spamandham

Reading through pfc's opening post, hes' made some blunders that simply will not hold up. Firstly, he claims the Gospels to be essentially independent. Haven't mainstream scholars pretty much proven they all derive from a common source (including John)?

He further refers to 1 Cor 15, which has been reasonably well demonstrated by Price et. al. to be part of a much later pastoral layer. In other words, it was added long after the theology of the resurrection was introduced. (need to doublecheck this...)

Ultimately then, the entire case for the empty tomb rests on possibly a single original source of unknown origin, authorship, or intent, and of known spurious fidelity. The evidence is neither credible nor overwhelming.

stuart shepherd

THE EMPTY TOMB ARGUMENT

Let's suppose that we all accept the Gospel stories that Easter Morning the Tomb was empty and Jesus' body was missing. Why would we accept a supernatural explanation for the missing corpse rather than a simple everyday common explanation as to why the corpse was missing? Because Jesus' body was missing it seems ridiculous to assume that he rose from the dead.

Let me tell you a little story.
In mid December, some high school students came to my house selling chocolate bars to support the basketball team at the school.
I purchased ten chocolate bars and left them on the small table in my foyer near the front door.
At Christmas, my grandkids visited and I went to get the chocolate bars to give them to my grandkids as treats. ONE OF THE BARS WAS MISSING. There were only nine chocolate bars.
I Know I didn't eat one. My wife assured me that she didn't eat one. She knows that I wouldn't beat her for eating a chocolate bar so I am absolutely sure that she is not lying. She never lies.

SO WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MISSING CHOCOLATE BAR?
Is there a simple, but unknown, explanation for the missing bar?
Use your imagination...I am sure you could come up with a reasonable explanation for the missing bar.

I don't know what happened to the missing bar.....but I am sure that the bar was not transported up to heaven by a hungry god.
But if you are a Christian who believes an empty tomb is evidence that Jesus was resurrected, then you might believe god ate my candy bar.

Stuart Shepherd

Solitary Man

Dear stuart shepher,

punkforchrist cannot respond here until the discussion is over. Please stop addressing him.

If we mentions that God is the best explanation for an event, he better prove that the mechanism exists!

This is entirely irrelevant to the topic.

That doesn't negate the fact that Jesus could have been resurrected and God could have been responsible.

Once again, of course, punkforchrist will have to demonstrate the miraculous nature of God in order to posit his theory.

Solitary Man

This I have contention with, and likewise with his quote:

False! And anyone familiar with Paul should easily recognize this as anti-Pauline. Paul discusses all too often the dichotomy of the flesh and the spirit, in Greek ἡ σαρξ and το πνευμα. In Paul, the flesh is that which not to be desired, but rather instead a cultivation of the spirit. In fact, according to Paul, the flesh is not only not to be desired, it opposes the spirit:

"For the flesh desires contrary to the spirit, and the spirit contrary to the flesh, and these are opposed to each other."

Galatians 5.17.

If the passage is Pauline, it is forced into it's contextual agreement with the flesh v. the spirit dichotomy. What the passage does not say is anything about an empty tomb. Certainly the empty tomb story is early, but it's not present in Thomas, nor in Q, so it's likely to be a later accretion following the misunderstanding of the risen spirit in loco the risen flesh.

I further disagree. First of all, Jesus in subsequent resurrection appearances appear to men, thereby negating any effects of the testimony of women. Moreover, in Christian communities, women held high esteem, even as reported by Roman author Pliny who said he interrogated a woman deaconess. The criterion of embarrassment does not apply so nicely here as punkforchrist would have you believe.

While it's possible that the Jews may have laid charges against the disciples for stealing the body, the quote of Matthew is so late that it's inapplicable to early Christian testimony on an empty tomb. What he have here is much more likely to be a late 1st century response of Jews to the growing belief that Jesus' corporeal flesh was raised from the dead.

William Wand is mistaken here. I suspect from an explicit bias in his belief in Christianity.

This is fallacious argument on what punkforchrist "thinks" someone ought to have done. We will never know if such a thing happened, because no mention of anything related to it is recorded. And besides, Paul is so irrelevant to the outside world that he is never mentioned outside of Christian circles. Where's the need?

James was an unbeliever? Where?

We don't know if Jesus actually appeared to Paul. In accordance with modern scientific technology, he may have had an hallucination brought on by epilepsy. If we accept this false canard, then we have to accept other appearance stories as well. But these days, we tend to lock up people who have visions that the neighbor's dog told them to kill people in Central Park.

