Bede

Jehanne,

I assume from your reply you have no interest in addressing Prof Sheehan's contentions. You just want to set up strawmen and you certainly don't need my help to do that.

If you want to defend Prof Sheehan's reconstruction of events against my assertion that they are not based on the evidence, then go ahead. If you show some intelligence and thought I will reply. Neither of us need the word evidence defined (unless you are the sort of gormless sceptic who defines evidence as 'evidence I myself find convincing').

B

Jehanne

This seems a pretty good synopsis of Jesus' "post-resurrection" activities:

Agree? Disagree?

Harry Bosch

Strictly speaking: evidence can be defined as one of the following: 1) something found directly in the Bible; 2) something that is found in the Pagan world is only evidence if it dosn't conflict with one single word in the Bible; 3) direct eye-witness observations that do not conflict with the Bible; 4) observations that are verified by outside sources, as long as those outside sources are... the Bible. If you have any questions, please consult the ... the Bible.

Jehanne

It says so in the Bible!

CX

Hmmm...firstly you seem to be moving the goal posts and secondly you seem to be picking a fight. I doubt you're likely to get much in the way of a measured thoughtful response with that approach. Perhaps you could formulate a particular argument related to the article in question and advance it here.

Family Man

Bede, you know better than that. Just because something is written down in an ancient work doesn't mean it is historical evidence. Prof. Sheehan is absolutely right when he says that the last historical event related to Jesus was his crucifixtion. Everything after that is no more credible than other supernatural tales told in any other ancient work. He's not throwing out evidence; he's noting that there is no evidence that fits the normal historical norm. If you disagree, then please tell me where a supernatural event is treated as a historical event in any scholarly literature outside of the Christian religious tradition. I've asked that question for years, and you and I both know that such a beast doesn't exist.

Furthermore, his analysis is sound based on what we know about Jewish culture and human psychology. Do you deny that the people in that culture were fond of visions, revelations, theophanies, and epiphanies of returning prophets, to use Prof. Sheehan's terms. Are you seriously going to argue that people don't tend to make up stories that fit into their desired view?

I'm not saying that Prof. Sheehan has definitely proved that the resurrection never occurred. What he has done is to put forth a plausible explanation, on sound principles, how the Easter story could have been born without it ever really happening. In fact, when you think about it, it is much, much more plausible than the story itself.

Bede

Of course it is. We just have to evaluate it.

You also need to re-read the Gospel accounts. There is nothing supernatural about Peter's denials or about John and Mary witnessing the crucifixion, nothing supernatural about Jo of Arm offering his tomb, nothing supernatural about the body being gone by the Sunday. All of these things are denied by Sheehan for no good rerason and substituted for his own assertions. Bad history.

Yours

Bede

PS: Jehanne, "agree? disagree?" is not enough to be worth replying.

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Legend

And It seems to me that the prof. and many others has evaluated it and found it untrue (then, again many found it true). But what is important here is if you evaluated it, and if you did, how?

Also, this whole argument seems to stand solely ton the credibility of the Bible, w/c, to me, is a problem since because it was written a very long time ago, and it was changed and made by various council, its credibility varies from person to person, relying more on belief.

Jehanne

Seriously, I wish to discuss the article (which I have read several times)! But, we need to agree on terms! We can all agree that Richard Nixon was President of the United States, and we can all agree that historical fact will never, ever change. Likewise, we can all agree that mythology exists, to some extent, even if we cannot agree on what is and is not mythology. That is why I wanted to start the discussion with a clear definition of evidence as it relates to historical facts. Clearly, that is something that Professor Sheehan talks about in his article (and book).

Jehanne

Is Professor Sheehan's "list of appearances" correct? Are there any appearances of the “post-resurrection Jesus� that he omitted that should have been included?