In a discussion with an atheist friend before the documentary was broadcast I said that if the remains in the Mary ossuary and the Jesus ossuary could be linked by DNA evidence, and if the remains in the Jesus ossuary indicated crucifixion, James Cameron would have a good case. Otherwise he would not. Unfortunately, the bones in the ossuaries had already been destroyed.
Of course, if Cameron had a good case, that would be what you are looking for.
If Cameron had a good case it would disprove the resurrection.
We keep going round and round on this. If you believe a priori that a physical resurrection is impossible, there is hardly any point in continuing this discussion without the results of that autopsy and medical exam I mentioned.
Anyway, I am getting bored with this conversation. I will let you have the last word, unless you have something new to contribute.
That is the null hypothesis - the logical default presumption. Of course physically impossible events are presumed to be impossible until proven otherwise. Why wouldn’t they be?
I started this thread because another poster in another thread said he could make an intellectual argument that was stronger than the null. Since you admit that can’t be done, then the null still stands.
So the consensus of this thread seems to be that there isn’t any reliable evidence for the resurrection. We also know that a physical resurrection is quite extraordinary so it would take really solid evidence to justify belief.
The question then becomes: Why would anyone believe it? The idea clearly isn’t supported by what we know.
Dtc: I’m addressing whether Paul believed in a physical resurrection here: it’s tangential, but we’re on page 3.
I think we can say definitively that Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection - for ordinary humans. What about Jesus though? Paul shows great reverence for J.C., but never seems to quote him or discuss aspects from Thomas et al. That’s notable, but it shouldn’t shock us: he was writing a letter to a specific audience and could let common knowledge be left unsaid. An early piece of common knowledge was that Jesus was a healer (cite: crypts in Rome). I find it entirely plausible that Paul assumed that Jesus rose from the dead in a special way, but that it had profound implications for the rest of us slobs. Paul speaks to men and women, who it can be readily observed don’t typically rise like zombies: they are reborn nonphysically according to this view. So he focuses his letters on his followers upcoming spiritual rebirth.
Please note I said “Plausible”, as opposed to, “Most straightforward interpretation”, or even “Favored by the preponderance of the evidence”.
Except for Romans, I found those quotes unconvincing. Here they are, and sorry for the length.
Ok, that last one sounds a little different. But check out the longer version:
Hijack! Witness!
Of course we won’t be able to nail down every belief of Paul’s. But I think we can get a decent handle on what was important to the guy. In Philippians 2:6-11 he seems to quote a sort of prayer, or at least a poem that was known to his audience:
The significance of the crucifixion to Paul lay in the sacrifice, responsibility and decency of Jesus and the Father. The Father is mighty and therefore somewhat distant, but He is in the end on the side of those who apply effort to their salvation.
I will let that poster speak for him/herself. I have never maintained that the physical resurrection of Jesus could be scientifically proven. What I have maintained in this thread is that St. Paul believed it. St. Paul wrote within one or two decades of the crucifixion, and plausibly claimed to have spoken to those who knew Jesus before the Crucifixion, and who believed they had seen him afterwards.
You responded with the claim that “And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day,” does not mean what it rather obviously seems to mean.
Having said that, I acknowledge that the Gospel of Q, as it has been reconstructed, does not mention the Resurrection. Some scholars have used this to suggest that during the period of time before the Jewish Uprising of 66 to 73 AD there was a segment of Christians who did not believe in the Resurrection. Another possibility is that the part of Q that mentioned the Resurrection, was lost before the author of Matthew, and St. Paul received copies of it.
Why are you so certain that this regards a physical resurrection? The way I see it, it could also be compatable with a spiritual resurrection.
Now, if you want to say that you find it more probable, or something to that effect, that Paul is referring to a physical resurrection, that’s fine. I don’t get that sense from you though - maybe I’m simply misinterpreting your position though.
I’d have to agree with Spong and others - the likelihood of Jesus getting the burial that the Gospels attribute to him seems extraordinarily unlikely.
As to this reasoning, I think it could be used either way. I’m still not sure why you are so certain it cannot be.
I just typed up a post responding to this, but my computer ated it.
Okay, are you saying that Paul believed that humans would have a spiritual or physical resurrection? You seem to be saying that humans would have a spiritual one, then you quote scripture that states that Jesus’s resurrection is like our resurrection will be.
I’m missing something that you are saying.
Why do you believe Paul, but presumably not all the other people who have made claims of miracles?
Do you believe that Vespasian cured a blind man with spit?
