On the Resurrection and It's Problems

Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
On the Resurrection and It's Problems

This is a new blog I've started in which all my historically-researched artciles can be found:

http://rookthehistorian.blogspot.com/

The most recent is on the problems of the resurrection.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
That's cool. I read the

That's cool.

I read the Friday entry about the resurrection myth. Good compilation. How much do you think the resurrection stories have changed the way humankind has studied death? For the better or for the worst? 

On the show, Rich R. and you were discussing Ugaritic stories/myths affecting future myths. Can you address this better? If you've already mentioned this somewhere else, I haven't read it yet. I couldn't believe this is the origin of Baal. lol. I thought that was just in the bible. 

Greek and Roman mythology. Been there. Remember a lot.

African tribal mythology. Been there.

Norse, Native American, Celtic, Pictic, and Visigoth.

Never ever heard of Ugaritic mythology until you guys mentioned it. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Macgawd
Theist
Macgawd's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote: This is

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
This is a new blog I've started in which all my historically-researched artciles can be found: http://rookthehistorian.blogspot.com/ The most recent is on the problems of the resurrection.


"All my historically-researched articles"? If by "historically-researched articles" you mean "lifted verbatim from other people's work with only bare minimum citation", then sure. It should also be noted the author you copy from most heavily, Dennis McKinsey, has no credibility as a Biblical scholar--he reads no ancient languages pertinent to ancient Biblical texts, and has no formal education relating to ancient history and scholarship.

That said, I've taken some time to respond to the main points of your blog, which is really only an affirmation of information you copied directly out of books, rather than any actual historical research on you part.

Though an entertaining read, the arguments you present are by no means new, and have been repeatedly dismantled by the Church throughout the centuries--they present no significant problems here, once the considerable amount of logical errors you commit are eliminated.

Overall, your conclusion ( "your" is used loosely here, since the bulk of the argument is largely copied from someone else's hard work) is built upon a faulty premise--namely, that Christian theology finds its basis in the texts of the New Testament, and that any inconsistencies, whether real or imagined, somehow "prove" the artifice. In point of fact, the New Testament is a book of the Church, not the other way around; its texts do not comprise a complete picture of Christian theology, nor do they claim to. The texts of the New Testament are not meant to be the final authority, but to serve the final authority, which is the Holy See. To find an accurate definition of any given doctrine, the Catechism--not the Gospels or Pauline epistles--is the definitive authority.

That said, knowing as we do that the canon of Scripture in the New Testament was not finalized and ratified until late in the Fourth century, it is absurd to believe that the Church, having been in existence for centuries and seen its share of heresy and internal strife, would intentionally compile from hundreds of texts and manuscripts a canon of Scripture that was inherently contradictory; having already established itself throughout Asia Minor, the Mediterranean, and a good portion of Europe, and having secured itself as the official religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine I, the Church could certainly have easily edited its future canon of Scriptures to eliminate any supposed incongruities between its official teachings, the Gospels and Paul's writings. But they didn't do this, and for good reason--no substantive contradictions exist that effect the underlying Truth that Scripture contains.

To the casual reader, one can see how the accounts of the Resurrection in the four Gospels might seem incongruous at first glance, however the claim that they are contradictory is demonstrably false. You write:

"As Dennis recalls, "If the stories were consistent, one could write one long continuous narrative incorporating all four versions without fear of divergencies. Yet, this has never been done without adding, altering or omitting key verses. Apologists often submit the witness-at-an-auto-accident argument which is quite irrelevant since two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive versions of the same event can not be simultaneously accurate. One or the other is false. Moreover, witnesses at an accident, unlike gospel writers, are not claiming inerrancy."

This is fallacious thinking at its worst. First, with the exception of Revelation, none of the New Testament authors make any explicit claim to be writing under the direct influence of God, let alone make any claim of inerrancy or infallibility, so this is nothing but a Straw Man. Second, the baseless rejection of the eyewitness argument as "irrelevant" is equally dishonest, as it rejects out-of-hand the very real subjective nature of eyewitness accounts of historical events, simply because it inconveniences your presupposed conclusions. No reasonable person would deny that the battle of Gettysburg ever happened, yet it is one of the most contested events of American History, with conflicting eyewitness reports concerning almost every aspect of the battle. By your reasoning, then, we must reject the notion that the battle of Gettysburg ever occurred, since no consistent narrative between eyewitness accounts can be established.

Of course, no rational person would deny that the battle of Gettysburg occurred, because conflicting accounts over various details of an historical event do not invalidate the historicity of the event as a whole. Returning to the Resurrection accounts, all four Gospels are in agreement on the only points that matter: That Christ was crucified, died, and was placed in a tomb; that on the third day the women (all four Gospels include Mary Magdalene) came to the tomb, and found it empty, and in all four accounts, Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene, then to Peter and the other apostles. Subverting the fundamental agreement of all four Gospel accounts on the basis of minor (and ultimately irrelevant) discrepancies in eyewitness accounts is simply dishonest scholarship.

