Christian:
I do not come to the same conclusion as you. When you say that “we must come to the conclusion that Paul had a fantastical experience in his mind,” by “we” you mean whom?
Your conclusion is seriously flawed: Is Paul also having a “fantastical experience in his mind” when he says that the resurrected Jesus appeared to Peter, the 12 apostles, to more than 500 brethren, to James? This is found in an undisputed epistle written by Paul: 1 Corinthians. Was all this in his mind?
When you say “vision” you believe that is in Paul’s mind, but that is not what the Greek word means. It is not a figment of Paul’s imagination. Paul literally saw light; it was not in his mind as you believe. To say that this is not Paul’s reality, is your opinion, because simply put that is the reality of Paul’s experience! Is this a miracle? Of course it is!
By the way, Jesus is in glorified state meaning that Jesus is spirit and does not have a body. Jesus resurrected bodily and His body was glorified — transformed from matter to spirit and is not restricted by anything. However, Jesus does have the ability to appear (manifest) Himself to anyone (as He did with Paul and others) in time and space.
Peter also made it clear that Jesus died and was made alive in spirit. 1 Peter 3:18
Gary:
In First Corinthians 15, Paul specifically states that he received this information from an unnamed source. We have no idea who this source was. Therefore, without more information, we must conclude that this is simply “hearsay”. Hearsay may be factual but it also may be rumor, legend, or a lie.
“When you say “vision” you believe that is in Paul’s mind, but that is not what the Greek word means. It is not a figment of Paul’s imagination. Paul literally saw light; it was not in his mind as you believe.”
Actually, even Christian scholar NT Wright admits that the word used in that passage can mean an internal sighting in the mind, so that issue is disputed. However, even if Paul did literally see a bright light, that is not a (resurrected) body. The fact remains that Christians have ZERO undisputed eyewitness testimony of anyone claiming to have seen a walking, talking, resurrected body.
“By the way, Jesus is in glorified state meaning that Jesus is spirit and does not have a body.”
There you go. No one saw a body, they saw a spirit. Another word for spirit is: a ghost. The Christian appearance stories are simply ghost stories. Ghosts are not real, Rachel.
Regarding Peter, very few scholars believe that the Epistle of First Peter was written by the apostle Peter.
Check out this article: The Science of Ghosts.
End of post.
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
re: “The fact remains that Christians have ZERO undisputed eyewitness testimony of anyone claiming to have seen a walking, talking, resurrected body”.
True. Irrelevant, but true.
re: “Christian: By the way, Jesus is in glorified state meaning that Jesus is spirit and does not have a body.”
“Gary: There you go. No one saw a body, they saw a spirit. Another word for spirit is: a ghost. The Christian appearance stories are simply ghost stories. Ghosts are not real, Rachel.”
One of the few instances in which I’d totally agree with you on, Gary. This “Christians” claim that a glorified Jesus is spirit, and does not have a body, would indeed mean he was a ghost.
Of course, that’s what liberal Christianity (speaking in general terms) teaches. Jesus’ body wasn’t raised at all. It was his “spirit” that was “raised up”.
Like you, that is a “Christianity” that I have no need of, and no interest in. That kind of Christianity is truly a ghost story.
I must admit, though, I am quite surprised that you are not outright encouraging this “ghost-story Christian”.
LikeLike
Dead Atheist:
Your understanding of the glorified Jesus, ghost, and “what liberal Christianity (speaking in general terms) teaches. Jesus’ body wasn’t raised at all. It was his “spirit” that was ‘raised up’. ” is 100% incorrect and flawed. You are clueless as to what the New Testament, the Church Fathers and non-canonical writings say about the glorified Jesus and His Resurrection. But thank you for revealing that factoid to me. Enuf sed!
LikeLike
Oh, well, Rachael – that’s totally fine with me.
But, whatever the view of “liberal Christianity”, if it results in one concluding that the resurrected Jesus “doesn’t have a body”, then, it is like Gary says: a ghost tale.
LikeLike
“whatever the view of ‘liberal Christianity'” ??? Interesting choice of words or put another way: I DeadAtheist do not care one iota what or how Christianity views the Resurrected Jesus even if it says that Jesus has a glorified body, I will not accept it, Period!!!
If you Rachel say to me that Jesus does indeed have a body, I DeadAtheist will argue that it is still all a myth, because no one comes back from the dead: body or bodiless!
