Posted on 11/11/2009 11:41:08 AM PST by GonzoII
And what about Peter?
See post #20.
AFAIK, Thomas was the only person ever given objective proof in this way. His experience doesn’t seem particularly relevant for Christians today.
Sounds like they are now writers for ABC/CBS/NBC sitcoms.
I don't think this is factually correct. There was something different, he was not immediately recognizable to the witnesses.
Indeed it does. It says he's God. He foretold his death, and the day on which he would raise himself therefrom, and made it clear that he would be doing the resurrecting.
The first two statements being historically verified leave no problem with excepting his divinity and his capacity for accomplishing the last.
Jn:2:19: "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
ML/NJ
Not the Apostles, they were hunched up scared for their lives behind a locked door.
Not the Jews, they even asked the Romans to post guards so that something like that would not happen.
Not to Romans. They wanted this whole problem to go away and be forgotten.
And that leaves......
If "their truth" was not just that, "truth", then they would not have been able to convince the world of the resurrection.
"We do not need to presuppose that the New Testament is infallible, or divinely inspired or even true." Yet, in the very beginning of his "refutation" of the "swoon theory" he states: "The fact [sic] that the Roman soldier did not break Jesus' legs..." Where does this "fact" come from if not from a presupposition that the story in the New Testament (NT) is true?!? The author is violating his own rules that we need not presuppose the NT is true, by presupposing the story in the NT as being "factual."
Then he continues in #3 by saying:
"John, an eyewitness, certified that he saw blood and water come from Jesus' pierced heart (Jn 19:34-35).
How does he "know" John was "an eyewitness," or that John even wrote John's Gospel if not by presupposing that the NT is true?
In #4, he continues to use NT "evidence" (in violation of his own rules) of something that is not recorded by any other source.
"The body was totally encased in winding sheets and entombed (Jn 19:38-42)."
Then, in the refutation of the "conspiracy theory" he quotes "Blaise Pascal [who] gives a simple, psychologically sound proof [sic]"
"The apostles were either deceived or deceivers. Either supposition is difficult, for it is not possible to imagine that a man has risen from the dead."
No, but according to the NT, they saw Jesus raise people from the dead. So why would that be difficult for them to believe?
MaBut even the NT says it was. Matthew 28:17 actually says that some of the eleven "doubted" even after the resurrected Jesus supposedly spent 40 days with them!
Pascal's reasoning doesn't constitute "sound proof" but simple rationalization, or better yet a speculation.
In #2 of the refutation of the 'conspiracy theory," the author states:
"If they made up the story, they were the most creative, clever, intelligent fantasists in history, far surpassing Shakespeare, or Dante or Tolkien. Fisherman's "fish stories" are never that elaborate, that convincing, that life-changing, and that enduring."
Well, the Jews made up a myth of Exodus, being in Egypt, being in the Sinai for 40 years, and the Muslims believe a myth that Mohammad, an illiterate Bedouin, received the Koran from Allah, word by word, and memorized it infallibly!
Actually, Homer's Iliad is much more believable (historically) than anything written in the Bible, because it doesn't really claim the world to be full of magic, and because of external evidence that gives the story some sense of credibility.
In #3 of the same argument, he states:
"The disciples' character argues strongly against such a conspiracy on the part of all of them..."
How does he know the disciples' character? We only know of two alleged eyewitnesses, Matthew and John and practically nothing of the others. Neither Luke nor Mark nor Paul are eyewitnesses. And all this is based, again, on the presupposition that the NT is true.
In the "refutation" of the "genius" of the "hallucination theory" he states:
"There were too many witnesses. Hallucinations are private, individual, subjective..."
Hallucinations (visions) are often referred to as "wittiness" in the Bible by various authors. They "see" and "hear" things and they "know" it's from God (how did they know what God is?).
In addition to that, they often admit it is in a state of trance! Peter experience visions and auditory hallucinations in a state of trace in Acts regarding what one can eat, for example. In another example, Paul experiences hallucinations on the way to Damascus, but his companions don't.
In other instances, the visions are communal. Mass hysteria has been a proven psychological phenomenon that involves visual and auditory hallucinations of a whole bunch of "witnesses." The best example of it was one of the "falling sun" that was "witnessed" by thousands of Catholics in the 20th century Spain!
