Resurrection is Sufficiently Evidenced: punkforchrist vs. Sean McHugh

[Alcyonian]

Debate set to start: 4 February 2008

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between punkforchrist and Sean McHugh who will debate the following resolution:

"Resolved: The Historicity of the Resurrection is Sufficiently Evidenced."

punkforchrist will affirm and Sean McHugh will oppose. The debate will have 5 rounds, punkforchrist will go first with special conditions, per the parameters. (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=5120500&postcount=79)

Round 1

Introduction by both punkforchrist and Sean McHugh consisting of 4,000 words maximum word count and 7 days to respond.

Round 2

Rebuttals consisting of 4,000 5,000 words maximum word count and 10 days to respond.

Round 3 & 4

Rebuttals consisting of 3,000 punkforchrist - 4,000 and Sean McHugh - 3,500 in round 3, 3,500 round 4 - words maximum word count and 7 days to respond.

Round 5

Closing statements consisting of 3,000 3,500 for punkforchrist and 3,000 for Sean McHugh - words maximum word count and 7 days to respond.

A Peanut Gallery (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=235885) has been set up in Biblical Criticism and History for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Enjoy the Debate!

Alcyonian (FDD Moderator)

[punkforchrist]

I would like to begin by thanking our moderator and the IIDB forum for hosting this debate, as well as the readers, and of course my amiable opponent, Sean McHugh. Thank you for joining me.

Was Jesus resurrected from the dead? To modern ears the idea of a person being dead and then coming back to life is an outrageous suggestion. Where is the evidence? What reason beyond superstition can be given for such an improbable event? Is it even possible? Sean and I will undoubtedly be exploring some of these hot issues throughout the debate. My contention is that Jesus was in fact resurrected from the dead and that God is the best explanation for this historical event.

Before outlining the historical argument in favor of Jesus’ resurrection, it is necessary for me to explain what this debate is not about. First of all, we are not concerned with issues related to Biblical Inerrancy. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Gospels contain some contradictions does not in any way undermine the historical core of evidence in favor of Jesus’ bodily resurrection. After all, no one believes that John Alden’s biography of George Washington must be infallible in every detail in order to accept the basic tenets of Alden’s testimony. Likewise, what the New Testament teaches about the events surrounding the resurrection of Jesus do not have to be infallible in order for us to salvage a number of important facts.

Secondly, while the debate may delve into question of the possibility of miracles, other philosophical speculations are moot. For example, the question “why did Jesus not appear to everyone around the world?” is irrelevant. We must still be able to account for the facts that are accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars. Other questions, like the above, may be interesting, but they are not pertinent to our current debate.

Thirdly, the debate is not over any of Jesus’ moral or social teachings. While criticisms may come from all different directions, the question we are dealing with in this exchange is whether or not Jesus’ resurrection is factual. We are not discussing the moral imperatives of the Golden Rule or to deny one’s self.

Other unrelated issues may arise throughout the course of this debate, but it is of the utmost importance that we stay focused on the relevance of one issue only: does the evidence point to or away from a bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?

So why should we believe that Jesus was raised from the dead? While this is often seen as a “faith issue”, there are a number of important facts accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars, Christian and non-Christian alike, that when taken together, support this foundational claim. There are three facts that I will detail and defend in my opening: 1) Jesus’ empty tomb; 2) His post-mortem appearances; and 3) the origin of the disciples’ belief. Let’s take a look at each of them.

The Empty Tomb

Among the most important facts is the empty tomb of Jesus. Its importance can be traced to the fact that Jesus’ resurrection was alleged by early Christians to be of a physical nature. It is not simply a spiritual resurrection, but a bodily one. As the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:42, “The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable”. What dies, therefore, is also what rises. Now, what evidence is there for this fact?

First, the empty tomb is multiply attested to in early, independent sources. Mark’s Gospel ends with the empty tomb and the angel announcing Jesus’ resurrection (Mark 16:6-7). There are dissimilarities between the Synoptic Gospels, suggesting that the authors did not borrow from one another, but rather had independent sources. Finally, John’s account is likewise derived from an independent source, as is clear from the vast differences between the narratives. The independence of the Gospel narratives is confirmed by Paul’s implication of the empty tomb in 1 Corinthians 15:4. Cumulatively, this is important because, as Marcus Borg points out, “The logic is straightforward: if a tradition appears in an early source and in another independent source, then not only is it early, but it is also unlikely to have been made up.”[1]

Second, one may readily make a case that the empty tomb is a historical fact based on the Gospel narratives’ inclusion of the tomb being discovered empty by women. This would have been extremely embarrassing for early Christians, since the testimony of women was not regarded as trustworthy, as is stated in the Mishnah Rosh Ha-Shanah 1.8. In a society where women were looked down on as inferior, in such passages as, “Sooner let the words of the law be burnt than delivered to women”[2], the inclusion of this event makes it highly unlikely that the empty tomb is a fiction. The humiliation that the Gospel writers risked by incorporating this is evidence of the narratives’ authenticity.

Third, the empty tomb was not only proclaimed by followers of Jesus, but was also implicitly affirmed by the Jews. In Matthew 28:11-ff, the Jews instruct the Roman guards to claim that during the night, the disciples stole the body of Jesus. Of course, if the tomb were not empty, then these directions would have been superfluous. Hence, there is enemy attestation for the empty tomb.

I could continue listing a number of relevant facts in support of the empty tomb, but I think enough has been said for now. Hence, William Wand, a former Church historian at Oxford University writes, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of [the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”[3]

The Appearances Of Jesus

The second crucial piece of evidence in support of the resurrection entails the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to the disciples. This fact is highly attested to by historical evidence.

To begin, Paul’s list of appearances in 1 Corinthians 15 practically guarantees that such appearances actually took place. For one, the creed Paul cites in this passage dates to within five years of Jesus’ death by crucifixion. This is a fact that is almost universally accepted by New Testament scholars.[4] As a result of the early dating, it would be insurmountably improbable that such appearances did not take place. All someone had to do to discredit Paul is simply point out that these appearances never took place. However, there are additional reasons for accepting this as fact.

The Gospels provide independent attestation to the appearances of Christ. There is the mentioning of Jesus’ appearance to Peter in the Gospel of Luke, as well as the appearances to all the Apostles in Luke and John. It is unnecessary to point out the diversity of appearances in Matthew and Mark, but the variety of resurrection appearances suggests their multiple and independent attestation.

A final point to consider is the fact that both Paul and James claimed to have had experiences of the resurrected Christ. This is significant because both of these men were non-believers. Paul went so far as to persecute Christians (as detailed in Galatians 1:13-ff). It is unreasonable, then, to complain that Jesus only appeared to his followers.

The Origin of the Disciples’ Belief

The last piece of evidence I would like to examine entails the origin of the disciples’ belief in the resurrection of Jesus. This is significant, since at first glance it would appear that the disciples had every reason not to believe! Let’s consider their situation. I invite everyone to place themselves in their shoes (or sandals :)).

First of all, their leader was dead. Think of the devastation Jesus’ followers must have had, recalling the brutal crucifixion of their expected Messiah. In first century Judaism, the idea of a dying and rising Messiah was completely unheard of. Instead of being exalted as a king, Jesus was put to death like a common criminal. Yet, something transformed the disciples in a way that they came to sincerely believe that Jesus had been risen. They were even willing to die for their claim, as is recorded by Clement of Rome, Josephus, and others.

Next, contemporary Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded the notion of a dying and rising Messiah. When the Jews at the time referred to “resurrection”, they indeed meant a physical bodily resurrection; however, the dead were believed to be raised at the end of the world, rather than at any point in between. As Joachim Jeremias writes, “Ancient Judaism did not know of an anticipated resurrection as an event of history. Nowhere does one find in the literature anything comparable to the resurrection of Jesus. . . . In no place in the late Judaic literature does it concern a resurrection to [glory] as an event of history.”[5] It would be quite improbable for the disciples to come to believe in Jesus’ resurrection unless it actually occurred. As Luke Timothy Johnson states, “Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was.”[6]

Conclusion

What may we conclude about these three facts? What do they ultimately point to?

The Christian answer is simple. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and God confirmed his teaching by raising him from the dead. Various theories have been put forward in order to undermine this conclusion. However, such hypotheses as the swoon theory, or the hallucination theory, or the view that the disciples stole Jesus’ body, are poorly attested. As such, they have been almost universally rejected by contemporary New Testament historians. C.F.D. Moule of Cambridge University sums it up nicely, “If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of the Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with? . . . the birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church . . . remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the Church itself.”[7]

Now, various arguments have been put forward against the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, with contemporary times certainly included. However, it would be inappropriate of me to tackle each one of them here. Instead of using the remainder of my word-count, I will allow my counterpart to offer his reasons for resisting belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Works Cited

[1] Borg, Marcus and Wright, N.T., The Meaning of Jesus (San Fransisco: Harper Collins, 1999), p. 12.

[2] Talmud, Sotah 19a.

[3] Wand, William, Christianity: A Historical Religion? (Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson, 1972), pp. 93-94.

[4] See, for example, Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection: Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An Historical Examination and Explanation (St. Andrew, Edinburgh, 1977), p. 2. See also, Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Jesus (translated by John Bowden, Fortress, Minneapolis, 1994), p. 38. Ludemann dates the creed to within three years of the death of Jesus.

[5] Jeremias, Joachim, “Die alteste Schicht der Osteruberlieferung”, in Resurrexit (edited by Edouard Dhanis (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1974), p. 194.

[6] Johnson, Luke Timothy, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 136.

[7] Moule, C.F.D., The Phenomenon of the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology 2/1 (London: SCM, 1967), pp. 3 and 13.

[Sean McHugh]

Opening Statement

I would like to thank punkforchrist for accepting the challenge and for his congeniality. I would like to thank the moderators for their assistance, IIDB for hosting the debate and all those who will follow it.

Paul said (1 Cor 15:14): "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."

I agree, but submit that it is in vain.

Belief:

Belief in the Resurrection isn't a product of personal experience, and despite apologetic argument, it isn't deduced either. Generally it comes from fear, desirability, repetition, indoctrination and conditioning, which generally come from family, church, friends, community and country. One can easily observe the Christian-geographic demographic relationship. Evidence and logic come last. Indeed, its unimportance is inadvertently admitted by Christians when they characteristically appeal to faith. Paul, who provides the New Testament's first and most 'Resurrection-contemporary' documents, appeals to faith more than to evidence (1 Cor 15:1-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015:1-17;&version=9;)). Note that even in that reference, there might be Christian interpolations (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html)

Most Christians are ignorant of the evidence. Many Christians don’t know (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4053/is_200304/ai_n9232091/pg_13) what a Gospel is. This does not hinder belief; in fact, it assists. A survey (http://www.religioustolerance.org/resurrec8.htm) (C.E.2000) by the evangelical based Barna Group, discovered that about a third of the leading Christian clergy don't believe in a literal Resurrection. These are the very bastions/lobbyists for belief! Ironically, the belief would be firmer among their flock.

Transcendental Temptation:

In assessing its credibility, it is useful to appreciate the theology that rationalizes the death and resurrection of Jesus. The blood sacrifice provides the appeasement/atonement and that, along with the resurrection, provides a ritualistic 'salvation' mechanism. As if governed by some higher order, the death and resurrection allowed God to forgive sin, including the sin of Jesus' murder. It follows, that if the authorities had merely disparaged Jesus, then that would have been unforgivable. Though it is often described in admirable terms, ‘salvation’ means living (sort of) forever. Given the natural fear of death, this is an attractive proposal. As this salvation is theologically tied to Jesus' resurrection, it too becomes an attractive proposal. Paul makes this connection very strongly in 1 Corinthians 15:12-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:12-15&version=9).