I did not say that I believe what St. Paul said. What I did say is that the evidence of what he wrote is that he believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus, after talking to those who knew Jesus before the crucifixion, and who believed they had seen him afterwards.
I personally reserve judgment on the matter. I was not there.
How certain are you of Paul’s belief in a physical resurrection? Would you say there is no chance he was referring to a spiritual one?
As to reserving judgment - do you extend this to other ancient claims? For example, do you believe that Perseus existed and flew through the sky?
Paul never said any such thing.
He’s clear in saying that people “rise” with spirtual bodies, not physical ones. He also never once says that Jesus appeared in a physical body, only that he “appeared.”
Do you believe he appeared to Paul himself in a physical body or a spiritual body?
It hadn’t been invented yet.
Paul predates Q, and there’s no reason to believe it contained any resurrection claims. It’s not likely that it would have been excised.
Is this really the issue? That it can’t be a bodily resurrection because it’s a spiritual one? That you don’t realize that a spiritual body should encompass and far surpass the physical? Don’t you know that spiritual beings are often depicted as manifesting physically? It isn’t supposed to be some watered down version of existence, it’s far beyond and far superior to, as well as encompassing the existence we know.
Sure, I can’t “prove” that Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter, or Hebrews, or that he taught Mark, or that the book of Mark, (which you already mentioned ends with the empty tomb, which is the main point here. Did Jesus physically rise?) was written largely based on what Peter told Mark. But, you can’t prove any historical figure wrote what was ascribed to him. We will never find the bones of Homer, with a pen in his hand, writing out known works of Homer. And if we did, it would be simple to say he was copying something someone else wrote.
But, you will never actually be able to critically ascess the reliability of the claims unless you at least entertain the possibility that those things happened. If Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter, and Mark wrote Mark based on what he learned directly from Peter, what does it say about what Peter actually believed? It strongly supports that Peter believed in an empty tomb, and that he believed Jesus was resurrected. (1 Peter 1:3) The first century sources you say are unreliable because they weren’t first hand, were largely taught first hand. We are only one step removed from the people who supposedly witnessed it. (Luke 1:1-2)
But, otherwise, it appears we are done. The thread is over. Why?
Because you are not actually engaging in an honest discussion.
[QUOTE=Meatros]
Not to burst your bubble, but DtC said it was Prima Facie impossible, which means at first sight it’s impossible. I do not think this is a controversial position to take - after all, the Christian position is that the resurrection of the dead is a miracle and not an ordinary event.
[/QUOTE]
Really? All he was saying is it wasn’t an ordinary event, but he is willing to entertain evidence for it actually happening? He very quickly bursts your bubble on that score.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
but, Paul was indeed either lying or psychotic. There are no other choices…
They ARE impossible…
Things which are physically impossible can safely be assumed to be impossible until proven otherwise…
[/QUOTE]
(emphasis mine.)
The “discussion” point is ‘was Jesus resurrected? did he himself appear and talk to people?’ His starting premise, the point in dispute, is that it didn’t happen. That is the premise he is asking us to disprove. But, he disregards the testimony of Peter and Paul by saying that they are unreliable simply because they say it happened, therefore it couldn’t have happened. He’s using that premise to prove itself. A clearly circular argument. Which means, he isn’t engaging in discussion… everthing he’s saying after my comment confirms it… so… we’re done… There is no point in “discussing” when he isn’t engaging in the discussion.
I just don’t get why you think that this has to be a physical resurrection that he’s talking about. To me, that language can equally cover either a physical or a spiritual resurrection, and there’s no indication of which. From his other writings, he seems to have dismissed the possibility of a physical resurrection, so in light of that, the words that he “rose again” rather obviously (to me) indicate that he was talking about a spiritual one.
For someone who claims to be a Bible scholar, you postulate certainty where it does not exist. I am a Christian with religious doubts. You seem to be a dogmatic atheist.
My theory of Q is that it was written by one of the twelve apostles, perhaps as the events recorded happened. Before the invention of printing documents were slowly copied by hand. However Q was written, it was written on papyrus rather than parchment. Papyrus is much more perishable than parchment. It is easy to imagine part of the original document, or perhaps part of one of the few copies of the original document being lost.
Keep in mind that none of the early fathers of the Church mentioned anything about Q. It was only postulated in the nineteenth century. The gospels can be explained without it. Matthew may have been written first. Mark may be an abridgment of Matthew. Luke may have used Matthew as a source. I think that explanation is less plausible than the theory that that Matthew and Luke both used Mark and Q, but it is the traditional theory.