And I DeadAtheist totally take Gary’s side that it is a “ghost tale.” Excellent critical thinking and logic and reasoning and and and ad nauseum…
LikeLike
Rachel –
It’s true that i don’t “believe” that Jesus was raised from the dead. It’s also true that I’m totally convinced that he was raised from the dead.
You presume that because I use the name “DeadAtheist”, I must therefore be an atheist. But, that’s an incorrect presumption. I’m a Dead Atheist – one who is alive because of the resurrection of Jesus.
And, I’m one who just doesn’t agree with your theology, that the glorified Jesus doesn’t have a body.
If Jesus were not bodily raised up from the grave, then, it’s just Yet Another Philosophy, a form of “spiritualism” with the name “Jesus” tacked on to it…
LikeLike
I was wondering when she was going to realize that you are not an atheist.
🙂
LikeLike
I did see you as an atheist and I presumed that, my apologies.
You make this point: “If Jesus were not bodily raised up from the grave, then it’s just Yet Another Philosophy, a form of “spiritualism” with the name “Jesus” tacked on to it…”
What exactly do you mean: “Yet Another Philosophy, a form of “spiritualism” ???? That concept is so general, care to be precise and narrow it for me?
DeadAtheist, I most certainly agree with the New Testament, the Fathers of the Church (Ante and Post Nicene) that Jesus resurrected bodily! There is no uncertainty about that! But just as I presumed you were atheist, you have presumed that because I believe Jesus (who is now in a glorified state of existence) is spirit, He did not resurrect bodily. To be in a glorified state after a bodily resurrection means that the material physical body was changed from mortal to immortal, from a state of matter to a state of non matter, to a physical body subject to the laws that govern time and space and matter, etc to a “body” that is not subject to any physical law.
Jesus the Christ in His Incarnate state was subject to all the laws that govern physics; He literally died and the Incarnation ceased to exist, but then He literally resurrected and is now a glorified Being (He is no longer in a state of Incarnation, He is no longer subject to any physical laws), but He (as is apparent from the New Testament) can manifest Himself into time and space.
Christians believe in a Person, not a philosophy, not an ideology, and not any -ism!
When Jesus in the Garden at Gethsemane, before His arrest, torture, and Crucifixion, asked His Father the following: “Father, the time has come, glorify Your Son…glorify Me alongside Yourself, with the glory that I had with You before the world was.” (John 17:1-5)
Before His incarnation (physical introduction into the world of time and space (matter) in the womb of His Mother Mary, Jesus the Christ was spirit, not physical. Jesus is asking His Father God who is spirit (John 4:24) to return Him to His former state (the Omni-spirit being Logos).
Before His incarnation, Jesus the Christ was the Logos of John 1:1 and this Logos is spirit! A miracle occurred and the Logos was made flesh, dwelt among us (with mankind in time and space) and we beheld His glory. (John 1:14) Now human beings could literally see the human glory of the Logos in time and space which is not the same glory before His Incarnation.
The entire 15th Chapter of 1 Corinthians is dedicated to a change from physical (matter) to spirit and Paul writes: “flesh and blood (matter) cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” verse 50.
This is not to convince you of your theology. This is to simply make a case for bodily resurrection, the concept of glorification, and Jesus’ present existence as spirit (most definitely not a ghost and not a disembodied spirit)
LikeLike
Rachel –
Our theologies are not terribly far apart at all. What I question is your communication skills.
You told Gary “Jesus is in glorified state meaning that Jesus is spirit and does not have a body.”
Now you’re saying “Jesus’ present existence as spirit (most definitely not a ghost and not a disembodied spirit)”
Which is it? Jesus is spirit, and doesn’t have a body? Or, Jesus is most definitely not a ghost and not a disembodied spirit?
You can’t have it both ways.
I’d suggest you dig into what Paul means by a “natural body” vs a “spiritual body”.
Hint: Either way, it’s still a body. Just like a red car and a blue car are both still cars.
The Big Concern: That what you communicate is consistent.
If you go saying, on one hand, that Jesus doesn’t have a body (but rather, is spirit), then turn around and declare that Jesus is NOT a disembodied spirit – well – it really makes it a tad difficult to give your view any credibility.
LikeLike
“The Big Concern: That what you communicate is consistent. If you go saying, on one hand, that Jesus doesn’t have a body (but rather, is spirit), then turn around and declare that Jesus is NOT a disembodied spirit”
“Which is it? Jesus is spirit, and doesn’t have a body? Or, Jesus is most definitely not a ghost and not a disembodied spirit? You can’t have it both ways.”