The culture and times also provided fertilizer for the tradition of Jesus' death and resurrection. Myths and magic abounded. For example, Osiris (http://www.egyptorigins.org/osirisandjesus.htm) was killed and dismembered by Set but was reassembled and resurrected (http://www.egyptorigins.org/osirisjesusIV.htm) by Isis, an Egyptian goddess popular even in the Greco-Roman culture. Why should Jesus/God be credited with less?

Witnesses and Hume's Maxim:

The first part of David Hume's famous Maxim submits that for witness testimony to establish a miracle, the testimony would need to be such that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the miracle it seeks to establish. As the falsehood of that testimony becomes less miraculous, compared to proposed miracle, it becomes less reasonable to believe that miracle. When the reasonableness becomes low enough, belief becomes unreasonable.

I will be showing that the Resurrection testimony fails miserably in meeting a near immaculate standard.

Hume’s Maxim has been often attacked and some recently cited rebuttals are those by John Earman. To facilitate his attack, Earman, who derides Hume, interprets the maxim into Bayesian algebra. However, as Peter Millican points out, Hume’s two weighed miraculous alternatives can be small in terms of intrinsic probability (see above). In Earman's interpretation and formula, they can both be large and one of them must be at least 0.5 or 50% probability. For that alone, Earman fails and his condemnation reflects onto himself. Millican provides formulae that are compatible with the maxim, that aren’t susceptible to Earman's criticisms. See my review:

http://home.exetel.com.au/isis/Religion/hume_maxim.html

Probability and Witnesses:

Mathematics isn't kind to witnessed miracles. To illustrate, imagine you ask a player to guess a number from 1 to 1,000,000 but not announce his guess. You tell him the winning number and ask if he correctly guessed it. Assume he responds affirmatively. Let's also assume this person has an intrinsic reliability of 99% in his reports (affirmative and negative). Would it be reasonable to assume the odds for his truly having guessed the right number, are 99 to 1 (99%)? No, here it drops to about one in ten thousand (0.01%). Here I provide the Bayesian derivations:

http://home.exetel.com.au/isis/Religion/bayes_theorem.html

That’s being generous. Witness reliability is generally well below 99% and miracles have a much smaller intrinsic probability than one in a million, lest they be as probabilistically as everyday as hearing of a lottery win. One sees apologists seeking to improve the odds by appealing to multiple independent witnesses. If several genuinely independent witnesses were to give mutually supportive evidence to an unlikely event, then this would significantly increase the probability of that unlikely event. The trouble is, just as the question of a miracle is a hypothesis, so is the proposal that the witnesses are independent. If such independent testimony would establish a miracle, then the reconsidered probability of independence becomes much less than the intrinsic (original) probability. Anyway, as we shall see, even the initial instrinsic probability, for the independence of the Resurrection evidence, is terribly low.

Gospel Testimony:

The Gospels (and Acts) are the foremost Christian evidence for the Resurrection. Contrary to fundamentalist apologetics, they are regarded as anonymous (http://www.christianbiblereference.org/jintro.htm) works originally written in Greek (http://www.sacrednamemovement.com/NTisGreekContents.htm), rather than the Aramaic of the Galileans. Most Christians would imagine that they were written and promulgated close to the time of Jesus’ execution (~C.E.33). In fact, they were probably written between C.E.70-110 (http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/Gospel_behind.html) or later. It wasn't until about C.E.185 that the 'Four Gospels' were promulgated (http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm) by the Church, when Irenaeus named and numbered them. That was about 150 years after Jesus' time.

Claimed Independence:

At the front of the "Book of Mormon", there is testimony from eleven supposedly independent witnesses, the "Testimony of Three Witnesses" and the "Testimony of Eight Witnesses":

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/book_of_mormon/witnesses.html

Should I believe that book? It claims independent witnesses! Similarly, most Christian apologists would submit the Gospels as providing independent witnesses. But that independence is dubious. Even in the Gospels, all the 'witnesses' to Jesus' resurrection were his followers - hardly good credentials for independence. Also, amongst most biblical scholarship it is realised that Mark is the earliest Gospel and is that from which Matthew and Luke, the other two synoptic Gospels, were heavily copied. That there was dependence between these three documents is beyond reasonable doubt. Matthew and Luke will follow Mark, then one or the other will ad-lib, but will then return to the point in Mark where it left off. Then the other might do the same, while the counterpart continues with Mark. Matthew uses about 90% of Mark while Luke uses about half that. With the sixty Matthew/Luke matches (in content and location), only one occurs without Mark (see matrix (http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm)):

Synoptic Verse Occurrences

Mat/----/Luke: = 01
Mat/Mark/Luke: = 59
Mat/Mark/----: = 27
---/Mark/Luke: = 13

Mark doesn't carry the Nativity and so in their first two respective chapters, Matthew and Luke are left to their own devices. Here they diverge horribly, not only in terms of story but even in geography. But in their third chapters, where Mark begins, they suddenly lock in. All of this gets called, 'The Synoptic Problem' (http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm). Embarrassingly, 'Mark' wasn't one of the Twelve Apostles. In fact, no Mark is mentioned in the Gospels.

Post-Resurrection Incoherence:

The other tragic divergence occurs at the end of Matthew and Luke at the very crucial post-resurrection accounts. The most reliable ancient manuscripts end (http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm) Mark at 16:8 and here, Matthew and Luke once more separate drastically, not only in testimony, but again in geography. The fourth gospel, John, doesn't help. It's so different, that if it is right then every other Gospel is wrong. For example, whereas the synoptics describe Jesus' ministry being about a year, John describes a ministry of roughly three years. Whereas John has the Cleansing of the Temple near the beginning of the ministry, the synoptics have it near the end of Jesus' ministry and instrumental to his demise. Anyway, the post-resurrection accounts, the most important evidence in Christianity, become collectively the most incoherent in the Gospels. They can't mutually support each other, let alone the burden of a fantastic miracle. I only have space for a few examples:

Compared N.T. Sources:

Mat 28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mat%2028&version=9;)
Mark 16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016&version=9;)
Luke 24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024&version=9;)
John 20:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020-21&version=9;)
Acts 1:1-12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%201:1-12;&version=9;)

Problem #1:

Let's compare Mark and Matthew in their describing the women's actions upon discovering the empty tomb and being told (by angels) that Jesus had risen.

Mark 16:8: "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid."

Mat 28:8: "And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word."

So did they report it to the Apostles or didn't they? This question is pertinent not only to these verses. Mark, the primary Gospel, is suggesting that for an unspecified and presumably a long period, only the women knew about the resurrection.

Problem #2:

Mary Magdelene is presented as a primary witness to the resurrected Jesus. John (20:1-2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2020:1-2&version=9)) reports her as going to the tomb by herself and seeing the tomb open, then running to tell the Apostles that they have taken Jesus' body away. She returns to the tomb and stands outside weeping (John 20:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2020:11;&version=9;)). When asked why she is weeping (by Jesus!), she again says that they have taken Jesus' body away. This denies Matthew (28:1-7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2028:1-7;&version=9;)), where Mary M and another Mary go to the tomb and are told by an angel that Jesus has been resurrected. They then run off with joy to report it to the Apostles (28:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2028:8;&version=9;)). On the way they encounter Jesus himself (28:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2028:9;&version=9;)). That Mary M is aware of the resurrection and is among women who relay this good news to the Apostles, is also reported by Luke (24:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2024:9-10;&version=9;)). There she is in a group of at least five women who visit the tomb, where they are told by an angel that Jesus has risen (Luke 24:1-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:1-10;&version=9;)). So apart from the lone female witness aspect in John's account, how is it coherent that in the fourth Gospel Mary M runs distressed with bad news and twice reports that Jesus' body has been taken?

Problem #3:

In Mark and Matthew, the angelic instruction is for the women to tell the Apostles to proceed to Galilee, to a designated place. In Luke, this instruction is altered. Compare the two:

NRSV, Mark 16:6-7:

"you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you."

NRSV, Luke 24:6:

"The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee,"

Despite the differences, the scenario, location, dialogue and similarities show that those quotes represent parallel verses. Those differences set the stage for Luke's wide divergence. In Mark, the message from the angel was a reminder that Jesus had told the Apostles that he would go before them into Galilee (75 miles away) where they should go to meet him (also Matthew 28:7). In Luke it's a variation, a reminder of what Jesus allegedly told them when he was still in Galilee, with no suggestion that the Apostles should leave Jerusalem. Accordingly, on that same day of the resurrection, Luke's Apostles meet Jesus in Jerusalem and he commands them to remain in Jerusalem till (at Pentecost) they receive the power from on high (24:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2024:49;&version=9;)). But Pentecost was 47 days away, longer than the 40 days the resurrected Jesus allegedly remained on earth (Acts 1:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%201:3;&version=9;)). Luke informs us that they obeyed this (Luke 24:52-53 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:52-53;&version=9;)). So when did they, in Luke, go to Galilee to the designated mountain? And why did the undead Jesus leave instruction for them to go to Galilee, saying he would be going there before them (Mat 28:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mat%2028:10;&version=9;)), if he was to meet them in Jerusalem where he would tell them to say? In Matthew, they complied with the Mark/Matthew instruction and went to the mountain in Galilee to see the risen Jesus (28:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mat%2028:16;&version=9;)). Which is it? These are the principal witness accounts, and there isn't even agreement as to which region this monumental event occurred.

The 500 Witnesses:

1 Corintians 15:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015:6;&version=9;) is often cited as powerful evidence. It says that the resurrected Jesus appeared to 500 at once. An astute IIDB reader satirically asked me whether it would have been twice as credible had he said 1,000. Keep in mind that Jerusalem was safely thousands of kilometers away and that for a long time Paul's letters would have had small and special audience. This verse is simply the testimony of one person! No names are given, so whom would one ask? No details are given. Where and when did this big audience come from? When did it occur and why did no one else report it? Was this supposed to be a bodily appearance or the vision kind that was claimed for Paul (Acts 22:7-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2022:7-9;&version=9;))? One should also ask, if there were all these other witnesses from outside the circle, why is there no testimony from any of them?

Pauline Christianity to Gospel Christianity:

The rise of Christianity is another apologetic argument. By the time the four Gospels were being written, there was virtually a clean 'historical' slate for the Jesus story. Palestine was geographically a world away; Jerusalem had been destroyed (http://www.bible.ca/pre-flavius-josephus-70AD-Mt24-fulfilled.htm) (C.E.70) and the Apostles Jerusalem Church, was gone. About 1.1 million Jews had been killed and others were enslaved or exiled. They would have had more to worry about than some new developing pagan religion far off in the land of the heathens. Despite the relative safety, the first written Gospel is still cautious and in its actual final line and provides an excuse for the previous dearth of ‘history’ for Jesus’ resurrection. It says that the female witnesses to the empty tomb were afraid and didn't tell anyone (Mark 16:8). Even the more fantastic Matthew has the Apostles going to a remote and discreet place, a mountain in Galilee (about 75 miles away), to see the risen Jesus. Luke, on the other hand, has them boldly staying in/near Jerusalem for the monumental event.

Martyrdom:

A common argument for the Resurrection's historicity is the testimony and martyrdom of the Apostles. Why would they die for a lie? But this argument assumes that they were genuinely executed, that they espoused the NT/Gospel accounts of the Resurrection and that that was the crime for which they died. It also assumes that they were unique. But many religions have martyrs. Islam claims 80,000,000 (http://www.gcts.edu/ockenga/globalchristianity/gd/gd16.pdf).