The arguments of the author then seem to get more ridiculous, as he offers refutations of this type:
"The witnesses were qualified. They were simple, honest, moral people who had firsthand knowledge of the facts."
Based on what? Presupposition that the NT is true? We have nothing to corroborate this with except by the NT which cannot be used on any presupposition of truth by author's own rule.
Then in the refutation of the "myth theory", the author states:
"The style of the Gospels is radically and clearly different from the style of all the myths. Any literary scholar who knows and appreciates myths can verify this. There are no overblown, spectacular, childishly exaggerated events."
LOL! First of all, we can't go by what the Gospels say, by author's own rule. Second, the Gospels are full of childishly exaggerated, spectacular events too numerous to recount! Just think of the voice from heaven and a dove descending...or Lazarus getting up after being dead for four days...or the transfiguration on Mt. Tabor...or the feeding with the fish and bread story...how realistic is that?
This is not the world as we know. Things just don't happen like that in the real world, so no wonder no one recorded it except the interested parties.
Is this is the best they can come up with, this is pathetic, if not embarrassing. Not a single irrefutable "fact" is stated. All "evidence" and claims made as "factual" are based on the presupposition that the NT is true, even though that is one of the two rules not to follow.
The only thing this individual proved is that he has no proof whatsoever and that his arguments are based on violation of his own rules.
Faith is a belief and as such it requires no proof. Like anything else of that nature (such as love) it cannot be demonstrated by reason or gestures. A person who believes he or she loves another person does not need proof, and cannot provide provide proof of that awareness. Love cannot be described, measured, or defined. As such trying to prove logically that you love your spouse is an exercise in futility. And so is this article.
Those who believe, like those who love, need no proof, and no amount of skepticism can prove them wrong, just as no amount of rationalization or works can prove them right.
Really.
1) “The world” is not convinced of the resurrection. In fact, many parts of the world where it used to be believed no longer do so.
2) How do you account for the many apparently false beliefs that are widely accepted?
The resurrection is a proposition of fact. It's either true or false.
Marxism is a theory. It's a conjecture that the world would be much better if X, Y, and Z; and that thus-and-such explains history, and so on.
True believers in theories die for those theories all the time. They don't die knowing those theories are false; they believe them to be true.
However, if the resurrection is a falsehood and the apostles knew it (and were not deceived), they died for something they knew to be a lie. Sane men don't do that. So either they were all very skillfully deceived, or they were insane, or they were telling the truth and the resurrection is a fact.
Wouldn't it be great if we had another source to corroborate the resurrection of Jesus and stories in the NT? We do! It is called the Book of Mormon. In fact it says the following regarding it being a second witness.
7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? 8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also. 9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.
How would they have done so?? Jesus' transfigured body could walk through walls and locked doors. Disappear from one local and immediately appear at another miles away. Methinks the Romans might have had just a "wee" bit of trouble hanging onto Him the second time around.
Ancient Egyptians called that sort of thing "Ba" and "Ka"... That sort of thing generally provided ancients with the functions which cell phones and things like gotomeeting.com provide us with today but, by the time of Christ, a number of centuries had passed without anything like that being seen and people were turning into atheists and evolosers. The best place to start on the topic is Julian Jaynes "Origin of Consciousness", at least as to how the thing worked. Jaynes of course viewed what he termed 'bicameral' phenomena as 'auditory hallucinations' of course since he lived in an atheist/evoloser academic world; nonetheless as the original post here notes, there is sufficient historical evidence to view such phenomena as real.
Thank you very, very much for this post, GonzoII. It boils down to you believe it or you toss it ALL out. No middle ground.
My pleasure.
The known world at the time in question was certainly converted to Christianity on the belief of the resurrection, so they were convinced. As to the fact that some people no longer accept that fact, so what? The evidence is still beyond doubt. Many refused to accept the evidence in the ancient world also.
"2) How do you account for the many apparently false beliefs that are widely accepted?"
Fallen man, and lack of having been evangelized..
Good point.
bump for later read
I don’t see any connection whatsoever between my question and your “answer”. “Ba” and “Ka” refer to noncorporeal entities (”soul”). In Jesus’ case the body was definitely physical, not ethereal. So I ask again, how would the Romans have caught, held, and re-cruficied a body that could simply disappear out of their hands and appear elsewhere???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.