If the gospel according to St. Matthew was written first, it was probably written by St. Matthew. Secular scholars of the New Testament reject that, because it would indicate that the accounts of the miracles are accurate.
But there’s a huge difference here. The works of Homer were written by someone, and even if we were to go back in time and see that “Homer” was just a nom de plume and his real name was Bart, it doesn’t matter.
With the Gospel of Mark, it was written anonymously. We don’t know who wrote it, only what little we can infer. We also know that the name “Mark” was assigned to it many years later by people who were in no position to know either. But here’s the key difference: those people were attributing the gospel to a real character who was supposedly a comrade of Jesus. They’re saying that the book was written by a guy who was otherwise known in another context.
It’s an issue, but perhaps not the issue.
If Paul is referring to a spiritual body, then claims about ‘the empty tomb’ become very suspect. This is one of the reasons its’ important.
I’m not trying to be offensive, but have you heard how apologists ‘evidence’ the resurrection of Jesus? If you have not, I suggest you listen to a debate or two of William Lane Craig, and then you might see why this is an important point. If you are interested, here’s a resource for debates.
No one is attempting to pass legislation based on the Illiad. No one is trying to subvert your children’s education by having them learn about the three ages of man (gold, silver, and bronze). These issues are important because people are basing their lives on them.
At the end of the day, if people were not basing their lives on them, I wouldn’t be as invested in discussing it. I admit, I’d probably still discuss it because the topic fascinates me. I certainly wouldn’t be as passionate about it (I also discuss ‘real vampires’ with people who believe in them, but I’m not as passionate, for example).
Although you are not talking to me, I agree with you with regard to entertaining the idea I suppose. I find it highly implausible that the purported authors of the Gospels wrote the works, but I concede that it’s remotely possible.
I disagree with you that we are ‘one step removed’ from the source and I disagree that there are good reasons to actually take the eyewitness claims seriously - but, I do suppose it’s possible. It’s possible that Hercules performed labors, but I don’t see a reason to believe he did.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. If someone said to you that they could raise someone from the dead, prima facie you would not believe them. They would have to provide you with evidence. This is what I believe he was saying - I would also suspect that he’s familiar with the ‘evidence’ that Christians present and concludes that it is bogus.
It’s not like this is a new claim for DtC, so the pretense of entertaining evidence is misleading. No one has presented anything substantial in this thread, so what is there to ‘entertain’?
Here’s the thing, if I claimed that i could resurrect the dead, would you believe my testimony? If DtC supported my claim of resurrecting the dead, would that make you more confident in my ability?
Or are you not willing to entertain that idea without further evidence?
If testimony is all you’ve got, then that’s not very compelling.
I think I completely missed the point you were going for here, in my initial response. My apologies.
Curt makes a good point, in relation to this:
That’s what Paul says. The real point is only that Paul doesn’t show any awareness of any claims to a physical resurrection by the apostles.e existence we know.
Peter didn’t have anything to do with any of those books.
Two things. First this is a fatuous way to argue in favor of authorship traditions since it doesn’t amount to evidence but just whining, and secondly, we can tell by the dating of those books and by other means that Peter couldn’t have written them.
Historians don’t believe that Homer was a real person (at least not a single person).
No, I don’t have to entertain things that are impossible. Furthermore, we can prove that Peter didn’t write those books.
Impossible.
The internal evidence makes this highly unlikely, and it has no external evidence to support it. If you want to assert the authenticity of these traditions, you have to prove it. I don’t have to “entertain the possibility” of anything. That’s not how science works.
Nothing.
No it doesn’t. Mark says Peter never even knew about the empty tomb.
The epistles of Peter are second century, and they weren’t taught first hand,
Luke doesn’t say that. You need to get your facts straight. In point of fact, the closest thing the New Testament has to even a second hand source is Paul. Luke didn’t have any first hand sources. Luke’s sources were Mark and Q, possibly Josephus (for background) and his own imagination.
This is a joke. I haven’t been the slightest bit dishonest. Just rigorous about what constitutes evidence. I’m not here to be witnessed to. I’m asking for proof.
The starting point is that it’s prima facie impossible, and that you’re going to have to do better than the ravings of a psychotic to prove it.
We have no testimony from Peter at all, and even Paul never says that the resurrection was physical. I also didn’t say it wasn’t true “because the say it happened.” I said that Paul’s word is simply insufficient to overcome the null hypothesis.