Before the Gospels, there was little flesh on Jesus’ life/death and nothing to indicate that the Apostles’ risen Jesus wasn’t like Paul's risen Christ, a spiritual entity (Acts 22:7-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2022:7-9;&version=9;)). Despite their generous volume, Paul's epistles, the first NT documents, provide hardly any of the Gospel tradition. Paul displays little familiarity with Jesus-the-man, his deeds and teachings, including the resurrection details. He presents Jesus essentially as a metaphysical messiah. Though the Gospels had not been written in Paul's time, it is still remarkable that this evangelist would not employ a verbal form of them in his teaching. Over and over he misses opportunities to do so. Paul teaches mostly Paulinity and the Old Testament. James' Jerusalem Church appears even further removed from Gospel Christianity. It presumably comprised of the original Apostles, Jesus' family and real-time followers. They maintained devout Judaism and a mutual tension (http://www.journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue11/Goulder.pdf) with Paul. As for their dying over witnessing the Gospel’s bodily resurrection of Jesus, we don’t know that they even espoused it.

Let’s examine the ‘martyrdoms’, starting with Peter. The Church enthusiastically teaches that Peter was crucified upside-down. That comes from the rejected Gnostic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm) text, “The Acts of St. Peter” (http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/acts/actpete.htm). The Church omits that it has Peter dying over his preaching about chastity, rather than over Resurrection issues. Prior to this second-century document, there were no details of the alleged execution.

What about Paul, who never met the man Jesus (the dead or undead)? The Church Father Tertullian said he was beheaded (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105frs.asp). That was in, “Against the Heretics” (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm) (200), about 140 years post-Paul! But Tertullian also said that John was thrown into boiling oil and escaped unhurt! The first account we have (185-195) is from “Acts of Paul” (http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/library/actpaul.htm), another Gnostic Christian text rejected by mainline Christianity. It reports milk flowing from Paul’s truncated neck.

With James, the brother of Jesus, the historian Josephus (Antiquities 20) (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jamesdeath.html) reports that the people rose up at his execution with the high priest Ananus being deposed. Nasty, but it hardly sounds like sanctioned systematic Christian persecution. There was no mention of Resurrection proclamations. While Josephus has James stoned to death, the Church father Eusebius, via the 2nd century Christian chronicler Hegesippus, has him being thrown from a building, stoned and finally clubbed to death (http://www.wheaton.edu/DistanceLearning/Jas-n-cn.htm).

Acts (of the Apostles), which was written about C.E.85 (http://www.totustuus.com/dating.htm), only records two martyr deaths. Remarkable! Surely this is the book where high-profile martyrdoms, as those mentioned above, would have been recorded. Acts reports the persecution of Stephen, a non-disciple. His crime was regarding Moses’ law and the temple (Acts 6:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%206:14&version=9)). The other was James, brother of John (not Jesus), which receives six Greek words (12:2) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2012:2;&version=9;). Again, testimonials to the bodily Resurrection aren’t mentioned.

The cautious observe a footnote on page nine of "Foxe's Book of Martyrs”, that says the accounts of martyrdom are traditional!

Other NT Testimony:

I have already discussed Paul's vagueness about Jesus, including the Resurrection. Also consider that several of the traditional Pauline documents are almost certainly not his, while others are disputed. Other NT books, such as 1-3 John 1, 2 Peter and James are probably late and are of doubtful/dubious authorship. Among those, the only references to the Resurrection are in 1 Peter (1:3, 3:18) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%20(1:3,%203:18);&version=9;). These verses are oblique and liturgical, rather than historical and testimonial. Like the others, this book was written in Greek and exhibits a literary sophistication and Helenistic character (hardly a Galilean fisherman’s). Finally, the very bizarre book of Revelation has Jesus mentioning his death and resurrection in 1:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%201:18;&version=9;) in a rambling two-chapter (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%201:18-3:22;&version=9;) monologue. The determined surreal character of this report resists any credibility.

Paul's Conversion:

Another favourite exhibit is Paul's instantaneous conversion on the road to Damascus. For this to lend substantial credibility to the Resurrection, it would need to be similarly remarkable. The thing is, brain dead folk don't come to life today, but several folk have instantaneous conversions (http://www.centerforbaptiststudies.org/bulletin/2003/july.htm). In Methodism, for example, it is quite common. Acts, which is considered to be a continuation of Luke, says that those with Paul "saw no one". This denies that Paul witnessed Jesus bodily. The report (NRSV, Acts 9:7-9) goes on to say that Paul was blinded for three days. How come? The women and Apostles weren't blinded. In fact, more than once, the risen Jesus was reportedly mistaken by them for an ordinary mortal, not a laser display.

The Empty Tomb:

The ‘empty’ argument rejects the possibility of the body being taken or never having been there. That is despite Roman crucifixion typically precluding burial, despite the supposed tomb being outside the city walls and despite Matthew’s guards not being posted on the first day. Recall that in John, even Mary M thought the body had been taken (20:2,13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2020:2,13;&version=9)). That wouldn't require a miracle! It is also well to note that the next day was the Sabbath, when there would have been no visitations. Consider also that Matthew, the only one (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2027:66&version=9) to place guards, is also the only one (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2027:51,%2028:2,%2027:45,%2027:52-53&version=9) to associate Jesus' death/resurrection with two earthquakes, a noon darkness and undead saints walking from their graves into Jerusalem.

Despite the non-miraculous ease with which it could occur, it isn't my intention to argue for a stolen body. To do that is already to afford the religious Resurrection accounts unwarranted credibility. A magician hoping to amaze the audience with the rabbit-from-the-hat trick, doesn’t deserve to achieve it by telling them about it and then showing them an empty hat. The point is, claims for miracles and their supportive circumstances, are easy to make and are made regularly. Why should one accept any Gospel Resurrection details as facts when they come from the documents being challenged? The only 'witnesses' we have for the ‘empty tomb’ are the religious and interdependent Gospel writers and second-century-plus evangelists. Before that, not even Paul mentions a tomb (1 Corinthians 15:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015:4&version=9)). He (or an interpolator (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html)) only says that Jesus was buried.

Much is made of supposed inadvertent support from the Jews, by way of their not denying the empty tomb and their suggesting that the body was stolen. But we only get this information from Christian writings (http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/empty-tomb.htm), from Matthew and from the second and third-century Church Fathers, Justin Martyr and Tertullian. If the empty tomb argument were put to a Jew, he well might have suggested that the body could have been stolen. But so what? Sceptics do it today, without implying background knowledge or granting historical concessions. And remember, all of this came after Jerusalem’s destruction (C.E.70). Why assume that the devastated Jews would bother securely monitoring a grave over decades or centuries?

Anyway, why would the Jews be preoccupied with the tomb of the shy Jesus when there were undead saints (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2027:52-53&version=9) wandering around the city? Whatever happened to these potential super evangelists? They could have provided much better evidence than an empty grave. They’re never mentioned again! And what about Lazarus (John 11:11-45 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2011:11-44;&version=9;)), who was resurrected after four days? Again there’s silence. Whatever happened to him?

Bodies frequently get exhumed and moved and grave locations become forgotten. My own grandparents’ graves were discovered to have been relocated. An IIDB’er recently told me of a much more remarkable missing-body story involving his extended family.

For the empty tomb report to substantially support the Resurrection, any proposal for the empty tomb being legendary or being emptied naturally, would need to be so improbable as to be miraculous itself!

Modern Pulpit Myths:

The fib factory continues production. I have personally heard ministers relating modern miracles, sometimes featuring themselves. I have also been told of many and here is one example. A work colleague, when asked for the best ‘sign’ he personally knew, related an account he received from a 'reliable' source, namely his ex-minister. It involved a woman being told by God to go into a milk bar (malt shop) and do a handstand. When she finally complied, the proprietor started crying. He showed a gun with which he intended to kill himself unless he received that specific divine sign. Suspicious of this 'reliable' close-hand account, I searched the Internet and found the miracle, but this time it featured a male acrobat and a government building.

Consider that the potential suicide and miracle/handstand fix were common to both accounts. Is it reasonable to conclude veracity on the basis of there being corroborative evidence for the core of the miracle account? Here are two more versions of the handstand miracle. The first account has a male doing the handstand and occurs outside a grocery store. The second, a "True story", uses a female at a ‘gas station’:

Grocery Sign (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/5295.htm)

True Story! (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=anonomousshinegirl&nextdate=7%2f5%2f2005+13%3a17%3a19.960)

That’s four! So does one assign a high probability on the basis of there being several ‘independent’ testimonies? Surely reason would see all four rejected. But then why not similarly reject the Resurrection accounts? They are even more fantastic and have in similitude several critical and mutually destructive contradictions.

Minimum Maxim:

One asks, "What is the likelihood that this miracle witness is reporting the truth?" One answers, "It would be a miracle if this witness is reporting the truth".


Thank you,


Sean McHugh

[Alcyonian]

punkforchrist has been granted a 66 hour grace period.

Alcyonian (FDD Moderator)

[punkforchrist]

You will remember in my opening statement that I offered three pieces of historical evidences in support of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, which are accepted by the vast majority of New Testament scholars, believer and non-believer alike. These facts are the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and finally the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection.

My new friend and counterpart, Sean McHugh, has offered a line of reasoning against belief in the resurrection. While I believe a number of his points are not pertinent to this debate, albeit they are interesting observations, let us take a look at each of his arguments.

First of all, Sean states that belief in the resurrection is neither based on experience nor any inferable evidences. He claims that one would only believe in the resurrection of Jesus based on fear, indoctrination, or social pressures. What ought to be pointed out, however, is that this assertion commits the genetic fallacy. One’s personal reasons for belief are completely irrelevant to the truth-value of the proposition that Jesus was raised bodily from the dead. What needs to be accounted for are not autobiographical considerations, but the historical facts themselves. Notice that Sean also makes the mistake of assuming without warrant that belief in the resurrection cannot be based on personal experience. I do not want to get side-tracked with a discussion about the validity of the argument from religious experience, but I only want to point out that this is a perfectly legitimate reason to come to faith in Christ. Unless Sean offers us any reason to reject religious experience, I see no reason his claim should undermine my or anyone else’s personal experience of Jesus in their lives.

Along the same lines, my opponent states that belief in an eternal afterlife is an attractive option for those who are afraid of dying. Of course, this is true, but it hardly gives any reason to doubt the veracity of Christian claims. I will admit that I want to believe in God and Christianity because it gives me hope for the future. But of what relevance is this to the debate at hand? The idea of a Freudian “wish-fulfillment” is fallacious, since the claim is reversible. One could easily claim that the reason people choose not to follow Christ is because they do not like the prospect of changing their lives. However, this tactic is obviously flawed. Likewise, if the wish-fulfillment axiom is true, then we could not believe anything to be true that we want to be true. New Yorkers are currently ecstatic that the Giant won the Super Bowl this year. Now, does that gives us any reason to say, “well, since you like the idea of the Giants winning the Super Bowl, it did not happen”? Of course not. What we need to focus on are the facts. “Just the facts, ma’am.”

