comprehensively rebutted by many mainstream scholars in many journals. Suffice to say it has been destroyed by modern scholarship. Please don’t make me post another article… the matter is so totally huge and I do not have the time to paraphrase it.

If you want to read about it for yourself. "Visions of Jesus: A Critical Assessment of Gerd Lüdemann's Hallucination Hypothesis," Edwin Mellen Press.

Also, if anyone would like to know more on this subject, please visit youtube and watch one of Dr. William Lane Craig's many debates on the subject.

Just to poke in here with the fruit [not always fresh] of life-long experience of academia, I wouyld recommend not basing too much on ANYBODY's scholarship. Yes, there are good, sincere, honest scholars out there [I like to count myself among them].

But [particularly in any historical field], once you get beyond the raw data - the Bronze Age sword, the manuscript in the library on Mount Athos, Trajan's column - you are into interpretation. Which is at best best guess [even with eyewitness accounts. Which is affected by all kinds of influences.

Four blind scholars look at the same elephant - sorry, manuscript. They have roughly equal [though not identical] training and expertise. One feels the trunk and is conscious of the current consensus in the journals and says "snake". One pats down the leg, hears a colleagu in a related field talking about his theory, and says "tree". One touches the ear, thinks "palm leaf", but then his other hand lands on the tusk, so he publishes to the effect it is a "spear". The fourth stands at the rear sniffing, and concludes it is all a pile of .... Sorry, that was unworthy of me.

I have personally observed all these reasonings and more.

God made the integers, all else is the work of man, Leopold Kronecker is said to have said.

The data are real - the theories are just the best sand castles this or that scholar or consortium has managed to erect on the foundation - and the tide is coming in.

In all branches of science broadly defined, mainstream and crackpot fringe have traded places so many times it hain't all that funny.

This is why the honest reexamine every theory periodically and more particularly when new elephants [data] march into the graveyard.

Well, I didn't say "liberal theology". I said "mainstream". The mainstream is more liberal, but it is not necessarily strongly liberal. It tends to reject the more extreme ideas, such as mythicism.

Honestly given that neither of us likely have the ability to judge the papyrus, I am uncertain how far that argument can go.

Irenaeus is relevant because he is a historical figure with more closeness to the event. It isn't anything to do with an exoplanet, but more like asking someone in the next generation or so, when Abraham Lincoln was born.


That's interesting, I've heard it continue to be promoted. Frankly, I've heard most of the argumentative rebuttals of it to be somewhat weak. I have listened to his debates on the subject. From what I understand, many regard his method as somewhat disingenuous, as "facts" is not really the starting place for these issues, nor are these facts certain enough to really justify something like a resurrection. I mean, part of the whole issue of historical speculation is that none of the speculations can be that certain.

I am not forcing you to post articles. Rather, I'd rather that you didn't.

Frankly, the summing up of my position was this:

"I mean, my basic point is pretty simple and pretty similar to Hume's point:
We have a background knowledge of the likelihood that any individual miracle is true. This knowledge sets miraculous claims as generally being quite low, so long as we are being fair. As such, the miraculous claim of Christ being raised from the dead is also pretty unlikely. Probably even the least likely thing we can imagine to happen. Even further, the apologist's rebuttal, still fails because the probability of Christ being risen by God is going to have to go back to the probability of God, and given all of the qualities of the Christian God, the likelihood of such a being existing is very unlikely, if not 0."

As far as I can tell, if we had to compare a hallucination story to the claim of an actual resurrection, I would have to hold that hallucinations are more probable. Especially given that I still consider most of the rebuttals I've heard to be rather weak.

If you are interested in the topic of the resurrection of Christ. Then please watch this debate on youtube on the subject, that took place at Iowa State University:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHQJvn4H ... re=related

Both points of view are put forward and you can decide for yourself what the truth of the matter is.

The only truth here is that AG and I are just not the best people who can discuss this stuff (I hope were still interesting though ).

Interestingly enough, I've heard of Avalos, and I've heard that this debate isn't a great one. (Partially because Craig was trying to get back at Avalos for a crappy trick he pulled at another debate.)

From what I've heard, these debates with Craig on the resurrection are better:
http://www.bringyou.to/CraigPriceDebate.mp3 (Craig and Bob Price)

I've heard this debate between Richard Carrier and Mike Licona is also pretty good:
http://namb.edgeboss.net/download/namb/ ... arrier.mp3

Also, here are a few recommended debates involving William Lane Craig:
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392


I actually don't find it very interesting at all. I still end up occasionally getting involved with debates of this sort, but... I really just have very little attachment to it. The way I'd really want to deal with it is really similar to Bart Ehrman's approach "Miracles are just wildly improbable given our background knowledge", and then boom, we're done. Very little history is even invoked in such a view.

I like the Avalos debate, since both of the participants in it really cannot stand one another so both participants really want to win. The Craig v Price debate was also very good.

As to the Bart Ehrman approach, I would argue that one is entitled to infer a miracle if it provides explanatory scope for something that cannot be accounted for by a more simple explanation.

This is much like Sherlock Holmes: '“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”'