Does this mean that the angel Gabriel really did appear to Mohammed and dictate to him the actual perfect word of God - the Quran?

stuart shepherd

PFC wrote.........
As was pointed out by "Solitary Man" PFC is incorrect when he asserts that Paul tells of a bodily resurrection of Jesus.
The Gospels tell the tale of a physical resurrection. But Paul tells the tale of a spiritual resurrection.
1 Corinthians 15:45(King James Version)
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:50(King James Version)
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

The point is ...How can we believe anything the Bible says if the writers of this tale can't get one of the most important details in harmony? Did Jesus resurrect as a spirit or as a flesh and blood being?

Stuart Shepherd

stuart shepherd

PFC wrote........
This is an amazing leap of faith by PFC.
1 Corinthians 15:5-8 (King James Version)
5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

First of all, Paul gives a different version of the post resurrection appearances of Jesus. The Gospels tell the tale of Mary Magdalene being first to see Jesus and not Cephas.

Paul's testimony on these Jesus sightings is hearsay. He wasn't present when these events supposedly occurred.

Paul says that Jesus ""was seen of above five hundred brethren at once"".
Christians have said ""See ...500 witnesses...it has to be true."" PFC has essentially made the same assertion in his quote at the begining of this post.
I say....would Paul's claim have been twice as believable if he asserted that one thousand saw Jesus at one time?
The point is that the Bible doesn't have 500 witnesses......it only has Paul saying that there were 500 witnesses. He could have just as easily said there were ten thousand witnesses.
In contrast, at Pentecost, when Jesus' followers received the Holy Spirit, there were only 120 persons in that upper room, according to the book of Acts. The numbers don't add up. Paul's testimony smells of fabrication.

Stuart Shepherd

spamandham

Are you suggesting one of your grandchildren ate Jesus' body and then lied about it?

stuart shepherd

PFC wrote......
This is absolutely not true.
I don't know PFC's "New Testament scholars", but I know from the Bible that 1Corinthians was written much more than 5 years after Jesus' execution.

1Corinthians was written while Paul was at the Christian Church at Ephesus.
1 Corinthians 16:8 (King James Version)
8But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost.

Paul spent an indeterminate amount of time persecuting the Christians, hunting them down and killing them. Then he heard a voice on the road to Damascus.
After Paul's experience on the road to Damascus, Paul went to Arabia, then back to Damascus, and three years later he went to Jerusalem. Galatians 1:17-18

And then fourteen years later, Paul went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas for the Jerusalem Council, which is reported at Acts chapter 15.
Galatians 2:1 (King James Version)
1Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

Three chapters later in Acts ( Acts chapter 18) after the Jerusalem council, Paul begins to establish the Church at Corinth and spends a year and a half establishing the church at Corinth.
Acts 18:11 (King James Version)
11And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

And after establishing the church at Corinth, Paul goes on to Ephesus (Acts chapter 19) and establishes the chuch at Ephesus and while at Ephesus he writes 1Corinthians.

If you have followed my timeline from the Bible it is apparent that Paul's testimony about the 500 supposed witnesses of the post resurrection Jesus, in 1Corinthians chapter 15, was written at least 20-25 years, after the execution of Jesus. Maybe even later?

Stuart Shepherd

stuart shepherd

PFC wrote........
PFC is right when he says that after his supposed resurrection, Jesus only appeared to his own followers. Except for James, his brother, and Paul.

James was Jesus' real brother. Not exactly an impartial witness.
If I get my three brothers to post their testimony that on a full moon I get naked and walk on the water of the lake behind our homes at midnight, ...would you believe?
It is well known that relatives are not usually honest when testifying against the interests of a family member.

As for Paul, he was guilty of felony murder in the death of Stephen, (Acts chapters 7 and 8) and he was an unrepentant sinner who was unbaptised when he supposedly had his Damascus road experience. Not exactly the man one would expect God to choose to be his spokesman. Not exactly a reliable witness.
But Paul did not even SEE Jesus. He only heard A voice.
Acts 9:3-5 (King James Version)
3And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

We know that Paul was blinded by the light, he saw nothing, he only heard a voice.

So I agree with PFC that Jesus only was seen post resurrection by his own followers according to the Bible.
In the past cults have made outrageous claims about their leaders. But no reasonable person wold believe a claim when the only witnesses are the leader's own followers.

Stuart Shepherd

stuart shepherd

PFC wrote........
This just isn't true. The Gospels do NOT ""provide independent attestation to the appearances of Christ.""
Anyone who reads the Gospels can see that they follow the same storyline and in many instances contain the same "word for word" passages. If the Gospels had been written in our day and age, Mark would be taking Matthew, Luke and John to court and charging them with plagiarism.

Stuart Shepherd