Sean also states that because there were similar claims made contemporaneous to the dating of the New Testament events that this somehow undercuts Christian claims. He gives the example of Osiris, who was killed, and later reassembled by Isis. However, nothing in the accounts of Osiris suggest any borrowing by the early Christians. For one, Osiris was never said to have been raised from the dead; hence, it is hardly a parallel to the resurrection of Jesus. Secondly, the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection were human beings who had experiences of the bodily risen Christ. The two accounts are therefore too dissimilar to make any substantial comparisons. On the other hand, let’s assume there is enough similarity between the two to make us stop and considering the possibility of cross-religious influence. Do two similar accounts really suggest that anyone borrowed from the other? In point of fact, two accounts may well surface in which only one is true. Further, the only clear parallels to the resurrection accounts are actually develop one hundred years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. The first cases of this can be found in the writings of Justin Martyr, who wrote in approximately A.D. 150.[1] Unless Sean is able to provide evidence that the Christians of the New Testament era had been influenced by rival religions, there is little reason to simply dismiss the claims of the early Christians. Finally, while evidence can and has been offered in support of specifically Jesus’ resurrection, we are simply at a loss to find such evidence in favor of pagan dying and rising gods. Sean will have to dispute the evidence I presented in my opening.

Next, my opponent cites Hume’s maxim as evidence against Christianity. We are all probably familiar with the common paraphrase, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” However, I see absolutely no reason to accept even this. None of us in practice demand extraordinary evidence for many statistically improbable events. What exactly is an “extraordinary claim” other than something that usually does not occur? It is highly unlikely for any particular person to win the lottery. As a parallel, one might say that it is highly unlikely for Jesus to have been raised from the dead. However, what if someone rigs the lottery so that he or she will win? What I am pointing out here is the importance of considering intentionality. Of course statistically improbable events will unlikely occur all on their own. However, if someone chooses to have an impact on the reality of said event, then its probability increases dramatically. All that is required for belief in the resurrection is an open disposition toward the possibility of God’s existence. If we don’t rule out God from the beginning, then there is no reason to suggest that the resurrection’s brute implausibility really has any bearing on its being factual or not. I conclude that Sean’s appeal to Bayesian reasoning is fallacious on account of the occasion of intentionality.

Sean next criticizes the Gospel narratives on account of supposedly late dating. He suggests that they were written any time between A.D. 70-110, or even later. However, I would challenge him to produce legitimate reasons for concluding this. Even still, I’ve shown that the traditions that the Gospels drew from are quite early, and the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 dates to within just five years of the life of Jesus. Another point to consider is that most ancient texts concerning history are not early relative to the events they describe. Consider the few early texts we have concerning Alexander the Great. Does the scarcity of early writings mean that there are no salvageable facts of Alexander’s life? Likewise, would a generational gap between the historical Jesus and the Jesus as recorded in the Gospels somehow undermine the historical core of information we can access? Of course, this is all assuming that the Gospels were written much later than they probably were. The martyrdom of Peter and Paul (circa A.D. 63) is evidence that the Gospels were written prior to A.D. 60. One might note that the book of Acts ends abruptly without any hint of Paul’s fate. It would be odd that the author of Acts would stop where he did unless Peter and Paul were still alive. Now, since the general consensus among New Testament scholars is that Luke (or the author of Acts) borrowed from Mark’s Gospel, then both Luke and Mark must be dated well before A.D. 60, or at least long enough before the deaths of Peter and Paul. Hence, it is not surprising that F.F. Bruce concluded, “The evidence indicates that the written sources of our Synoptic Gospels are not later than c. AD 60; some of them have even been traced back to notes taken of our Lord’s teaching while his words were being uttered.”[2] Now, before we complain that Bruce is an outdated source, it is important to note that this is still a highly prominent view. A.T. Robertson, for example, points out the tremendous advantage of dating Luke and Acts prior to A.D. 63, and its gaining support from critical scholarship.[3] A final point to consider is the heavy use of the Gospels among the early church fathers of the first two centuries. Names like Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Papias, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus of Lyons are just a few examples of early fathers who extensively quoted the Gospels. This would be peculiar if the Gospels were dated later than traditionally ascribed, since by the time the early fathers were making use of them, they were already widespread. The length of time between the penning of the Gospels and their authoritative use must be great enough to account for this.

After this, my counterpart moves on to dispute the independent attestation of the Gospels. He point out that there are similarities between the Gospels, which suggests that they borrowed from each other. Of course, I’ve never denied that Luke was influenced by Mark and so on, but that is irrelevant when we come to consider the resurrection narratives. I’ve already pointed out various differences between the resurrection accounts in each of the Gospels, which as Jesus Seminar co-founder Marcus Borg’s (no ally of conservative Christianity) standard strongly suggests, we may conclude that the central historical core of facts surrounding the resurrection of Jesus are authentic. What Sean will have to deal with are the reasons I’ve outlined for accepting the historicity of the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief?

It is interesting the Sean compares the claim of independent attestation for the Gospels with the LDS claim of independent attestation for the Book of Mormon. For one, the “Three Witnesses” of Mormonism do not reflect the vast differences of independent attestation as found in the Gospels’ resurrection narratives. We do not discover the principles of dissimilarity or embarrassment at work in the Book of Mormon like we do in the traditional Gospels. Secondly, the claims of the Book of Mormon have long been undermined by finds in archaeology and historical conflict. We again find the Gospels immune to such criticisms. There are no historical or archaeological reasons to doubt the veracity of the post-mortem appearances of Jesus, for example. Yet, even the highly skeptical New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann writes, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus's death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”[4] Whether Sean will counter with the same hallucination theory that Ludemann subscribes to or not, we will have to wait and see.

As for the issue of authorship, it is not my intention to debate whether or not Mark really wrote the Gospel of Mark. The evidences in favor of the three facts I’ve presented are not affected by the anonymity of the New Testament Gospels. Likewise, criticisms of the infancy narratives and other events recorded in the Gospels are moot. We are only concerned with the resurrection accounts.

Sean eventually gets to the question of the post-mortem appearances of Christ to the disciples. He argues that there are irreconcilable contradictions among the four Gospels. However, while I ultimately disagree with this claim, I feel no need to center the debate around this. The fact is, none of the Gospels conflict with each other when it comes to the historical core of facts, like the empty tomb. Questions like, who discovered it first?, or how many guards were there?, are interesting, but they have no bearing on whether the empty tomb itself is factual. As I pointed out in my opening, the numerous differences among the Gospels actually support the authenticity of the narratives’ core!

Concerning the five hundred witnesses, Sean claims that Paul could get away with a fabrication about witnesses of the resurrection. He also states that none of the supposed witnesses are named or give independent testimony. However, I believe he is mistaken on both accounts. For one thing, Paul’s epistles were widely circulated, as is clear from Colossians 4:15-ff. Secondly, Paul himself stated that he had gone to Jerusalem and made these claims (see Acts 21, Romans 15:19, and Galatians 1:17-ff). These were clearly not isolated claims. The exact number of five hundred is not what is important. Instead, and this leads me to rebut Sean’s second point above, examples abound of specific individuals who claimed to have had an experience of the risen Jesus. Paul lists not only himself, but Peter and James by name, as well. Both of these men detail in their own letters that they had witnessed the resurrected Christ. Not only that, but two of them (Paul and James) had been skeptics prior to their personal encounters with the risen Jesus.

Onto the issue of the disciples’ martyrdom, Sean doubts the veracity of these events as well as their uniqueness. Why, after all, should the martyrdom of the disciples lend itself to the truth of Christianity when people are willing to die for all kinds of crazy things? I’ll start with this criticism first. It is important to notice that Jesus’ disciples were actually in a position to know whether or not what they were claiming were true. If Jesus had not been raised, then the disciples would have known it, and they would have been foolish to lay down their lives for a lie. Yet, other religions do not have this kind of evidence to appeal to. The Islamic martyrs that Sean mentions did not have the kind of “after the fact” evidence that Jesus’ disciples had. Hence, my opponent is searching for a parallel where there is none.

Now, concerning the historicity of the disciples’ martyrdom, you will notice that the bulk of Sean’s objections really have little to do with the factual nature of these events. He states that Peter’s recorded martyrdom does not mention the resurrection of Jesus, for example. He says the same things regarding James and Stephen. Stephen, for instance, was stoned for violations of Mosaic Law. While this of course is true, we have to ask: why exactly was it that Stephen was accused of violating Mosaic Law? Why did Peter and Paul and James all decide to turn from the precepts contained in the Old Covenant? The only answer provided at all is the Christian answer: Jesus had been raised from the dead and his disciples came to believe it. Sean’s other points about the legendary deaths of the disciples are likewise irrelevant, since there is once again a historical core to consider. Sure, there are differences between Josephus’ account and Eusebius’ account of the death of James, but both writers come to the same conclusion that James in fact been martyred. The martyrdom of Peter and Paul is even recorded as early as about A.D. 80, by Clement of Rome.[5]

Regarding other New Testament evidences, Sean states that the resurrection claims found in passages like 1 Peter 1:3 and 3:8 are “oblique and liturgical, rather than historical and testimonial”. I find the word “liturgical” to be an odd choice to have next to “oblique”. Surely, there is nothing about liturgical statements in general, or with this passage in particular, that would make Peter’s claim a-historical. Secondly, there is nothing opaque, or indirect, about what Peter is saying. He uses the same word for resurrection, anastasis, that is used throughout the New Testament and among first century Jews to describe a literal bodily resurrection.

As we’re nearing the end of Sean’s opening statement, he next critiques the conversion of Paul. He says that there are instances of spontaneous conversion. While this of course is true, Paul specifically had a predisposition against conversion to Christianity. He was, after all, one of the major persecutors of the early Christian movement. Secondly, Sean claims that since Paul’s companions did not see the body of Jesus, that the appearance of Jesus to Paul could not have been bodily. However, this is merely a non sequitur. It does not at all follow that if some did not see something that this something was not there in bodily form. They did, on the other hand, hear the voice of Jesus, which necessitates physicality. Finally, my opponent states that because the resurrection appearances differed in some way that this somehow undermines their historicity. Once again, this does not follow in the slightest. As the Son of God, it should not be surprising that Jesus could and would appear differently at times. In the context of Paul’s conversion, Paul had been a persecutor of Jesus, which is why he (Paul) was blinded. We cannot compare his experience with that of the women at the tomb, since the women had already been followers of Jesus. In any case, our debate ought to be concerned with the historical core of data, rather than the details that do not significantly alter the conclusions of our investigation. My approach has been a minimalist one. I need only to defend the historicity of the three widely accepted facts I’ve already defended: the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief. Anything additional to these facts, even complimentary additions, are rendered moot.

Concerning the empty tomb, Sean states that the idea of an empty tomb would have been unlikely, since Roman law precluded the burial of executed criminals. However, the inclusion of Joseph of Arimathea into the account of the burial of Jesus strongly suggests the events authenticity. Raymond Brown reasons, “That the burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation from nothing of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus.”[6] Sean also disputes the claim that the Jews acted as hostile witnesses of the empty tomb. He argues that we cannot trust that this occurred, since we only know about it through Christian writers. But in that case, however, all the Jews had to do was deny that this was ever done. Why, after all, would Matthew include such an obvious and falsifiable fabrication? And why would he make the claim that the Jews were saying that the disciples stole the body even to the day that he wrote his Gospel? As for the possibility that Jesus’ body was moved to a common grave, this view is again highly implausible given its limited scope and explanatory power. If Jesus’ body had merely been moved, then why did the disciples experience any post-mortem appearances? And why didn’t the Roman or Jewish authorities simply point out that Jesus’ body had been moved?

Sean has entitled his final major section, “Modern Pulpit Myths”. He gives several examples of alleged miracles that lack any solid evidence. Of course, I agree with him that these were probably not miracles. However, what is odd is that Sean claims this is a parallel with the independent attestation of the Gospels’ claims. But again, I think this claim is simply mistaken. The stories of the handstand miracles are not independent attestations of one events, but rather they each describe entirely different people in much different settings. The Gospels, on the other hand, describe the resurrection of only one man, Jesus of Nazareth.