DA: I will say this one last time. Please pay attention to the word “change” as I made clear in posting 1 Corinthians 15: “The entire 15th Chapter of 1 Corinthians is dedicated to a CHANGE from physical (matter) to spirit and Paul writes: “flesh and blood (matter) cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” verse 50.”
A CHANGE (all caps for emphasis) occurs in glorification from matter to spirit! That means that Jesus the Christ was resurrected bodily (His body and spirit were reunited to bring Him back to life as a human being) and then, that bodily resurrected human being (Jesus) was CHANGED (all caps for emphasis) from a physical human being to a spirit being!!! Changing from physical to non- physical does not mean: disembodied spirit!
The reason for the empty tomb is that God the Father resurrected His Son, Jesus (reunited both His body and His spirit, bringing Him back to life) and then in the blinking of an eyelid, the bodily resurrected human being (Jesus) was CHANGED (not dis-embodied) but the entire human being was CHANGED from a mere mortal existence as a human being, subject to time and space to a glorified eternal spirit being (Again, not dis-embodied).
Paul furthermore says: And I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God…but we shall all be CHANGED; in a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet. For a trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be CHANGED. (Again all caps for emphasis) (1 Corinthians 15:50-52)
DA: You clearly do not understand the concept of resurrection (reuniting the body with the spirit and coming back to life as a human being), nor glorification (the CHANGE from a physical human being to a spirit being).
[“You can’t have it both ways. I’d suggest you dig into what Paul means by a “natural body” vs a “spiritual body”. Hint: Either way, it’s still a body. Just like a red car and a blue car are both still cars.”]”
When the Apostle Paul uses the words in Greek, “sōma psuchikon,” (natural body) he literally means a physical body! And when he uses the words “sōma pneumatikon,” (spiritual body) he literally means a non-physical, non-carnal “body.” When Paul uses the word “body” in English, you read it as Paul saying that “sōma pneumatikon,” (spiritual body) requires a body of sorts. Paul is simply making a comparison and contrast between the two ideas: in time and space, a human being has a both a physical body and a non-physical, non-matter spirit, but a human being is Not a spirit being like the angels! (Having only spirit!)
However, when the CHANGE (glorification) comes, the resurrected human being’s body will be transformed from physical matter to non-matter (spirit). A spirit being does NOT NEED a body!
Angels are not dis-embodied spirits, God is Spirit and has No BODY! God has no Need of a body as humans do. Angels do not need nor require bodies.
Hint: Does the expression a “body of beliefs” or a “body of evidence” literally mean that both “beliefs and evidence” have a literal physical human body? Based on your “red car and a blue car” analogy, I am assuming you do believe that they do have a literal physical human body.
I sincerely hope that before you gave me the advice to “dig into what Paul means by a “natural body” vs a “spiritual body”,” that you have done so as well, but I again am assuming (based on your words) that you did not!
Paul is clearly using the word “body” literally when it comes to a human being in time and space, but when it comes to a Glorified (CHANGED and TRANSFORMED) human being (matter) to spirit (non-matter), Paul’s use of “body” changes dramatically along the lines of “body of beliefs” or “body of evidence.”
You clearly ignored or superficially “read” my previous reply. Why? (She asks rhetorically)
LikeLike
Rachel – I’m not in a pissing contest with you. I’m no more interested in your views on the Greek words for “natural body” or “spiritual body” than I am in my own views on it. If I want some views that I think are worthwhile, I can read NT Wright, or Habermas. Heck, even Ehrman has an incredible understanding of that Greek.
All I said to you was “get consistent”. You told Gary that the glorified Jesus doesn;t have a body. Period. It’s out there, in black and white.
then you turn around and say “oh, yes, he DOES have a body, but, it’s a spiritual body”
Fine.
All I said was pick one story or the other.
But, thanks for the lengthy write-up.
LikeLike
If we are to believe the Gospels, even some of Jesus’ disciples weren’t sure that the being who appeared to them was Jesus. Think about that: Your friend just died a few days ago. Suddenly he appears to you in the flesh. He allows you to touch him. He speaks to you. You recognize his voice. You watch him eat a fish lunch. As he eats, you recognize his mannerisms. He even shows you his wounds and lets you poke your finger into them. (You have to be up pretty close to someone to poke around in his wounds.)