You continue:

"The second problem that Dennis brings up is, "Why should the Resurrection be of such significance." He makes the following list to support the many 'resurrections' which occurred before, during and after Jesus."

More intellectual dishonesty. The list of resurrections occurring "before, during and after Jesus" certainly proves the author's willingness to pad his conclusions with blatant misrepresentations. His first example, 1 Samuel 28:7-15, is not a resurrection at all, but Saul conferring with Samuel's spirit through the aid of a medium; the examples from Ezekiel are not resurrections, but resuscitations (the original Hebrew does not use the word for 'resurrection&#39Eye-wink; his citing of Luke 9:28-30 ignores the context, which is a vision given to Peter, John and James of the Transfiguration--the event is significant in that it acknowledges Jesus fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, but no physical resurrection occurs here, either. A handful of resurrections over the course of thousands of years hardly makes for "commonplace".

An observation: You and the authors you heavily reference seem intent upon changing the nature of Scripture at a whim--alternating between hyper-literalism and pure allegory whenever it suits your argument.

You continue:

"Dennis states, "So why attribute so much importance to the event. By the time Christ rose from the dead this was a rather common occurrence. Moreover, people not only before Jesus but after as well." This is a very astute point and I would expect nothing less from my esteemed friend on the matter. As it was stated by Hume that "such prodigious events never happen in our days" when in the days of the scripture they were as common as there were men alive.

Hume wasn't taking a stab at religion here, merely trying to get the point across that it was odd that miracles have simply vanished from reality while if somebody rose from the dead in Jesus' day, it was just another normal occurrence of a prophet summoning the power of God."

First, the claim that miracles have "simply vanished" is certainly debatable, but I'm more interested in the argument of why people in the time of Jesus should be impressed by resurrection, if it was such a common occurrence. If it were as common as you suggest, then indeed--why would anyone believe it? How could Christianity, based solely on what is argued to be a mundane claim of the miraculous, spread so rapidly throughout the Mediterranean and Asia Minor--areas that you argue were already rife with claims of god-men and miraculous resurrections? You argue that no historian of note from that area and region comments on the miracles routinely performed by Christians as proof positive that they are outright inventions--if this be the case, then how could 12 ordinary men convince so many to abandon one set of identical beliefs for another?

You write:

"The third major problem connected with the resurrection is the contradiction between the ideology of the resurrection of the dead in the Old and New testaments. This will later be explained in the chapter to follow on Paul, however there are some key verses that need to be considered. For example, take Eccle. 3:19-21, "For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same: as one dies so dies the other. ...man has no advantage over beasts;... All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth." (See Also: Job 7:9-10, 1 Tim. 6:15-16, Isaiah 26:14)"

The notion that the ideology of the resurrection of the dead in the Old Testament can be gleaned from handful of verses taken out of context is a hasty generalization. You commit the same error of logic that many Fundamentalist Christians do when trying to support their erroneous arguments: you fail to account for the greater context, e.g., the literary style of the writer, the social/political environment in which it was written, and the overall message that the author is attempting to convey. The text of the Bible is a narrative of the relationship between God and Man, and encompasses the entire spectrum of human emotion and experience, yet you wrongly assume that a handful of verses isolated from their context are sufficient to reduce this complex relationship down to a single proposition.

You continue:

"Robert Ingersoll remarked on this issue, "The Old Testament tells us how we lost immortality and it does not say a word about another world, from the first mistake in Genesis to the last curse in Malachi. No man in the Old Testament stands by the dead and says, "We shall meet again." From the top of Sinai came no hope of another world." ("Orthodoxy", Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 2, page 424)"

Another Straw Man. While the Old Testament may not contain the word "resurrection", this in no way proves that the ideology was not present. Here are a few verses that you ignored:

"At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book. Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever." - Daniel 12:1-4

"Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For your dew is a radiant dew, and the earth will give birth to those long dead.' - Isaiah 26:19

"O that my words were written down! O that they were inscribed in a book! O that with an iron pen and with lead they were engraved on a rock forever! For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he shall stand upon the earth; and after my skin has been thus destroyed, then in my flesh shall I see God, whom I shall see on my side, and my eyes shall behold, and not another." Job - 19:23

While these verses do not definitively establish the doctrine of the resurrection of the body in detail as the Gospels do, they nevertheless clearly show that the idea was not as foreign to the people of Israel as you claim.