I’d like to thank Sean for his probing thoughts and his willingness to take a look at this issue with me. While I disagree with him, I commend him for the time and thoughtfulness he has put into his opening statement. With that said, I believe the case for Jesus’ resurrection has not been diminished on either evidential or experiential grounds. The three minimal facts I’ve defended in my opening I believe have gone without refutation.

Works Cited

[1] Habermas, Gary R., “Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions,” Journal of Religious Studies 25 (1989): pp. 167-77.

[2] Bruce, F.F., The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981), p. 42.

[3] Robertson, A.T., A Harmony of the Gospels, (New York, Harper & Row, 1950), pp. 255-256.

[4] Ludemann, Gerd, What Really Happened to Jesus?, translated by John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.

[5] Clement writes in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, “Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.”

[6] Brown, Raymond E., The Death of the Messiah, 2 vols. (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1994), 2: pp. 1240–1241.

[Alcyonian]

Sean McHugh has asked for an extension on the word limit from 4,000 to 5,000. punkforchrist has accepted this.

Alcyonian (FDD Moderator)

[Sean McHugh]

Second Statement - First Rebuttal



I would like to thank Punkforchrist for his first rebuttal and thank the moderation for its mediating with recent negotiations. I would also like to thank PfC for granting me additional space and thank the PG for their comments.

I believe Jesus’ alleged post-resurrection appearances are crucial to this debate. To try to persuade PfC to reverse his stated decision not to deal with my arguments against the Gospel appearance accounts, I will start and end with the post-resurrection appearances.

Appearances - Part A:

PfC presents three exhibits:

(i) Paul’s List:

Were the ‘appearances’ in Paul’s list in 1 Cor 15:5-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015:5-8;&version=9;), of physical kind, or the ghostly kind in Acts 22:7-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2022:7-9;&version=9;)? In any case, as I will show, Matthew inadvertently challenges Paul’s (?) (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html) list.

(ii) Appearance to Peter in Luke, to all in Luke and to all in John:

These are the Gospel’s appearances, arguments my opponent presents, while declining to engage my counterarguments.

Luke 24:36-53 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2024:36-53&version=9) has the meeting with Peter (Simon) and the ‘Twelve’ in Jerusalem. That’s on the day (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2024:1-36;&version=9;) of the resurrection and Jesus tells them to stay (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2024:49;&version=9;) in Jerusalem for longer than the 40 days (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:3;&version=9;) Jesus is reported to have remained on earth. This is contradicted by Matthew 28:6-10,16-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2028:%206-10,%2016-20;&version=9;), where, on the day of the resurrection, instructions are issued for the Apostles to go to Galilee (they complied (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2028:16-20;&version=9;)), 75 miles away, to discover the risen Jesus. In Matthew (verse 20), Jesus, in a theatrical parting speech, tells them to go into the world.

In Galilee, some of them doubted, but in Luke 24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2024;&version=9;), on the day (v13) of the resurrection, they are joyous and seemingly convinced (24:52-53 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2024:52-53;&version=9;)). Perhaps with a few more appearances, they could have become atheists. John 20 tells us that the only one who doubted was Thomas (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2020:18-25;&version=9;).

Curiously PfC also submits the diversity of appearances in Matthew and Mark, seemingly forgetting that Mark properly ends (http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm) at 16:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:8;&version=9;), before any appearances.

So, Luke denies Matthew’s appearance reports and vice versa. Matthew also denies John’s Jerusalem appearance accounts. This also takes out Paul’s list, which loosely parallels the Jerusalem encounters. John has a Galilee rendezvous in Chapter 21, but the whole of chapter 21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2021;&version=9;) is a later addition (http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1116&C=1231). Mark ends with no appearances, which further implies invention by the other three. These are not something the first Gospel writer (of Mark) would carelessly forget.

(iii) Paul’s and James’ experiences:

With the conversion of Paul, PfC again uses Bible testimony to support its credibility. He rejects the example of common ‘sudden conversions’ because they weren’t Christian persecutors. How does that preclude conversions? And what actual evidence do we have that Paul’s conversion was ‘truly’ all that sudden? Though I presented the evidence of Baptist (http://www.centerforbaptiststudies.org/bulletin/2003/july.htm) (I said ‘Methodist’, sorry) supposed instantaneous conversions, I don’t believe that they’re genuine. Garry Wills is a respected writer on religion and a Pulitzer prize winner. He is also (note PfC) a Catholic. He points out the significance of Paul not mentioning the ‘Road to Damascus (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%209:3-9;&version=9;)’ episode:

http://www.enotalone.com/article/6679.html

We get it only from Acts, presumably from the author of Luke. So PfC essentially offers us a gospeller as a witness for the credibility of the Gospels. If one trusted the gospellers, one wouldn’t be having this debate.

I also argued that Paul himself seemed to be unfamiliar with Jesus the man, his teachings and his deeds. How come, unless the Gospel traditions didn’t exist at the time? I pointed out that Paul is reported as having a ‘vision’. He saw a light, not a physical body. I also asked why Paul was blinded for three days when other ‘witnesses’ mistook the risen Jesus for some ordinary Joe, not a laser show. Below I will show that Paul rejects a bodily resurrection. PfC says that it is a non sequitur to argue, that because Paul only saw light and his companions saw nothing, the appearance to Paul was not bodily. He argues that the sound made it physical. Surely this is semantic wishfulness. A visible/invisible light does not describe a human body, even if it comes with audio. It neither demonstrates a bodily appearance nor a bodily resurrection. It is as ethereal as can be, without being a dream. PfC explains that the reason this Jesus’ manifestation blinded Paul, is because Paul was so bad. Then why on earth was he given a commission, on the spot, within three divine utterances (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%209:4-6;&version=9;), to lead western Christianity? Nothing about it rings true. It reads like a bedtime story.

Jesus’ Scarcity:

Though I never mentioned it, PfC said that the question, “why did Jesus not appear to everyone around the world?” is irrelevant. Is it? Wasn’t a primary objective of Jesus’ death/resurrection for it to be a sign? If he really were resurrected, why did the now indestructible Jesus, who was previously a very bold public figure, suddenly become shy and elusive? Take Elvis (http://www.elvissightingbulletinboard.com/). Despite claimed sightings, many people conclude from his dearth of concerts and public appearances, that he actually is dead. Elvis has been ostensibly dormant for 30 years, Jesus for 2,000.

Belief:

PfC rejects my point that belief in the Resurrection comes about through fear (of dying), indoctrination and social pressure. He challenges me to offer reason to disregard personal experience as a significant factor. I would ask him to imagine a world with no Christian books, no indoctrination, no Christian word of mouth and a world where medicine can keep us alive forever. How many Christians and crucifixes would there be?

PfC says that my argument about Christianity being popular, due to fear of death, is fallacious because it is reversible. He says:

One could easily claim that the reason people choose not to follow Christ is because they do not like the prospect of changing their lives.

But I never said it was the only reason; I submitted it as one of the causes:

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/causes.html#Death

PfC analogously argues the hypothetical fallacy of rejecting the Giants win in the Superbowl, issued from fans who wanted them to win. But they’re like chalk and cheese. The Giant’s win is not seriously a miracle and it is too well evidenced. There isn’t the same claim-evidence gap for wishfulness to fill. A better analogy would be the marketplace of disparate religions that offer life after death.

PfC rejects the carrot of eternal life as a reason to suspect Christian claims. Well how about applying, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”?

Empty Tomb:

For his empty tomb argument, my opponent starts by citing St Paul saying that the body is sown perishable but is raised imperishable. But is that evidence for an empty tomb? There is nothing pertinent except one word, a translational imposter. Convention considers unidentified translations to be KJV, however PfC obtained that from the NIV(?) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015:42&version=31). It has an agenda beyond imparting the notion of imperishability. This dubious translation slips in the word, “body”, which appears neither in the KJV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015:42;&version=9;) nor the Greek.

The motive of the NIV (http://members.aol.com/twarren11/niv.html) translators is obvious, especially given that they declare (http://www.errantyears.com/1998/jun98/000349.html) their intention to assist making the Bible infallible. Christian apologists will enthusiastically assist Paul in having him testifying to an empty tomb and Jesus’ bodily resurrection. Unfortunately, the nature of Paul’s ‘raised’ is exposed two verses later:

1 Corinthians 15:44:

it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body

That’s “spiritual body”. So despite the NIV’s and PfC’s efforts, there exists no Pauline reference to the resurrection of the physical body. It gets worse:

1 Corinthians15:50:

flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;

So Paul effectively denies espousing a bodily resurrection in verse 42. There is no valid way that this, or any Pauline verse, can be used to argue for an empty tomb or for an early bodily-resurrection tradition.

Apart from that dubious verse rendering, my opponent presents three arguments for the empty tomb. They are:

1. Witness independence.

2. Women discovering the empty tomb.

3. Implicit Jewish affirmation.

Please revisit the paragraphs titled “Empty Tomb”, “Claimed Independence” and “Post-Resurrection Incoherence” in my ‘Opening Statement (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5159486#post5159486)’.

(1) Dealing with those points: I showed that the Gospels are anything but independent. There are vast areas of duplication. Curiously, PfC talks about the “Synoptic Gospels” while at the same time claiming Gospel independence. In biblical scholarship the recognition of synopsis is recognition of copying/plagiarism. It is called the ‘Synoptic Problem (http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm)’. Where the differences occur, is where Matthew and Luke don’t have Mark. Here one finds serious/fatal contradictions. PfC appeals to a ‘core’ agreement. Mark provides that ‘core’. Mark doesn’t include appearances of the risen Jesus so Matthew and Luke have to ad-lib. That’s where they become as contradictory and problematic as any contrived witness testimony can be. Those two Gospels effectively deny each other’s post-resurrection appearance accounts. John was written late, and drew loosely on the extant Gospel traditions. It’s still quite alien to the Synoptics.

PfC criticised my mention of Matthew and Luke’s variance in the Nativity as being off topic. It wasn’t. My purpose was to further show, that when Mark is not present, as in the case of the appearances, Matthew and Luke become disastrously discrepant.

(2) I also inadvertently hinted an explanation for it being women who found the ‘empty tomb’. The argument that the women wouldn’t be taken seriously by the Jewish males, furnished Mark with an excuse for the lateness of that (first) tomb account. In harmony with that, Mark terminates at (16:8 (http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm)) by saying that the women didn’t tell anyone, not even the Twelve. Accordingly, there are no resurrection appearances in Mark. The writer only provides/introduces the empty tomb. If the writer was smart enough to anticipate the ‘Women/witness’ argument arising as evidence of veracity, then he would have had further reason to choose women, especially since he was writing in Greek for a Greco-Roman society, where women were held in higher esteem. In any case, for supporting something as extraordinary as a miracle, brandishing the witnesses’ gender is very flimsy.

(3) I dealt with the supposed implicit Jewish affirmation in my Opening Statement. For that, we only have the testimony of Matthew, and two Church Fathers. Matthew’s death/resurrection account is particularly fantastic with a daytime blackout (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2027:45;&version=9;), two earthquakes (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2027:51,28:2;&version=9;), wandering zombies (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2027:52-53;&version=9;) and a flying angel (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2028:2;&version=9;). Adding tomb guards and a cover-up (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mat%2027:62-66,%2028:11-15;&version=9;) would be nothing for such a vendor of unchecked fantasy. The Church Fathers were late (2nd and 3rd century) and were also professional apologists.

I put those matthean fairytale aspects to PfC, but in his Second Statement, he disregarded them. Am I to infer that he regards those fantastic reports from Matthew (and only Matthew) as so obviously true, that there is no need to discuss them?

