What of it? Some people have claimed to have seen Elvis Presley after his death. People can see what they want to see, especially when they are grieving over the death of a loved one.
There’s a huge difference between a chance sighting of Elvis and actually interacting with the person.
The disciples didn’t just glimpse Elvis from a distance. Rather, they claim to have spoken to him as a group and to have actually eaten with him.
Sometimes, yes. However, few people experience hallucinations so tangible that they actually find themselves conversing and eating with the deceased. What’s more, the disciples claim to have seen the resurrected Christ as a group, and on multiple occasions. (Besides which, non-drug-induced hallucinations are typically limited to what people expect to see, not what they simply want to see… but that’s another matter altogether.)
These are the kinds of facts which Simon Greenleaf couldn’t simply ignore. A layman might use the arguments that you presented. However, as a pre-eminent authority on legal testimony, Greenleaf knew that such arguments wouldn’t hold up in court (so to speak). That’s why Greenleaf was compelled to change his mind, even though he had been determined to refute the resurrection.
Then there’s the issue of the empty tomb. If the Roman government wanted to silence the Christian rabblerousers, they could have simply produced the Messiah’s dead corpse… but they didn’t. Even when they were forced to imprison, torture and kill the preaching apostles, they could not produce his body… and nobody ever did.
JT:
Actually what happened is that someone wrote a story saying (in the story, mind you) that someone said they saw the big guy and dined with said big guy.
Come on jab, you’re not being intellectually honest here. They claimed that they saw, met with, and spent considerable time with the risen Lord, and then died for that, never renouncing their claim. That’s a much stronger claim than some Elvis spotters.
Not true. We’ve been over this already.
The Gospel of Matthew is a first person account, as is the Gospel of John. Matthew and John were among the Apostles, to whom Jesus allegedly manifested himself. How many times must this be emphasized?
Besides, do you really want to dismiss an account, simply because “someone wrote a story saying… that someone said (something)”? If you demand that standard, then are you prepared to throw out huge portions of written history? Ultimately, that’s what we’ll have to do, if we are to apply your standard consistently.
In addition, Luke, James, Paul, Mark and company weren’t just “someone.” They were prominent figures in the early church. Paul, in particular, was one of its foremost leaders, and a close associate of the Apostles. He was also a persecuter of Christians, yet subsequently claimed to have met the ascended Lord. There would have been little personal gain in making this claim, yet he did so at tremendous personal peril. Ultimately, like the other apostles, he chose to die for that belief rather than renounce it.
Actually, we have not “been over this already” if you mean by that that I accept your rather torturous definition of eyewitness account.
Anyway, where did I say “fake story” in my comment. I described a factual explanation of the writing of the Gospels.
Right. But they were written very many years after the event. Exactly how accurate could it be?
That’s my question for you just above.
I do not dismiss the moral of the story, just as I do not dismiss the moral of the Fables of Aesop. That does not mean that I will blindly accept the details of the story as either History or Science.
Happens some in the real world, I hope you realize. Folks find out something (such as dinosaur bones) and then “rewrite” History (or Science) to explain the FACTUAL evidence in front of them.
You are now arguing against your case. This lends credence to the theory that the story is heavily biased and not exactly word-for-word true.
Interesting to me that you ballyhoo the literal truth of the account and then interject the word “claimed.”
Any way, is there a separate and verifiable account of Saul of Tarsus hauling off and killing Christians for the mere fact that they were Christians? (I really don’t know, but 'tis you making the statement that the account is True with a Capital T., so prove it.)
Excpet for that minor bit you mentioned above about being the leader of the early church. Lot of people but lot of stock in being leader of a group.
See my query just above.
Joseph Smith died for his belief, too. I don’t see you making a case for the veracity of the Book of Mormon.
All this is well and good, but is pretty irrelevant. The question is whether we accept Christ as Savior and Redeemer–and even if it could be conclusively proved that he rose from the dead, that alone would not convert people. A change of heart comes from feeling the Holy Ghost and allowing it to change your life. Facts alone can only get you so far here.