Yet after he leaves…some of them aren’t sure it was him!
Huh???
There is a very simple answer, folks: They saw a ghost (an illusion).
Stories about watching a resurrected body eat a fish lunch, levitating into the clouds, and poking fingers into his wounds were literary embellishments—written decades later—titilating fictional additions to the original story; a story that probably only involved the sighting of a phantom (ghost)…a ghostly image which consisted of nothing more than a cloud formation, a shadow, or a bright light!
Poorly educated, superstitious minds are fertile ground for ghost sightings. Modern, educated people should not believe in ghosts.
LikeLike
Gary –
re your post beginning “If we are to believe the Gospels, even some of Jesus’ disciples….”
You know good and well that I’ve never said we are to believe the Gospels, so I got no idea why you even brought that up in response to one of my msgs…
but, thanks…
LikeLike
“[“All I said to you was “get consistent”. You told Gary that the glorified Jesus doesn;t have a body. Period. It’s out there, in black and white. then you turn around and say “oh, yes, he DOES have a body, but, it’s a spiritual body”]”
DA, thank you for revealing to me that you do not know how to read carefully! I have explained what Paul meant when he said: spiritual body (meaning: no body)! But you stubbornly insist that I have flipped-flopped on my view concerning body vs no body.
DA, this is what I posted to Gary: “By the way, Jesus is in glorified state meaning that Jesus is spirit and does not have a body. Jesus resurrected bodily and His body was glorified — transformed from matter to spirit and is not restricted by anything. However, Jesus does have the ability to appear (manifest) Himself to anyone (as He did with Paul and others) in time and space.”
In saying, that Jesus has the ability and power to manifest Himself in time and space, He takes on a body so that human beings can see Him, touch Him, etc…that however never means (no implication and no inference) that Jesus has a body. Again, you clearly and seriously lack reading, understanding, and comprehension skills, and I say this simply because you distorted willfully or ignorantly my post to Gary. Now that is despicable on your part.
Even your hero, Gary, failed to see that because he posted: “There you go. No one saw a body, they saw a spirit. Another word for spirit is: a ghost. The Christian appearance stories are simply ghost stories. Ghosts are not real, Rachel.”
The fact is that all those who saw Jesus after His Resurrection did literally see and touched Jesus!
They did not see a “spirit” as Gary has misinformed you and others. The bible is clear, and I have posted that Jesus said: Touch Me for I Am not a “ghost!”
Both you and Gary (and others as well) clearly do not understand the difference between glorification, and manifestation into time and space with a body so that finite human beings can see spirit. Angels have manifested themselves into time and space with bodies; that in no way means: Ahhhh, they have bodies! Jesus as well did the same thing.
Anyway, I will no longer post to you DA since you are willfully and willing to be ignorant: “I’m no more interested in your views on the Greek words for “natural body” or “spiritual body” than I am in my own views on it. If I want some views that I think are worthwhile, I can read NT Wright, or Habermas. Heck, even Ehrman has an incredible understanding of that Greek.”
PS: I have studied Ehrman and if you believe he has an “incredible understanding of that Greek,” you are again making my case for your ignorance and willful blindness. Enuf Sed.
LikeLike
I have explained what Paul meant when he said: … Oh really? You’ve talked to Paul recently and he explained what he meant? No? Well then, it’s pure speculation on your part related to “what Paul meant.”
Every believer, whether on their own or via influence from their spiritual leaders, reads into the scriptures what sounds most reasonable to them. But since none of us were there, it’s all conjecture.
LikeLike
I’ve said this here before and I’ll say it again.
WHENEVER Paul says something like “what I have received,” he is NOT, NOT, talking about some unnamed apostle talking to him. He’s claiming direct revelation. Please remember that for future posts.
LikeLike
I think you are very probably correct, but who knows.
LikeLike
I think you are very probably correct, but who knows.
LikeLike
Gary –
Really? You think SocraticGadfly might be right?
Wow, what ever happened to “Mr Majority Consensus of Scholars”? (or, are you just pandering to SocraticGadfly, and being disingenuous in the process?)
LikeLike
I guess you missed the memo: I no longer accept majority expert opinion on issues related to “bible scholarship”. If you have read my blog long enough you will know that I have often said that I hold to accepting majority scholarly opinion primarily for “tactical reasons”: I believed (incorrectly) that such a position would be helpful in my debates with Christians. If I would agree with them on the historicity of the empty tomb, simply because the majority of scholars believe it to be historical, then that would force them to accept majority scholarly opinion on the non-eyewitness authorship of the Gospels.