In his second statement, PfC says that the matter of how many guards there were, is irrelevant. But that is to twist my argument and have it appear petty. I never quibbled over the number of guards; I argued that the fantasy-ridden Matthew is the only report to place guards at all! Those guards in Matthew become the launchpad for the empty-tomb argument including the supposed implicit Jewish anti-Christian confirmation.

Even if there were a missing body, that would not go anywhere close to proving a miracle. Read about the resurrection of ‘uncle Ed’ in PG post #5161909 (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5161909#post5161909).

Though it was not my purpose to argue for the body being stolen or moved, I submitted that crucifixion would normally preclude burial. I also pointed out that even in Matthew the guards were not posted initially. Additionally I said that the alleged tomb was outside the city walls and that it would not have received visitors on the first day, the Sabbath. My counterpart countered by pointing out that Joseph of Arimathea (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2015:43-46;&version=9;) handled the burial and that a fiction writing Christian wouldn’t have used a Jewish Sanhedrist.

It is actually claimed as being Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb (http://www.templetons.com/charles/jesus/chapter23.html), making it supposedly more problematic unless true. It’s relatively easy. The story needed a prepared and secure tomb (therefore someone wealthy) and a character who had influence with the authorities. It had more advantages than disadvantages and as it turns out, it had no disadvantages at all.

Sean also disputes the claim that the Jews acted as hostile witnesses of the empty tomb. He argues that we cannot trust that this occurred, since we only know about it through Christian writers. But in that case, however, all the Jews had to do was deny that this was ever done.

I said the Jewish implicit testimony only came via the excesses of Matthew and from very late agenda driven Christian Church Fathers. Because I based my opening statement, as a response to W. L. Craig’s arguments, I already inadvertently answered PfC’s last bit. As he does more than once, my counterpart is putting challenges to me which I have already addressed. I said that if a Jew were challenged over the empty tomb, he might suggest the body had been stolen. But would that mean he knew anything about it or was conceding anything? It wouldn’t even demonstrate that there was a tomb let alone that a miracle occurred. I also pointed out that by the time the Gospels had been well circulated in their present form, Jerusalem had long been destroyed (http://www.bible.ca/pre-flavius-josephus-70AD-Mt24-fulfilled.htm) and its population devastated. They would unlikely have given a damn about Jesus’ tomb, if they ever did, if it ever was and if they knew of it. If amidst the devastation, they had nothing better to worry about than that, they would have been Christians. Remember, Christianity survived/flourished elsewhere, not in the land that supposedly witnessed all these alleged happenings. I also asked why they would be bothered by one empty tomb, given the amazing report (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5161098#post5161098) from Matthew (27:51-52 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027:51-52;&version=9;)), of undead saints wandering around Jerusalem after the resurrection. If one is to trust the Gospels, the place must have had many empty tombs.

The Apostolic Transformation & Phenomenon of the Church:

I pointed out that the Martyrdom are “traditional” rather than historical, and that there were only two reports of it in Acts, one of six words and one of a non-disciple. Contrary to PfC’s plea for Acts being written before 60AD, modern scholarship assigns Luke, the book that precedes Acts, to the late 80’s. The onus is on PfC to prove otherwise. He is the one deriving a miracle.

The members of James’ church, including the Apostles and Jesus’ family, didn’t seem to transform all that much. Unlike the new kid on the block, Paul, they stuck devoutly to their Judaism, and were worried that Paul was corrupting Jews. Where is the evidence that they even believed in Jesus’ bodily resurrection? PfC says that they died for their claims, presumably Jesus’ bodily resurrection, but there is a dearth of evidence for that.

My opponent argues that without the Resurrection, there is a large hole left in history. Well, I have argued for years that there was a big hole. A historical hole was created with the destruction of Jerusalem.

So how did Christianity start? It started mostly with Paul. There it was in a primitive form, with next to nothing of Jesus the man, his teachings and works. However after the destruction of Jerusalem, with the killing, dispersing and enslaving of over a million of the populace, a historical vacuum was created which the Gospels, starting with Mark, began to occupy. Mark offered the first ‘biography’ of Jesus, one that was relatively cautious and didn’t even include the post-mortem appearances (see above).

Osiris:

Though I was only talking about the Resurrection, my counterpart says that nothing in the accounts of Osiris suggests borrowing from Christianity. Come on! There are plenty of parallels. These parallels include, Osiris as God, his having had a human birth, his living on earth, resurrection, ascension, his spiritual nature and his being beloved by a higher celestial being. Even though I presented that Osiris’ body had been reported to have been dismembered (into 14 parts) and was restored by Isis, PfC says that that didn’t constitute resurrection. I submit it’s serious resurrection in any god marketplace.

http://www.egyptorigins.org/osirisandjesus.htm

Briefly, the Egyptians believed that Osiris was King and Creator of the gods, and of heaven and earth, that he came down to earth to live as a man, that he was killed by his enemies, (other gods headed by Seth,) that his body was mutilated and scattered, and that he rose to once again assume command in the heavens. The ancient Egyptians appealed to him for resurrection and eternal life in the heavens.

My counterpart argues that even if there are similarities, it doesn’t indicate borrowing. As he is claiming the miracle, the onus is on him. He must prove there was no borrowing.

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/016pagan.html

Apologists, of course, will look past the similarities to find and feature the differences. It works like this. If there are differences with the paganism, then it can’t be a parallel. But in order to have pagan parallels and not just more apocryphal gospels, there must be sufficient differences. So there can never be any pagan parallels with Jesus or with Christianity.

PfC says:

we are simply at a loss to find such evidence in favor of pagan dying and rising gods.

As has been shown, that is unequivocally wrong.

Hume:

In this section, PfC doesn’t discuss any actual Hume. Rather, my opponent rejects that extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary evidence:

None of us in practice demand extraordinary evidence for many statistically improbable events.

But most of the time we do demand more rigorous evidence for remarkable claims, otherwise we would be susceptible to all sorts of exotic proposals. When we disregard that claim/evidence proportionality, is when we start believing all sorts of fatuous things - like an angel in the hallway (see PG post #5185338 (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5185338#post185338)).

PfC detours the problem of the mathematics of miracles, versus testimony, by proposing a hypothetical lottery that is rigged, whereby an individual can have his chances greatly improved. He parallels this with Jesus’ resurrection being divinely rigged. Well OK, Isis ‘rigged’ Osiris’ resurrection! The problem is that the intrinsic improbability of miracles is something that is based on human experience and on that basis, the probability of a suspension of nature is noted to be very low, regardless of God’s existence or non-existence. On the other hand, embellishment, lying and living in pixie land, are very common – regardless of Satan’s existence or non-existence.

Gospel Testimony:

PfC does not accept the late dating of the Gospels (A.D.70-110 or later). He would have them all written before 60 AD. I’m genuinely surprised. I only ever associated such expedient dating with fundamentalism. He challenges me to produce legitimate reasons for concluding lateness (post A.D.70). My counterpart is the one deriving/insisting miracles from these Gospels. The onus is really on him to prove, that earliness. However, I will oblige his challenge.

Firstly, I will point out that the later dates are the consensus of biblical scholarship:

http://www.totustuus.com/dating.htm

Jim Seghers, described as a laicized Catholic priest in good standing, reports that the majority of scripture scholars assign later dates to all of the NT, particularly the Gospels, which are assigned A.D.70 for Mark, the 80’s for Matthew, the late 80’s for Luke and the 90’s for John.

The reference to the destruction of the temple, that appears in Matthew and is hinted in Mark, suggests that these two earliest Gospels were unlikely to have been written before A.D. 70. Also, the Gospels’ Jesus is far more developed than Paul’s. Paul seemed ignorant of the Gospel traditions (even verbal). If they were contemporary with Paul, it becomes harder to explain their anonymity and it becomes harder to explain their being written in Greek and their being written in foreign lands. It also becomes harder to explain the plagiarism and it becomes harder to reconcile the devout Judaism retained by James’ church. It makes it harder to explain the remarkable contradictions – for example, Matthew’s versus Luke’s post-resurrection appearance accounts. It becomes harder to explain the first vague/problematic mention of just two Gospels by Papias, from as late as ~A.D.130. It also makes it harder to explain why it took the Roman Church so long to promulgate (http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm) them (~150 years after Jesus!).

PfC argues, that because Acts doesn’t include Peter and Paul’s martyrdom (in Rome), it and the Gospels must have predated those events alleged for (circa) A.D.63. That omission doesn’t bother me because I myself have pointed to the poverty of martyrdom reports in Acts. I did that in order to challenge the factuality of all those martyrdoms. Has PfC ever wondered why Paul never mentions Peter being in Rome, given that Peter was supposedly governing the Church there? In ~58, Paul wrote to the Church in Rome, saluting 27 persons. Even there, Peter wasn’t mentioned.

http://www.mtc.org/bones_p.html

My counterpart submits Ignatius, Clement, Papias, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus as a few examples of early fathers who extensively quoted the Gospels. He says one must account for time for them to spread. He submits that this list would support/establish the earliness that he desires. I submit that this is faith. The earliest apparent citation of a Gospel is by Ignatius (c 105-115):

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Authorship-and-Date-of-the-Canonical-Gospels

The very earliest Gospel references appear in the work of Ignatius, dated c.105-115. In his epistles, he quotes Matthew, Luke and Acts. However, all of these quotations are short and inexact, and lack any internal identification.

The next one is by Papias (110-140) which mentions Matthew and Mark. But that has several problems. The above page says that they are vague and may not refer to the documents we know today. For instance, it says that Matthew was written in Aramaic, but we know it was written in Greek. Papias says that Mark wrote his Gospel not in order, but Matthew and Luke follow Mark’s order. Also, we only know of the Papias quote from Eusebius, a 4th century Church father who advocated deception and is known to have forged (http://www.jdstone.org/cr/files/fathereusebiustheforger.html).

Modern Pulpit Myths:

I my opening statement, I presented four accounts of a handstand miracle, that occurred in different places with different subjects, sometimes male, sometimes female. He discounts my drawing a parallel with the Gospels on the basis that the handstand miracle accounts have different people in different settings. OK, why don’t we just use the two accounts that have an inverted male? Then it’s only the location and setting that necessarily changes. But that’s the problem we have with the Gospels. As I said, where Matthew has the post-mortem rendezvous in Galilee, Luke has the meeting Jesus in Jerusalem and staying there from the first day. With analogies there are always quibble opportunities. I ask PfC to deal with the parallel geography problems. I ask the reader to note how/if he does that.

The 500 Witnesses:

Among other arguments, I argued that we have the testimony of one. These ‘witnesses’ are given no identity (http://blondguys.net/1998/jun98/000139.html).

PfC maintains that the 500-witness claim in 1 Corinthians 15:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015:6;&version=9;) was too widespread for Paul to get away with fabrication. He even rejects my charge that none of the 500 witnesses, claimed by Paul, are named!! He maintains that Paul makes ‘500’ claims in Acts 21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2021;&version=9;) (verse references?), Romans 15:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2015:9;&version=9;), and Galatians 1:17-ff (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal%201:17-;&version=9;). Ok, let’s look in Acts chapter 21. These must be stealth verses. Did anyone else look? Acts 21 has Paul going to see the members of the Jerusalem church. If the 500 story were true, why would he be telling them; they should be telling him. Where exactly are they, PfC?

