J
JurisPrudens
Guest
Then, did you personally observe a black hole? Or maybe you personally collided neutrons at LAC?
- Status
C
Cheiron
Guest
No, I didn’t. But those are things are not supernatural.Then, did you personally observe a black hole? Or maybe you personally collided neutrons at LAC?
J
JurisPrudens
Guest
In 1 Corinthians 15 St. Paul uses a peculiar language, which implies that he is quoting from a some sort of creed which was widespread among the Christian community. Those are not his words, those are the words repeated by Christians over and over, to memorize the post-resurrection events.
Those “messiahs” did not claim to rise from the dead. Neither did they raise anyone from the dead. They did not call to love one’s enemies and did not undergo crucifixion. When they were killed, their flock dispersed. Gamaliel testifies to this in Acts 5. Jesus was a **very **different kind of Messiah.
There was a census in 8 B.C. and another one in around 6-7 A.D. There is no necessity for Jesus have been born exactly at 1 A.D.
Already in the beginning of the Gospel of Mark (16:13) we find the possessed man to shout that Jesus is “the Holy One of God”, whom Jesus shuts up.
“Less apparent”, no doubt, but very heavily implied. 
… Uh, I don’t know how to react to such a statement …
C
Cheiron
Guest
The fact remains that those people, if they existed, did not leave evidence.
I’ll accept that and I think it undermines Randy Carson’s claim that belief in the resurrection was new. I think Jewish apolcalyptic beliefs were widespread in Israel back then.
I’ll have to check that. My apologies if this answer isn’t satisfactory.
There is a very thin line between Jesus being God, the Son of God and/or being anointed by God. “The Hole One of God” doesn’t imply divine nature. That is a distinctly Greco-Roman idea.Already in the beginning of the Gospel of Mark (16:13) we find the possessed man to shout that Jesus is “the Holy One of God”, whom Jesus shuts up.
With approval would be nice.
I know that a lot of people here hate the idea of a subjective morality. If morality depended on someone’s personal opinion, then that means morality is subjective. But there is another, more practical, reason why I’m suspicious of such claims. In 14 years of Christian education I’ve never heard the voice of God. In my experience, God has never said what is moral and what isn’t. Only humans have done so, often claiming to act in God’s name. Unless they can prove they have the power to communicate with God, I won’t believe their claims.But that topic is perhaps better suited to the philosophy subforum.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Again, this is question begging. The universe, including its myriad of lifeforms – and including all matter, energy, space and time that we know of – coming into existence where there was none “before” also appears impossible, as far as we know – but it happened.
Given the implications of Big Bang cosmology, it seems more than just a tad unwarranted to pontificate about what is or is not possible in any sense of the word. Bodily resurrection may be inconsistent with what we experience day to day perhaps, but not impossible – and nobody, especially not those eyewitnesses, have claimed it is a commonplace event.
I know that I exist when I had no idea of what an I – or anything else for that matter – even entailed as a possibility before I existed. It seems a bit premature to declare things “impossible” when we really have no idea what really is possible or not, ultimately.
C
Cheiron
Guest
It’s not begging the question, because I don’t assume what I have to prove.
That’s why I said: as far as we know.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Sure you do. You assume miracles are impossible when you haven’t established that.
You say that the Resurrection never happened because miracles are impossible, but then you admit that “impossible” is qualified by “as far as we know.”
To wit:
Ergo, miracles are not impossible, merely that “as far as we know” they don’t happen.
So your argument against the Resurrection is that as far as we know it never happened because as far as we know events like Resurrections don’t happen. That is begging the question.
You still need to prove that miracles are actually impossible to make your case, not merely that as far as we know miracles don’t happen – that is not sufficient to establish impossibility.
G
goout
Guest
I am impressed with the research the OP has done, based on centuries of research.