No such luck.
As is typical of the indoctrinated and brain-washed, they only accept majority expert opinion when it agrees with their agenda. Therefore, I have abandoned this position. The majority opinion of scientists matters to me. The majority opinion of Bible “scholars” does not, for the important reason that most “Bible scholars” are believers in this silly superstitious ancient tale.
–There is no good evidence that there ever was an empty tomb.
–There is no good evidence that the “Early Creed” was handed on to Paul by human beings.
–There is no good evidence that the “Early Creed” originated within a few years of Jesus’ death.
These claims are based on nothing more than assumptions and conjecture. And yes, I am aware that even a few non-Christian scholars believe in some or all of these claims. So what. Scholarly opinion is “soft evidence”. It is merely conjecture.
LikeLike
Interesting. You know full well I’ve been coming to this blog for quite some time now, and I do not recall you ever once saying anything about “accepting majority scholarly opinion primarily for “tactical reasons”.
But, hey, if you say so.
More the reason for me to wonder if you’re just being disingenuous with Socrates.
Gotta ask you about this one, though: “There is no good evidence that the “Early Creed” was handed on to Paul by human beings.”
So, ummm… you think it was handed to him by space aliens or something? Or perhaps handed to him by a farm animal?
LikeLike
Don’t believe me. Listen to Paul’s own words:
“Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried…”
From whom did Paul receive information about “the Christ”?
“For I want you to know, brothers and sisters,[d] that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” –Paul of Tarsus, Epistle to the Galatians 1:12
Paul specifically states that he received “the gospel”, the good news of eternal salvation by faith in “the Christ”, from no human being but by divine revelation directly from that “divine being” himself. In other words, Paul’s gospel came from his (mentally disturbed) brain.
LikeLike
let’s parse this a bit…
“that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
this says “that the ‘good message’ that was proclaimed BY me is not of human origin, for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through ‘an uncovering or unveiling’ (LSJ, Dodson) OF (not ‘by’) Jesus Christ”.
First, the “good message” that Paul proclaimed is known to us, because Paul tells us what it is:
“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received”, he says in 1 Cor 15:1 – and then, what does he do? He recites the Corinthian Creed – that Jesus died, was buried, was raised up, and was seen.
Now – that “Jesus is the Christ” – well, that is something that is revealed.
But, YOU think that because we don’t translate the word “gospel” to “good message”, Paul must somehow be thinking of the “story of the life and times of Jesus”, or something.
The fact of the matter is this: Paul already knew about Jesus, and about what the church was teaching – that Jesus was Messiah, that he had been raised from the dead, and so on. He had to know that in order to identify who to persecute (when he was persecuting the church).
Most anybody with any common sense can see that.
So, clearly, the knowledge that Jesus was proclaimed Messiah, and raised from the dead – the very core of the message of the early church – was already known by Paul before his “conversion”.
To back up, then, the “uncovering” or “unveiling” OF Jesus Christ was exactly that: Paul finally realized that Jesus IS the Christ, the Messiah. He didn’t get that from man.
So, I got no idea what YOU think this scripture must say, but, hey – God only knows. It just looks like another screwed-up belief you picked up somewhere.
LikeLike
You are correct. I have no idea what Paul meant when he said that he had “received” his gospel, the apocalyptic message which he was preaching to the Corinthians and other churches. Maybe he did receive it from Peter and James, as Christian so desperately want to believe. But maybe he didn’t.
But let’s back up: What evidence is there of the existence of a “Jesus the Christ/Messiah” prior to the writing of the first gospel, the Gospel of Mark? None, other than the writings of Paul. That’s it.
So for all we know Paul invented this character. Paul, in a state of mental illness, invented a dying, rising Jewish messiah, a disciple named Peter, and a brother named James. Then decades later, a Pauline Christian embellished Paul’s invented “Jesus” with an (alleged) biography. And a few decades later, three other Pauline Christians added more embellishments to the “Jesus Story”.
Then a few centuries later, Christians got a hold of Josephus’ late first century History of the Jews and interpolated a brief statement about a Jesus the Christ and a brief statement about a brother of Jesus, named James. Yes, I know most Bible scholars doubt that all of Josephus “Jesus statements” are interpolations, but some do believe they all are, as you and I have discussed before.