Romans 15:19 becomes a similarly mysterious selection for finding the 500 claim. Acts has Paul talking about the power of signs and wonders, as divine assistance he hopes to receive. It has nothing to do with the 500 claim. The same goes for Galatians 1:17-ff. There is nothing even remotely about the 500 claim in there. It’s just about where he went, whom he saw and how he was received. In any case, as I mention elsewhere and in my last post, there is a good chance that Paul’s ‘list’ resides in a section of interpolation (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html). That is not a grand proposal. Several of the ‘Pauline’ epistles are regarded as being complete forgeries.

http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt151k.htm

PfC argues that Paul and James were unbelievers. Even if so, extreme religious conversions are hardly something unheard of:

http://www.religiousfreedom.com/conference/Germany/rambo.htm

The Psychology of Religious Conversion

Converts are passionate. They are, in many cases, arrogant. They have the truth. They know exactly what should be done, or should not be done.

In his second post, PfC also seems to have passed over my argument that we don’t know that James was a believer in Jesus’ bodily resurrection. The constituents of James’ church would better be called, ‘Messianic Jews (http://www.bethemunah.org/whatis.htm)’. They retained devout Judaism and only tolerated Paul. What is PfC’s independent evidence that James was especially sceptical - the NT again?

PfC says James and Peter detail in their letters, claims that they had witnessed the resurrected Christ. My counterpart again provides no verse references (to facilitate refutation) for what is yet another revelation.

Independence & the Book of Mormon:

PfC criticised my presenting the Book of Mormon, saying:

We do not discover the principles of dissimilarity or embarrassment at work in the Book of Mormon like we do in the traditional Gospels.

Yes we do. Take for example the embarrassing contradictions that I presented. PfC says we will have to wait and see if I subscribe to hallucinations to account for appearances. Huh? I accounted for the appearances accounts by charging the NT writers/interpolators with fanciful, clumsy and contradictory invention. PfC needs to address what I did write. However, even if hysteria were still required, it would be more probable than a resurrection that included undead saints wandering around. The reason I submitted the Book of Mormon, was to show that it too is claimed to have independent witnesses – the point missed by PfC.

Other Testimony:

PfC objects to my referring to 1 Peter 1:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20peter%201:3;&version=9;) and 3:8 (actually 3:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20peter%203:18;&version=9;)), in terms of resurrection testimony, as being liturgical and oblique. It and the host text are written in fancy metalanguage which conveys neither the delivery nor the testimony of a simple Galilean fisherman relating personal experiences of witnessing a miracle. Such testimony simply isn’t in there. I suggest we let the readers read those verses and surrounding rhetoric (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20peter%201,3;&version=9;) and determine its evidential content/value for themselves.

This rhetorical sophistication can’t have developed. Acts 1:15-2:36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:15-2:36;&version=9;) imposes it straight after Jesus’ departure.

Martyrdom:

Echoing what I anticipated in my Opening statement, PfC asks why the Apostles would die for a lie. He neglects my answer to this anticipated challenge. Please see, “The Martyrdoms” in my Opening Statement (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5159486#post5159486).

He says that they were in a position to know. I have already argued that all the Apostles under James probably did not espouse a bodily resurrection. For it to be miracle-supporting evidence, PfC needs to prove they knew what he thinks he knows. I also challenged that they did “lay down their lives” as such. PfC asks why was Stephen accused of violating Mosaic Law. He asks the same sort of question for Peter and Paul. He then says, that there can only be one answer, that Jesus was raised form the dead! . . . And PfC charges me with a non sequitur. I submit that their demises simply didn’t happen the way the dubious vendors of Christianity said they did. There is only one outside source (i.e. without vested interest) who reports on one murder. There is no indication that James volunteered his life. Even the book of Acts is curiously remiss in providing corroboration of these martyrdoms. The destruction of Jerusalem probably killed off many members of James’ Church. Paul nowhere mentions Peter being in Rome, even in a document that screams for more than just mention - had he been there.

Let PfC present non-religious evidence that includes the reasons for their deaths. Aside from that for James, the evidence is from dedicated Christianity merchants and even there it is sparse and mostly late. James probably died because of his political influence rather than over any thoughts on post-mortem salvation. And as far as a system of Christian persecution goes, recall that a high priest was deposed over James’ death. As I pointed out, a footnote in Foxes’ Book of Martyrs warns that the martyrdoms are traditional.

Appearances - Part B:

In his second post, PfC claims:

Sean eventually gets to the question of the post-mortem appearances of Christ to the disciples. He argues that there are irreconcilable contradictions among the four Gospels. However, while I ultimately disagree with this claim, I feel no need to center the debate around this. The fact is, none of the Gospels conflict with each other when it comes to the historical core of facts, like the empty tomb.

Eventually? And what is PfC saying, that we won’t trouble ourselves with the appearances and just go with the empty tomb? But near the end he says:

I’ve already defended: the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief.

Pardon? How can PfC claim to have defended the post-mortem appearances while openly declining to address my arguments against it? Does he honestly think, for example, that the matter of whether the Apostles stayed the whole time in Jerusalem (as instructed), to meet the risen Jesus (Luke), or went as instructed to Galilee (75 miles away) to first witness Jesus’ resurrection (Matthew), is a minor detail? I showed that the two scenarios are exclusive. Each gospeller denies the other’s appearance reports.

It is expected that both opposing participants will ‘defend’ their positions. Whether the defenses succeed, is another matter. With the Gospel appearances, my good opponent has presented his evidence for them but expressed his intent to not address my arguments against them. I strongly request that he reconsiders and revisits my Opening Statement (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5159486#post5159486) and responds to, “Post-Resurrection Incoherence”, especially #3. If more time and/or word space is required, fine.


Thank You,


Sean McHugh

[punkforchrist]

Thank you, Sean, for your rebuttal. I think this is turning into an interesting exchange.

The Apperances

Sean begins by pointing out the importance of the appearance accounts in Gospels. Of course, I agree that the Gospel narratives (as well as Paul’s account) provide very significant information regarding the appearances of Jesus to the disciples. However, my opponent’s claim is that if these accounts conflict at all, then there must be something wrong with the historical core of evidence in favor of the appearances in general. He wants to know why I’m avoiding a direct response to some of his opening statement.

At this point, I feel it is necessary to state again that the debate is not centered around Biblical Inerrancy. Sean insists that the Gospels must agree in their entirety in order for the accounts to be taken as historical. First of all, notice that the differences indicate that these accounts were derived independently of each other. If Matthew, Luke, and John had all been copying Mark, then the appearance accounts ought to be identical. Hence, the differences indicate independence, which is a strong factor in favor of authenticity. Secondly, it is not true that contradictions (assuming these are actually contradictions) erase the general reliability of the Gospel narratives. Imagine a car accident in which there are four independent witnesses. Witness A explains that the person in the blue car got out of his car first. Witness B claims that the person in the red car got out of the car first. Witness C says that there were three people who got out of the cars. Finally, Witness D claims that nobody got out until the police arrived. The drivers exchanged insurance, and then went on their way. What can we conclude about this? Well, for starters we can see that all four witnesses are under the impression that there was, in fact, a historical car accident. None of them disagree about that. Next, they all agree that everyone got out of their cars eventually. The order of one witness may be wrong, but they are nevertheless correct that no one simply stayed inside. Lastly, they all agree that the accident was cleared up after the insurance information was exchanged.

Notice in the above example that there is a historical core of information that is not effected by some disagreements between the witnesses. Likewise, we can easily point out that each of the Gospel writers agree that 1) The empty tomb was discovered empty by women; 2) Jesus appeared to his disciples under different circumstances; 3) The disciples were changed in such a way that they were willing to lay down their lives for their belief, in spite of every disposition to the contrary. None of these facts are at all disputed by any of the Gospel writers, or indeed any of the New Testament.

Now, Sean also questions whether Paul envisaged a kind of ghostly, or spiritual-only resurrection, as opposed to the view that Jesus had been bodily raised from the dead. Now, I have already made a case that Paul held to a bodily resurrection. He writes in 1 Corinthians 15:42, “The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable”. Hence, what dies is also what rises. Further, he states in Romans 8:11 that, “if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.” Paul clearly views the resurrection as physical, and not spiritual only. Finally, Paul concludes in Philippians 3:21, that the Lord Jesus “will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.”

Regarding Paul’s and James’ conversions, Sean compares them to what is called “sudden conversion syndrome” (SCS). This term is a description of when one spontaneously changes his or her beliefs to an alternative. While this is all interesting, my opponent does not provide us with some of the most important information regarding SCS--namely, that these conversions most often take place when there is consistent evidence in favor of the alternative. Why is it that Paul and James, two opponents of early Christianity, came to believe in Jesus? It cannot be due to any kind of social pressure, since Christianity was in the vast minority and was only in the beginning phases. Sean does not provide any explanation for their conversions, other than tacking on this technical term. The questions is not: did Paul and James have sudden conversions. Rather, the real question is: why did they have these sudden conversions? They themselves claimed that it was because they had experienced the resurrected Christ.

Next, Sean claims that in the Book of Acts, Paul experiences only a vision of Jesus, and not a bodily resurrection. It should be clear, however, that not all resurrection appearances need to be of a certain kind in order for the resurrection itself to qualify as physical in nature. Indeed, if Sean wishes to use the Book of Acts as a resource concerning early Christian beliefs, then he should not overlook Acts 2:29-31, where Peter proclaims to the men of Israel, “Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.” These are not words that express a resurrection of anything other than a physical nature. What is the point here? Peter compares David, who is still in his tomb, to Jesus, whose body did not see decay and is no longer in his tomb. Likewise, I have already argued that Paul saw the resurrection of Jesus as bodily, and not spiritual only.

Sean asks why Paul was given a commission to preach the Gospel if he had been so bad. The answer goes along with the theme of God choosing the lowly to bring people to him. Moses, for example, had a speech impediment; Isaiah considered himself too sinful to be a prophet; Mary calls herself God’s lowly servant; and so forth. Would it not be extraordinary for a man who had once persecuted Christians, to now be one of them? It is this kind of event that surprises so many in Acts (see Acts 9:21-22). The point that the author of Acts is attempting to bring out is that God is capable of converting even those of us who are the most hard-hearted.

Finally, my opponent asks whether it is truly irrelevant to bring up the issue of the scarcity of resurrection appearances. Why didn’t Jesus appear simultaneously to everyone around the world. I do not deny that this is an important question, but that is not what we are debating. I want to know whether Jesus’ resurrection is factual. Even if there are some tough follow-up questions, we still must be able to account for the available evidence. Upon examination, nothing in my opponent’s rebuttal undermines the historicity of the three facts I have defended.

Wishing Thinking?

Sean reiterates his point about Freudian wishful thinking and belief in the resurrection. He says that this is only one cause for belief in Christianity. People do not like the thought of dying and remaining dead. Of course, I know that, and I admit to being one of those people. However, we ought to take this to be evidence that this belief is false. Otherwise, should we not abandon all such beliefs that we happen to like? Let us not make the mistake of committing the genetic fallacy.

The Empty Tomb

Sean cites 1 Corinthians 15, and says that the word “body” does not appear in verse 42. Of course, he is technically correct. However, he overlooks that the word is also implied in the text, since otherwise the verse would be unintelligible. If we leave out the implied nouns, we are left with, “In corruption is sown; in incorruption is raised”. What is sown and what is raised? The NIV, along with most translations, place the word, “body” there, since Paul already implies it by mentioning “body” (or soma, in Greek) in 1 Corinthians 15:35, where he repeats the question: “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body [soma] will they come?”