As somebody somewhere said, the fallen angels (Lucifer and co.) know for a fact that Jesus is risen, but reject his atonement, so it doesn’t do much for them.
I’d add just a little to genie’s post. I’d reiterate that objective fact won’t get you everything. Objective, falsifiable testing is an excellent tool for science. However, it is impossible to use on many of the claims of religion, because spirituality is a fundamentally spiritual thing. It is not necessary, however, to throw out logic. Just keep in mind that the scientific method was made pursue models of how our material universe works, and that the rules of the courtroom was designed for pursuing guilt or innocence–neither fully apply to Christianity.
Also, the quote for genie’s comment is in James 2:19:
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
I’m not religious but I found that this philosopher by the name of Spinoza came up with an interesting proposition about God (eurr, I think he was from the 15th or 16th century, not too sure; in anycase, he was excummunicated by his fellow jews and lived as a loner in exile).
He agrees with many others that God is indeed omnipotent and a creator; however, he is unsure as to the concepts of Good and Evil. In addition, he goes a bit further than the above concepts.
He proposes that God is indeed eternal and ethereal and all things and life are part of him. The manifestaion of this world and inhabitants are just that, a manifestation that randomly appears with, created with the substances of God. Its shape and form, including behaviour and thoughts, are all part of he/she/it. These manifestations are temporary, just as much waves from the sea - same substance, but in a different physical shape. In the end, it’ll just ‘pass away’ and re-manifest itself in another form, should it happen again. As such, whatever concerns we might have about good or evil, right or wrong, should and shouldn’t’s are of no concern to the so called great being - it’s was originally from that, it is that, and it will be that. He goes futher about the self and selflessness but I think it is sufficient for this discussion.
It is an interesting proposition as it really annuls whatever debates we’ve been having across the world - from one religion to another, from one time to another, from one event to another. However, in my opinion, his theory serves very little good to the real world as whatever anyone does, it doesn’t matter. I don’t think I have an answer to that counterpoint, but even if I’m not religious, I do believe that certain acts are wrong (one can get into a debate of universal wrong vs. cultural relativism (the former weights heavier)) and certain organisations, such as religion, have their own good points (community activism, rules and norms, and so forth).
Cheers,
jovius
There is nothing “torturous” about this definition. One might question the account’s validity, but that does not make the definition itself “torturous.”
First of all, the passage of years does not automatically make an account unreliable. And second, it is extremely unlikely that the passage of years would cause these people to believe that they had seen an actual resurrection. If anything, the converse is more likely.
As for their reliability, check out the writings of prominent archaeologist William Albright. Or of the aforementioned Sir William Ramsey, who specifically sought to disprove Luke, but was ultimately converted after 15 years of failing to refute that book.
Your argument specifically dismissed these writings a second-hand account. Even if we grant that claim, that does not make the accounts invalid.
In which case, they’re not dismissed simply because they’re not eyewitness accounts. Rather, they are dismissed because of a preponderance of contrary evidence.
No. It means that Paul and company were in colleagues an co-leaders with Matthew, John and the other apostles. If these people claimed to have witnessed the resurrection, Paul and company were in a prime position to report that fact.
And you’re reading too much into that word. I said that he “claimed” to have met the Lord. That does not, by any means, suggest that it was a FALSE claim.
Yeah, right. Being a prominent leader of a persecuted, hounded group of people who held no political influence, and who were being routinely put to death. I can see where that would hold tremendous attraction for him. Yeah, right.
As I said, there was little personal gain in making that claim.
You’re making a false claim. Joseph Smith was lynched when he was in prison, by people who were upset at his shenanigans. He was not being asked to denounce the Book of Mormon, and doing so would not have saved his life.