However, I do not believe the evidentiary tactic to be convincing at all for non-believers. In the age of rationalism and scientism, when the existence and reliability of events must be reduced to journalistic and scientific proof, the strict evidence for Christ is not very satisfying to the skeptic, or even to the impartial. Going back to the beginning, one can simply claim that his supporters stole his body. So,
For me, it’s never been about proof. As a person with a science degree, this research does not amount to proof.
And that’s ok. Evidence enhances faith, it doesn’t form the basis for it. What is more edifying to me than proof is the witness of the martyrs, who are so moved by faith as to die in respect of it.
It seems to me, one must first have some good-will faith before this line of support is edifying.
However, I do not believe the evidentiary tactic to be convincing at all for non-believers. In the age of rationalism and scientism, when the existence and reliability of events must be reduced to journalistic and scientific proof, the strict evidence for Christ is not very satisfying to the skeptic, or even to the impartial. Going back to the beginning, one can simply claim that his supporters stole his body. So,
For me, it’s never been about proof. As a person with a science degree, this research does not amount to proof.
And that’s ok. Evidence enhances faith, it doesn’t form the basis for it. What is more edifying to me than proof is the witness of the martyrs, who are so moved by faith as to die in respect of it.
It seems to me, one must first have some good-will faith before this line of support is edifying.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
If the apostles were mistaken, how do you account for the conversion of skeptics like James and Saul?
If the gospel writers were lying, then what did they gain for their troubles?
And how did they maintain the conspiracy?
DEBUNKING THE CONSPIRACY THEORY
Many people believe that the Apostles knew that Jesus had not really risen from the dead and that the account of his resurrection was a fabrication. Known as the Conspiracy Theory, this claim, if true, would mean that the Apostles engaged in a secret plan to preach publicly that Jesus had risen from the dead while knowing privately that his resurrection had never happened.
Those who specialize in uncovering conspiracies have identified five factors which help to maintain a successful conspiracy:
- A small number of conspirators
- A short time frame that the conspiracy must be maintained
- Excellent communication between conspirators
- Familial connections between conspirators
- Little outside pressure or effort to break the conspiracy
Small number of conspirators
A conspiracy depends on secrecy, and the smaller the number of people involved who could “spill the beans”, the more likely it is the secret can be maintained. The ideal number of conspirators is two. In fact, in a perfect scenario, two people would agree together to commit a crime, and then one would kill the other thereby improving the odds of the secret being maintained.
In the case of the resurrection, there were eleven Apostles of Jesus who acted as co-conspirators, as well as many others—possibly hundreds—who claimed not merely to have heard about the resurrections but actually to have seen Jesus after the resurrection. Obviously, a number of this size is not conducive to maintaining a conspiracy effectively. It is possible, but it just doesn’t seem very probable.
Short time frame that the conspiracy must be maintained
In an ideal situation, the conspiracy only needs to be maintained for a short amount of time. The longer the silence must be sustained, the more likely it is that someone will break it.
So, if, as is alleged by some skeptics, the disciples conspired to tell a false tale about the resurrection of Jesus, how long did they maintain their silence about this secret plan? The last Apostle to die was John who died of natural causes around the year AD 95—more than 60 years after the resurrection. Like all of the others before him, John went to his grave preaching the resurrection of Jesus. 60 years is a long time, and again, while it is possible that a large group of disciples could maintain silence for six decades, it is not probable that they could have done without the absolute certainty that they had seen the risen Jesus.
Excellent communication between conspirators
After a conspiracy has been initiated, it is important for the participants to maintain good communication with one another so that they may respond uniformly to questions from outsiders seeking to gain information. Skilled investigators seeking to uncover a conspiracy will usually seek to isolate the parties so that they cannot collaborate on responses to questions. Additionally, an experienced investigator will also attempt to convince one party that another has confessed the truth—even when this confession has not actually happened. This ploy puts pressure on the one being questioned to break the silence. When one conspirator believes that others have already confessed, the odds of breaking the conspiracy are greatly increased.