Next, my counterpart claims that Paul actually denies a bodily resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:44, “is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.” He says that the notion of a “spiritual body” precludes the belief in a physical body. However, is this true? Why assume that “spiritual” equals “non-physical”? In fact, as I have already pointed out, Paul attaches the word soma to this term, which unequivocally refers to a physical body. Sean also says that verse 50 is even more explicit in denying a physical resurrection, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”. However, he leaves out the very next phrase, “nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” Paul is here distinguishing between our corrupted earthly bodies with our glorified bodies. He is not claiming that physical beings will not enter heaven. In fact, the phrase, “flesh and blood”, is simply a term denoting corruption; it makes no reference to physicality itself whatsoever.

Sean next addresses the three points I made regarding the Gospel narratives and their authenticity with respect to the empty tomb. The points were: 1) the independent witnesses; 2) the women discovering the empty tomb; and 3) the implicit affirmation of the Jewish authorities. He says that the differences between Matthew and Luke are due to the fact that they do not have any information from Mark regarding the appearances. However, we are not talking about the resurrection appearances here. What is currently at issue is the empty tomb, which even Mark includes. Hence, the difference between the Gospels’ empty tomb accounts indicate independence.

Further, where Matthew and Luke do have the attestation of Mark, there are still differences. Take Mark 8:27-30, for example, where Peter makes his confession that Jesus is the Messiah. If we compare this passage with Matthew 16:13-20 and Luke 9:18-21, we find differences here as well. So I think that Sean’s argument is fallacious.

What about the women who first discovered the empty tomb? Sean makes note that Mark does not include any resurrection appearances, which is true. However, like I pointed out above, we are dealing not with the issue of appearances, but with the empty tomb itself. Sean says that because Mark does not have the women telling anybody about the empty tomb that this is evidence against this being an instance of the principle of embarrassment. However, this misses the point that Mark does present the women as being the first witnesses of the empty tomb. The fact that they do not tell anybody, at least not right away, does not take away from the fact that they actually witnessed the empty tomb. My opponent also says that the Gospel writers, especially Mark, would have had no problem including women as the first discoverers of the empty tomb, since they were addressing a more progressive Greek audience. However, this does not hold water, either. First, it is traditionally recognized that only Luke was addressing a Gentile audience (Luke himself being the only Gentile author of the New Testament). Matthew, Mark, and John would have been trying to convert non-Christian Jews primarily. Secondly, even in the Greek world, women were not as highly regarded as men. They were not allowed to hold office, and they were controlled by their fathers until they were given in marriage, and thereafter controlled by their husbands. The testimony of women, then, would have been an embarrassment to the Gospel writers. After all, if the Gospel writers were simply fabricating, then why not have the closest followers of Jesus (the eleven remaining male disciples) being the primary discoverers of the empty tomb? The only answer I can think of is that the Gospel writers included this fact because it was true, albeit embarrassing.

Finally, Sean addresses the issue of the implicit Jewish attestation of the empty tomb. He argues that only Matthew and a few early fathers mention this, and that in Matthew’s account, there are fantastic events surrounding this claim. I will address the second point first. If one examines the context of Matthew 28:13, we find there is nothing fantastic about it. Verses 11-15 read, “While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.” This is about as plain a description of these events as there could be. In fact, the “fantastic” elements of Matthew’s gospel are not even within the context of the empty tomb. They are either concerned with the events immediately following the crucifixion, or else apocalyptic constructions that identity the nature of the general resurrection. Further, it is not at all clear that even these events are fantastic, in the sense that Sean is employing. Of course, if one begins with the presupposition of Naturalism, then these events are literally impossible, but that is a presupposition which is undermined if in fact Jesus had been raised from the dead. Since that is what we are debating, then Sean is question-begging by assuming its negation from the outset.

Second, the fact that only Matthew and a few early fathers mention the implicit Jewish attestation is not evidence that this was a fabrication. In fact, if it were, then the Jewish authorities ought to have had no problem denying it. Yet, Matthew tells us that, “this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.” The Jews were still claiming that the disciples stole Jesus’ body even when Matthew was penning his gospel! What incentive could possibly illicit a fabrication on the part of Matthew? It would be extremely improbable for him to include such an obvious fabrication, if in fact it were a fabrication.

Sean says that crucifixion usually precluded burial in the ancient world. However, Matthew gives an explanation for this. Joseph of Arimathea is said to have provided Jesus with a tomb. This is significant, since as a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin which condemned Jesus, Joseph is highly unlikely to be an early Christian invention. Hence, John A.T. Robinson concludes that Jesus’ honorable burial is “one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus.” [1] Whether the narrative needed this explanation is moot, since Matthew could have easily chosen someone not of the Jewish Sanhedrin.

Sean’s explanation is that by the time the Gospels had been written, some of the Jews may have well responded by saying that Jesus’ body was stolen. However, the point is not simply that Jews remote from the events of the historical Jesus would have claimed this, but rather that this had originated with the Jewish authorities and was still being claimed by the Jews while the Gospel of Matthew was being written. If there had been other available explanations, then we should expect some rival hypotheses during the first century to replace this view, but none are forthcoming.

The Origin of the Disciples’ Belief

My opponent says that the Book of Acts does not mention many martyrdoms, and that the ones they do are not significant. He points out that Stephen was not a disciple. This is technically incorrect, since while Stephen was not one of the Twelve, he was a witness to Jesus’ resurrection. There are also other events described in Acts that we ought to take into consideration. The disciples are stoned and imprisoned, which is enough to make one stop and wonder why it is they were willing to undergo such persecution.

Regarding James’ church, Sean says that there is no evidence that James even believed in a bodily resurrection. He says that James stuck closely to Judaism. This is true, but it is irrelevant. The debate between Jewish and Gentile Christians did not center around the question of bodily resurrection (incidentally, those Gentiles who held to a kind of spiritual-only resurrection prior to their conversions did so in stark contrast to the Jewish concept of resurrection). Instead, the Jewish Christians wanted to hold fast to the precepts of the Old Covenant, and wished to have Gentile Christians be circumcised. This has nothing to do with resurrection, which we have already seen via the use of anastasis in the New Testament, and its very meaning to Palestinian Jews, unambiguously refers to a physical resurrection.

Sean also says that Paul deals little with the events of Jesus’ life. Well, this is also true, but it is not pertinent to our debate. Paul plainly believed that God raised Jesus from the dead. Besides, the absence of information about Jesus’ life and teachings should not be surprising, given that Paul wrote so closely to the events of the historical Jesus, when so many things were still widely known about him.

Did early Christians copy?

Sean insists that the similarities between Jesus and Osiris are significant enough to suggest that Christians borrowed from pagan myths. Let us think about this some more. We might compare the mythical King Arthur with the historical King Henry V. Yes, there similarities between Jesus and Osiris. They are both deities that are born into humanity and beloved by a celestial power. Therefore, Sean claims, Christianity borrowed from pagans. Using the same reasoning, however, we could just as easily say that Henry V is a copy of Arthur. After all, both were brilliant war commanders of England, who had various conflicts with their subjects. Notice that in both illustrations, the similarities are too vague to draw any conclusions about borrowing and so forth. Further, there is a gap of evidence missing in favor of Osiris and Arthur that Jesus and Henry V do not share. I have given historical arguments in favor of Jesus. We should therefore discuss whether these actually qualify as historical evidences. Sean says that I have to prove there was no borrowing. Of course, he is asking me to prove a universal negative, which is unreasonable. Sean is making the positive assertion that borrowing was taking place, and so the onus is actually on him to demonstrate it. I do not have to prove there was not any borrowing, just as he does not have to prove that there was no alien conspiracy behind the Kennedy assassination.

Hume’s Maxim

As we are beginning to finish this section of the debate, Sean next turns back to Hume’s maxim. He rejects my example of a rigged lottery as an example of intentionality, which covers the problem of low probability. He says:

Well OK, Isis ‘rigged’ Osiris’ resurrection!

He would have a point if historical evidence for Osiris’ resurrection were as plentiful as we have of Jesus, or if any were offered at all, but this misses the point. We would have good reason to believe in Osiris if we could offer rational bases for it, but since we don’t (as we both agree), then it is reasonable to reject it. On the other hand, I have offered evidence in favor of Jesus’ resurrection, which is what the entire debate ought to be focused on. Derailments onto Osiris only distract us from what is really at issue. He says that embellishment is common. Yes, it is, but if the Gospel writers were embellishing, why did they choose so many embarrassing elements?

Other Issues

My opponent dates that Gospels between A.D. 70-110, or possibly later. Contrary to his claim, however, my rejection of this is not based on a conservative bias. John A. T. Robinson is an example of a non-fundamentalist who defends the early dating of the Gospels. In any case, the real issue is not the dating of the Gospels, but the content of the Gospels. We should be asking: do the Gospels in general offer us a reliable guide to the historical Jesus? Even if we grant the late dating of the Gospels, that is no problem whatsoever, since most biographies in the ancient world were written hundreds of years after the detailed events. This does not mean that there is no salvageable information we can garner from these texts. On the contrary, they are the primary guides to our information.

Sean questions my claim that Paul names some of the witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15. My point was not that Paul mentions the names of any of the 500, but that he names a number of the disciples. If we look at the text, we find that he lists Peter, James, and himself specifically. My opponent says that I have offered no passages in support of Peter and James having had experienced the resurrected Christ. However, if we look at the use of anastasis among the Jews, and the fact that Peter uses it in 1 Peter 1:3 and 3:8, we find that the disciples definitely had a literal belief in the resurrection. After all, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:14, “if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” Sean objects that 1 Peter could not have been the product of Peter’s authentic personal experience of the resurrected Jesus. But why not? The fact that Peter expresses this is simply evidence of the power of these appearances. It is rather ad hoc to explain away these passages on the basis of a pre-commitment to a naturalistic explanation.

Sean says that I neglected to address his section on the Martyrdom of the Apostles. Why would they die for a lie? My opponent says I never answered his anticipated response, but I would simply recommend to everyone to go back over my last rebuttal. You will see that I dealt with the issues of the historicity of the martyrdoms, as well as the fact that they died specifically as a result of their acceptance of Jesus’ resurrection. They would not have violated Mosaic Law had they not believed that Jesus had been raised. He says this response is a non sequitur, but I will simply let everyone decide for themselves. What we ought to be considering is whether their belief in the resurrection ultimately led to their executions. Sean says he does not think it happened that way, but there are no alternative hypotheses in antiquity. Non-Christian writers had no problem with the fact that believers were martyred for their faith, so why should we be introducing novel theories?

Regarding the Book of Mormon, Sean insists that this is a parallel. The contradictions are embarrassing, he says. This, however, misconstrues what is meant by the “principle of embarrassment”. When we use that term, it means that the author includes something that he knows may hurt his case. This is a mark of authenticity. The Book of Mormon’s contradictions are completely unlike this.

My opponent says that I have not addressed his arguments regarding the post-mortem appearances as fanciful inventions of the early Christians. I actually have, though. Sean claims that these apparent contradictions somehow undermine the historicity of these appearances. My claim in response is that there is a historical core in spite of what may be contradictions. Whether the Gospel writers contradicted each other does not at all undermine the general historicity of the post-mortem appearances. This is, after all, why the vast majority of New Testament scholars, believer and non-believer alike, accept the post-mortem appearances as historically certain.

Works Cited

[1] John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), p. 131.

[Alcyonian]

Punkforchrist asked for a word count extension and Sean McHugh granted it. Punkforchrist also went over his time frame and Sean McHugh granted that also.

Alcyonian (FDD/FDP Moderator)

[Alcyonian]

The parameters have been updated, according to word count change in the next rounds.

Alcyonian (FDD/FDP Moderator)

[Sean McHugh]

Third Statement – Second Rebuttal


I thank PfC and Alcyonian for granting/making the parameter changes. I have retained PfC’s headings (non-italicised).