Is there any concrete evidence that Jesus is a fictional invention of Paul’s delirious mind? No. It’s pure conjecture. But my conjecture is far more plausible and probable than the silly superstitious tale told by Christians.
LikeLike
your conjecture is a perfectly fine one. It just might have happened in that way.
Now, provide sources to back up your conjecture. Otherwise, it’s just an opinion of some blogger. and who cares about that?
you say “But my conjecture is far more plausible and probable than the silly superstitious tale told by Christians.”
It might be, to YOU. But, to ME? No. it’s a totally baseless and silly – to the point of being ridiculous – bit of nonsense, UNLESS you back it up with something substantive.
nobody cares about your “opinions”, Gary – except you. And, you are irrelevant. You are a “nobody”. Neither you, nor your conjecture, carry any weight whatsoever.
Get real and get serious, back up your conjecture with something substantive, and maybe it’s worth discussing. But, keep in mind that people like Carrier and Price are still considered “clowns” in the world of historical studies. So, you need to somehow rise above “clown” status.
LikeLike
No. I’m not claiming anything. I am only suggesting a plausible possibility. It is Christians who are making the claim that a three day brain dead human being came back to life and later levitated into outer space. The onus is on them to provide evidence for their claim, not me to provide evidence for a possibility.
And the fact is: Christians have ZERO uncontested eyewitness testimony of anyone claiming to have seen a resurrected body.
LikeLike
would having 3 or 4 eyewitness testimonies actually change anything for you?
most historians don’t doubt that there were indeed individuals that did indeed claim to have seen a “risen Jesus”.
what they doubt is that they (the purported witnesses) actually saw a resurrected Jesus.
you try to make too much of this “no eyewitness” business. That’s not even an issue for most historians. Most of the “skeptics” among them totally realize that even if there were 4, 5 or 10 “eyewitness reports”, still, it’s what they’re reporting – a dead man, come back to life – that is in question.
so, you keep on thinking the “no eyewitness” thing is some kind of “ace in the hole”, but it’s not. It’s an interesting bit of information, but, unless you’re Carrier or Price, (and, therefore, disregarded by the vast majority of historians), it flat doesn’t matter that we don’t have any writings of any eyewitnesses at all. Because, that doesn’t change what is being witnessed to: a dead guy coming back to life.
That’s why you see historians like Ehrman, Ludemann, Funk, Tabor, and others (all skeptics) NOT taking issue with the fact that the “claim” of Jesus’ resurrection was made, nor that the “claim” that there were witnesses to that resurrected Jesus. They endeavor to provide another “naturalistic” answer to explain the story.
And – is your scenario really plausible? I don’t think so. I think it’s absurd. But, back it up with something, and show me how it’s plausible.
LikeLike
Wrong. It makes a very big difference whether or not the original eyewitnesses claimed to have seen and touched a flesh and blood body as conservative Christians believe or whether or not the original eyewitnesses only claimed to have “seen” a ghostly image of some sort (an illusion) which they perceived (in their minds) to be a living being.
Christians desperately want everyone to believe that the original eyewitnesses claimed to have seen and touched a warm, breathing body. However, they have ZERO uncontested eyewitness testimony of anyone making such a claim.
LikeLike
It wouldn’t have made any difference to YOU. YOU say Jesus’ resurrection didn’t happen.
Therefore, that just means you would have just claimed such “eyetwitness testimony” (as you described) to be “hallucinations”, and pulled out info that says sometimes, an hallucination can be both “visual” and “tactile”.
LikeLike
Wrong again. If multiple people, including non-Christians, claimed to have seen and touched Jesus of Nazareth after his public execution, and their descriptions of what Jesus looked like and what he said corroborated, that would be significant evidence to indicate that Jesus was, at a minimum, still alive after his public execution.
LikeLike
re: “significant evidence to indicate that Jesus was, at a minimum, still alive after his public execution.”
Fair enough. It would be that. But, that has nothing (necessarily) to do with “resurrection”. It might well just mean that Jesus didn’t die, after all. And, you’ve been very consistent: Jesus was not resurrected.
But, this is all hypthetical. We don’t have such written testimony of eyewitnesses. And, besides, even if we did, there is no reason for you to accept such eyewitness testimony as fact. It could well mean that you had four “witnesses” who all had hallucinations that were visual, auditory and tactile.