“Few” is not “none.” You’re admitting that it’s possible it was all just hallucinations or vivid dreams. At the age of ten, I once dreamt that my father was dead and was convinced that he was, in fact, dead until I saw him eating breakfast. (My father did not die until I was nearly 28.)
We know a great deal more about human nature, about psychology and physiology, than was known in Greenleaf’s time, the 18th and 19th centuries. We know more about hallucinations, about the mind’s defense mechanisms against stress (grief is stressful) and how it tries ot moderate stress for its own protection and well-being. In short, we know things Greenleaf could not have known 200 years ago. I’m willing to concede that he did the best he could with what he had, but we have more to work with than he could have possibly imagined. (Could you have described a PET scan to him?)
Yeah, you’re right. No one could have disposed of the body in the sea or in the desert wilderness or simply destroyed it so people would believe Jesus had been resurrected. Right. Or maybe Jesus wasn’t really dead when placed in the tomb; even the Bible admits that Jesus seemed to last a very short time on the cross compared to other crucified people. Maybe he was just unconscious (and a spear in the side is not necessarily fatal if it misses the heart or other organs) and left the tomb either on his own or with help. (Read this page and this page of this long article to learn how Jesus could have survived the crucifixion and how he could have left the tomb even under his own power.)
IMHO, the trouble is that we don’t have enough facts to determine exactly what happened. I admit that I can’t say for sure what happened to Jesus’ body. I just wish all of you would say the same.
Moby dick is written in first-person; does that make it a true story?
Name some scholars who believe that Matthew and John actually wrote those Gospels.
See another poster’s response above. I really think that not too many people actually believe the names attached to the Books of the Bible are the names of the actual authors of same. But that’s obviously an IMHO assertion on my part.
First of all, the passage of years does not automatically make an account unreliable.
[/quote]
The passage of years does automatically call into question the memory of the author. I thought it was pretty obvious that’s what I was getting at.
If anything, the mere assertion that an actual resurrection had occurred requires extraordinary proof and not just a “I say so.” Remember: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”
I know Christians of some denominations, including one LDS, who converted to Christianity because they couldn’t disprove the books in question to their satisfaction just as I know at least one Muslim who converted to Dar al-Islam because he couldn’t disprove the Quran to his satisfaction. Does that mean the books in question are completely true or merely that the individuals in question made a decision concerning faith for their own reasons? Which do you think is more likely?
I did not dismiss the account. I stated nothing more and nothing less than that I considered it to be a story in which someone in the story said something happened. I did not make an assertion regarding its veracity. You, on the other hand, allowed your knee to jerk and then assign to me motives I don’t hold and words I did not type.
And, pray tell, where is the preponderance of evidence that the EVENTS & not the LOCALES of the New Testament happened?
You misspelled “vision.” It may be a fact that someone has reported something. That does not automatically mean that something itself is a fact.
Well, Paul evidently wasn’t too worried about the Jews’ exacting any type of “justice” on him as, as he so conveniently pointed out, he was a citizen of Rome when his persecutors weren’t and therefore he was going to get tried over in Rome and to heck with the people back in Jerusalem conducting a trial.
See above. As Paul wasn’t too worried about Jewish persecution of him, he decided to do the forum shopping thing (for the lawyers reading: my apologies for the atrocious pun.)
And very little consequences from the Jews when it came to Paul since, as he conveniently pointed out, he was a citizen of Rome and some local tribe wasn’t about to try his tush.
Bullshit. I make a claim based on the events leading up to his martyrdom and what happened after that.
And those shenanigans were mostly his promotion of a particular sect of Christianity. Since he wasn’t about to be sentenced to death in that state for “belonging to the wrong religion” by a court of law, the lynch mob took matters into their own hands. Now if it happened in one other state, then the court, and not the mob, very well may have hanged him.
That’s an interesting assertion. Got any more proof for that than you do for the events of the Bible?
A little help on the coding for my previous posting above would work wonders. Thanks in advance.