After persecution of the Church began in Jerusalem, the apostles were scattered in different directions and as far away as India, and in the first century, fast, effective communication between the apostles over long distances was not possible. When each individual apostle was confronted by local authorities, held for questioning and eventually martyred for their beliefs, there was no way for him to know with certainty whether one or more of the other apostles had denied the resurrection. Despite this isolation and the lack of communication among the Apostles, none of them ever recanted or admitted to being part of a conspiracy to teach a false message about Jesus’ resurrection.
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Familial connections between conspirators
When close family ties exist between conspirators, there is greater incentive to maintain the conspiracy and protect a loved one. When there are few or no family connections, it is less likelihood that the conspirators will maintain the conspiracy.
Among the apostles, there were some family connections; however, it is also true that some apostles had no relatives among the inner circle. Therefore, though it is possible that individuals who were not related to one another were motivated to maintain the conspiracy to protect others in the group, it is more probable that the lack of blood relations would have weakened the bonds of the group over time. While it is possible that the Apostles had grown close as a group during Jesus’ three-year public ministry, it is not probable that this experience alone would account for the maintenance of an alleged conspiracy when non-family members had not seen each other for decades after the persecution which began in Jerusalem and continued later in Rome had scattered them to various corners of the Roman Empire and beyond.
Little outside pressure or effort to break the conspiracy
When a conspiratorial group faces little or no opposition or challenge, it is easier for the group to remain true to the conspiracy. However, when pressure is brought to bear upon the group or individual members, the chances of maintaining the conspiracy are reduced.
Almost immediately following the day of Pentecost when the Apostles publicly preached the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem, opposition to the fledgling church began to grow. The apostles were arrested, thrown into prison, questioned by the Jewish leaders, beaten, and ultimately martyred for their belief that Jesus had appeared to them. Yet, despite the sufferings and hardships they endured, the Apostles did not waiver in their preaching of the resurrection of Jesus. Once again, while it is possible that the persecution they endured only served to strengthen their resolve to maintain a conspiracy, it is more probable that the Apostles remained true to their convictions because they knew the resurrection of Jesus to have been a true event.
Summary
We have looked at the five factors that contribute to the success of a conspiracy, and we have seen that while it is possible that a group could successfully conspire to preach falsely that Jesus had been raised from the dead., the fact that none of the five factors seems to apply the Apostles suggests that it would be highly unlikely that the group would be able to take a secret of such great magnitude to their graves. That they did just that indicates that it is more probable than not that the Apostles were telling the truth concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus.
When close family ties exist between conspirators, there is greater incentive to maintain the conspiracy and protect a loved one. When there are few or no family connections, it is less likelihood that the conspirators will maintain the conspiracy.
Among the apostles, there were some family connections; however, it is also true that some apostles had no relatives among the inner circle. Therefore, though it is possible that individuals who were not related to one another were motivated to maintain the conspiracy to protect others in the group, it is more probable that the lack of blood relations would have weakened the bonds of the group over time. While it is possible that the Apostles had grown close as a group during Jesus’ three-year public ministry, it is not probable that this experience alone would account for the maintenance of an alleged conspiracy when non-family members had not seen each other for decades after the persecution which began in Jerusalem and continued later in Rome had scattered them to various corners of the Roman Empire and beyond.
Little outside pressure or effort to break the conspiracy
When a conspiratorial group faces little or no opposition or challenge, it is easier for the group to remain true to the conspiracy. However, when pressure is brought to bear upon the group or individual members, the chances of maintaining the conspiracy are reduced.
Almost immediately following the day of Pentecost when the Apostles publicly preached the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem, opposition to the fledgling church began to grow. The apostles were arrested, thrown into prison, questioned by the Jewish leaders, beaten, and ultimately martyred for their belief that Jesus had appeared to them. Yet, despite the sufferings and hardships they endured, the Apostles did not waiver in their preaching of the resurrection of Jesus. Once again, while it is possible that the persecution they endured only served to strengthen their resolve to maintain a conspiracy, it is more probable that the Apostles remained true to their convictions because they knew the resurrection of Jesus to have been a true event.