LikeLike
This is about how professional historians determine the historicity of historical claims. The more independent sources, in particular non biased sources, one has corroborating the same story, the more probable the historicity of an event. If we had multiple Roman, Jewish, and Christian sources stating that crowds of people saw Jesus of Nazareth alive again after his execution, that would be very good evidence that Jesus was seen again after his alleged death.
Is that evidence that he was resurrected? Not necessarily. But it would be very difficult for skeptics to claim that all these different sources were hallucinating or seeing illusions of Jesus. It would force the discussion beyond if Jesus was seen after his public execution to why he was seen after his public execution.
LikeLike
what do you care about how historians work?
earlier, you said “I guess you missed the memo: I no longer accept majority expert opinion on issues related to “bible scholarship”. If you have read my blog long enough you will know that I have often said that I hold to accepting majority scholarly opinion primarily for “tactical reasons”: I believed (incorrectly) that such a position would be helpful in my debates with Christians.”.
Multiple sources – Roman, Jewish, Christian – “stating that crowds of people saw Jesus of Nazareth alive again after his execution, that would be very good evidence that Jesus was seen again after his alleged death”.
Oh, OK. So, that must mean that the multiple sources and large crowds that have claimed Marian Apparitions must be good evidence that she ascended into heaven, right?
LikeLike
Please provide a source that multiple, non-Roman Catholic eyewitnesses have provided corroborating evidence to confirm a Virgin Mary sighting.
LikeLike
too much trouble. I gotta vacuum my cat.
LikeLike
It’s always too much trouble when you’re asked for evidence.
LikeLike
Liam –
Gary is declaring that there are NO cases of non-Catholics ever having “experienced” a Marian Apparition; hence, his “challenge” to me to “show the evidence” to the contrary.
But HE needs to show that HIS position is correct first. This business of “show me the evidence” works both ways. If HE cannot come up with evidence to back his own position, then why, in God’s name, would I bother taking time to back mine?
Besides – I don’t even believe in Marian Apparitions myself….
LikeLike
What is my “position”?? I have only suggested a possible explanation for an odd event.
Let’s look at an analogy: What happened to Emilia Earhart?
Stories have circulated for years that her plane crashed or that she is hanging out on some lush island paradise. But isn’t the following scenario also possible?
Over the south Pacific, Earhart started having engine trouble. She landed her plane on the beach of a remote Pacific island. The superstitious natives on the island killed her and buried her plane, never telling anyone what happened.
Do I need to provide evidence to confirm that this scenario is a POSSIBLE explanation for the disappearance of Amelia Earhart? NO. I do not need to provide any evidence whatsoever as I am not claiming what happened only what may have happened. As long as my possible scenario does not contradict any known, agreed-upon facts, it remains a possibility.
LikeLike
So let’s keep going with the Amelia Earhart analogy:
Which of the following possible explanations for the disappearance of Amelia Earhart is most plausible and probable:
Allowing for all possibilities, including those involving the supernatural, all of these scenarios are possible, but which one or ones is/are the most plausible and probable???
This is no different from considering possible explanations for the Christian resurrection of Jesus belief, including the one I have suggested.
Note: Suggesting a possible explanation for a set of facts does not require one to provide evidence confirming that possible explanation as the correct explanation, it only requires that the possible explanation not contradict the agreed upon facts. If one wants to at some point assert that the possible explanation is the correct explanation, then one must provide evidence to support that claim. That is how it works in the criminal justice system.
Insisting that I provide evidence for a possible explanation for the Resurrection Belief is silly.
LikeLike
Rachel –
re: “DA, this is what I posted to Gary: “By the way, Jesus is in glorified state meaning that Jesus is spirit and does not have a body. Jesus resurrected bodily and His body was glorified — transformed from matter to spirit and is not restricted by anything. However, Jesus does have the ability to appear (manifest) Himself to anyone (as He did with Paul and others) in time and space.”
If this is what you really told Gary (and, I’m sure that it is), then all you had to do was say “Gary edited my post to mis-represent what I had said”.
I would certainly have understood that. He does that stuff all the time.
LikeLike
Very funny. I never edit comments.
LikeLike
AHHHHHHH —
yeh, let me correct myself: You quoted her OUT OF CONTEXT
and THAT is something you do all the time.
LikeLike
Quoting out of context is not the same as editing someone’s comment.
And quoting out of context is a matter of opinion.
LikeLike