Summary
We have looked at the five factors that contribute to the success of a conspiracy, and we have seen that while it is possible that a group could successfully conspire to preach falsely that Jesus had been raised from the dead., the fact that none of the five factors seems to apply the Apostles suggests that it would be highly unlikely that the group would be able to take a secret of such great magnitude to their graves. That they did just that indicates that it is more probable than not that the Apostles were telling the truth concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Oh, there is evidence. You just refuse to acknowledge its existence.
Wrong. We have documents from:
New Testament Authors (who were eyewitnesses or hearers of eyewitnesses)
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James and Jude.
Early Church Fathers (who recorded what they heard the apostles teach)
Clement, Ignatius, Papius, Polycarp
And don’t forget Irenaeus who was Polycarp’s student and learned from him what the Apostle John had taught.
Non-Biblical Authors (who recorded their own accounts of various related events)
Thallus, Josephus, Mara bar Serapion, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Seutonius, Lucian of Samosota, Sextus Julius Africanus, and passages from The Talmud.
Finally, you seem to miss the point. Paul, writing to the believers in Corinth, challenged his readers to verify what he wrote with those who were still alive. Is this the kind of thing one writes when it would be relatively easy to call his bluff? After all, the Jews in Corinth would have traveled to and from Jerusalem throughout the year to attend various feasts at the Temple…and Jews coming from Israel would have brought news of all that was happening back home.
And since Paul’s challenge was put into writing and copies circulated among all the churches, the likelihood of someone somewhere calling him out for lying increased exponentially…unless he was telling the truth, of course. But no one did because the witnesses Paul is referring to did exist.
You misunderstand my point. Sure, the Jews anticipated a messiah, and many false messiahs had appeared and faded. My point was that Jesus did not meet expectations, either. He did not free Israel from the Roman occupation, and He was “cursed” because he was hung on a tree. Even Judas Iscariot seems to have betrayed Jesus in an attempt to force Jesus’ hand…but this did not turn out as Judas had hoped.
First, my original point was to deny your assertion that gJohn was “too late”. John was young at the time of Jesus’ ministry and wrote his gospel in his old age. You have not refuted this point.
Second, the synoptics contain clear pointers to the divinity of Jesus. This article describes fifteen of these in the earliest Gospel by Mark: reasonsforgod.org/2013/06/does-the-gospel-of-mark-claim-that-jesus-is-god/
So, it is your position that God can be immoral?
And I love the irony that science seems to confirm the creation of the universe via the Big Bang Theory.
But so far, I don’t see that science has proven that God does not exist.
I’m sorry that your uncle and his colleagues were liberals. However, the tide has turned, and the overwhelming consensus among scholars today is that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses or those who had access to them.
Well, using this line of reasoning, unless you are personally going to repeat every scientific experiment in your own personal laboratory, you’re going to have to accept what someone says about the experiments that they have conducted.
But I have not spoken of revelation. I spoke of history, and we have both multiple attestation as well as enemy attestation which indication that the gospels are accurate accounts of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Or even just good will. That’s a pre-requisite for objectivity, I think.
Unfortunately, many skeptics lack objectivity and have nothing but open hostility toward any argument that challenges what they want to believe or how they want to live.
po18guy
Well-known member
There is one conception, one birth, one life, one death, that was described in antiquity, which came into being, which occurred in the presence of eyewitnesses. The only human ever to be accurately predicted, announced ahead of time, to be prophesied and who fulfilled hundreds of prophesies. There is one life who single-handedly changed human history into before and after.
Then again, those who cannot, or refuse to humble themselves will have none of it now, just as they wanted none of it then.
Then again, those who cannot, or refuse to humble themselves will have none of it now, just as they wanted none of it then.
C
Cheiron
Guest
I did not say that resurrections don’t happen because resurrections don’t happen and it’s dishonest of you to suggest I did. Everyone can read that I said witnesses of the resurrection could not exist because resurrections don’t happen. And then I added later for some intellectual humility - because we don’t know everything - that resurrections are impossible as far as we know.
This dishonesty will get you some applause on this forum,
but you are clearly not worthy of the name Plato.
X
Xystus
Guest
Doesn’t most, if not all, of what we know from antiquity come to us from copies of copies? The difference is we have many, many more copies of the Bible than we do of other historical documents. If we don’t take the Bible as being historically consistent with what it contains then why should we believe any other historical document?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I suppose we have different standards for what we construe as “impossible,” then.
I tend to stick to the standard one of “not possible” which implies “cannot happen” regardless of what we do know or don’t know – otherwise we should refrain from claiming anything is “impossible” to begin with.
That would definitely be fine with me, but it would undermine your argument that the Resurrection (or eventualities like it) are “impossible” even more since your claim, then, would mean nothing regarding whether the Resurrection could or could not ACTUALLY happen precisely because, as you admit, we don’t really know for sure.
I suppose we could get into a discussion about the meaning of the words “honesty” and “dishonesty” if you wish, but I will tell you straight up that as with the word “impossible,” I prefer not to permit too much deviation from the straightforward and clear definitions of those, either.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Not to belabor the point, but why did you apply the “intellectual humility” only after you claimed eyewitnesses to the Resurrection could not exist BECAUSE resurrections don’t happen?
Why not write it thusly: Since we don’t know everything we can’t know for sure that resurrections are really impossible, as far as we know, so there COULD have been witnesses to the Resurrection.
It seems you arbitrarily chose the point at which to invoke intellectual humility.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And you are merely repeating the error of Hume who wrote:
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined…it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise, the event would not merit that appellation” (David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 10.1, page 76-77).
Hume’s argument boils down to this:
- Miracles are a violation of the laws of nature.
- Our unalterable experience has established these laws.
- Therefore, because miracles are outside of our experience, they are impossible.
*]Hume and others who follow him haven’t evaluated all of human experience; they have merely evaluated their own experience of the world.
a. Humans have not yet seen all of the universe; therefore, how can Hume say anything with certainty about what may be undiscovered as yet?
b. If human experience establishes the laws of nature and that these laws cannot be violated, then how do we account for those humans who have reported experiencing miracles? This leads to a second major point:
*]How can Hume say that a dead man rising “has never been observed in any age or country” when people have reported this event and have had experiences which contradict Hume’s experience?
a. The experience of the apostles differs from Hume’s personal experience; therefore, the totality of human experience doesn’t establish that miracles can never happen.
b. Numerous surveys have found that at least 35% of all people (some studies found much higher rates) claim to have had some type of spiritual experience; therefore, the experience of a significant portion of all humanity seems to suggest that miracles do occur.
c. Assuming that all reports of miracles are lies is simply begging the question; namely:
*]Hume merely assumes that miracles cannot happen in order to say that miracles do not happen.
As John Earman observes, at one point in history, all of humanity was limited to a small group living in the warm climate of Africa. At that time, “all of human experience” would have required that ice did not exist, since no human would have ever seen it. By Hume’s logic, ice would violate natural law since it was outside of “all human experience.”
This is foolishness, of course, but this is the type of logic that Hume proposed. He begs the question when he said, in effect, that:
*]miracles cannot happen because
*]uniform human experience shows miracles don’t happen and thus
*]all reports of miracles must be dismissed because
*]miracles cannot happen.
You make the same error. :sad_yes:
W
wiggbuggie
Guest
maybe someone can answer this question, lets say if mark, matthew, luke and john did indeed wrote the gospels as the early church fathers say why are the gospels so dependent on each other and copy each other?
- Status