Concerning Paul and his understanding of the Resurrection, you have written much, and I will not waste much time quoting individual parts, however your assessment of Paul is predicated on an erroneous understanding of the nature of the Resurrection, as taught by the Church. Although you quote the Catechism at the beginning of your blog, you quote selectively, and ignore the greater context. The Church has always taught that at the resurrection, our immortal souls will be reunited with our mortal bodies--the same body that we died in. However, this body will be a "glorified body", granted by God "incorruptible life by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus' Resurrection". CCC 997

The Catechism teaches clearly how this resurrection will occur:

"Christ is raised with his own body: 'See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself'; but did not return to an earthly life. So, in him, 'all of them will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear,' but Christ 'will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body,' into a 'spiritual body.' Phil. 3:21, 1 Cor. 15:44

"This 'how' exceeds our imagination and understanding; it is accessible only to faith. Yet our participation in the Eucharist already gives us a foretaste of Christ's transfiguration of our bodies: Just as bread that comes from the earth, after God's blessing has been invoked upon it, is no longer ordinary bread, but Eucharist, formed of two things, the one earthly and the other heavenly: so too our bodies, which partake of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possess the hope of resurrection." - CCC 999-1000

While we will be raised in the bodies we died in, that mortal body will be transformed--"glorified" through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ--it is the same body, but new, spiritual, and wholly incorruptible. How does this compare to Paul's understanding? Paul writes in Romans 6:4-5,

"Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in the newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be reunited with him in a resurrection like his."

"A resurrection like his". And what was Christ's resurrection like? The Catechism states:

"By means of touch and the sharing of a meal, the risen Jesus establishes direct contact with his disciples. He invites them in this way to recognize that he is not a ghost and above all to verify that the risen body in which he appears to them is the same body that had been tortured and crucified, for it still bears traces of his passion. Yet at the same time this authentic, real body possesses the new properties of a glorious body: not limited by space and time but able to be present how and where it wills; for Christ's humanity can no longer be confined to earth and belongs henceforth only to the Father's divine realm. For this reason too the risen Jesus enjoys the sovereign freedom of appearing as he wishes: in the guise of a gardener or in other forms familiar to his disciples, precisely to awaken their faith" - CCC 645

I find no contradiction between what Paul says about the resurrection, and what the Church teaches--in this regard, your argument is nothing but smoke and mirrors, altering the meaning of the text to suit your preconceived notions.

As for how you characterize Paul's understanding of the Resurrection, no amount of smoke and mirrors can help you escape the logic traps you yourself have set. You admit that the early Church Fathers' take on the Resurrection is similar to that of the Catechism, and repeatedly assert that the Pauline letters predate the Gospels, which you claim present a view of the Resurrection diametrically opposed to that of Paul. Yet if this were true, we would expect to see Paul's version on the Resurrection in subsequent Christian texts, including the Gospels, which were almost certainly written by Christians who would have learned the faith in churches that Paul himself founded, but we don't--we get a picture of the Resurrection that mirrors that of the Catechism. And finally, if Paul's view of the Resurrection was as you claim, it would make it similar to that of the Gnostics or Manicaeans, and it is inconceivable that the Church would have included them in the canon of Scripture, having absorbed considerable damage from these heresies prior to the establishment of the New Testament canon.

So we're left with one of two possibilities: A.) That for 2,000 years, scholars and theologians within and without the Church have consistently misinterpreted Paul's writings, only to be undone by a 24-year-old self-professed historian; or B.) your conclusions are faulty, based on misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and simple intellectual dishonesty. Since the simplest answer tends to be the correct one, B would seem the logical choice, given the fallacious arguments you present here, and the clear anti-Christian bias of the authors you heavily borrow from.

Michael

BANNED FOR: DISHONESTY

REPEATED OFFENDER

THIS THREAD FOR DETAILS:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/biblical_errancy/4335


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Macgawd wrote: "All my

Macgawd wrote:


"All my historically-researched articles"? If by "historically-researched articles" you mean "lifted verbatim from other people's work with only bare minimum citation", then sure. It should also be noted the author you copy from most heavily, Dennis McKinsey, has no credibility as a Biblical scholar--he reads no ancient languages pertinent to ancient Biblical texts, and has no formal education relating to ancient history and scholarship.

 

Wait a minute. Part of research is studying what has already been researched.

Did we read the same blog? Everywhere that someone else's initial thoughts were discussed, they were cited. Your accusation of 'bare minimum citation' is FALSE. There were numbered footnotes leading to the source of the material in the paragraph.

Dennis McKinsey has been studying the bible longer than I have been alive. So have some preachers. Unlike preachers, Rook, Carrier, and McKinsey have studied the historical aspect of the texts with relation to the approximate times of their writing and the sociological impact on the writing. Dennis McKinsey has a Master's degree in social sciences from Indiana University. AND YOU'RE TRYING TO TELL ME THAT HE ISN'T QUALIFIED TO SPEAK/WRITE ON THE SUBJECT AT HAND! That is the most absurd accusation that I've ever heard. The crux of the matter here is that the 'resurrection' story most certainly WAS NOT a new thing, but instead makes more sense as a story borrowed from other cultures. Rook has illustrated this aspect well in his assessment and brings with him the understanding of the GREEK colloquialisms. Rook is BUILDING on not only his own work but also that of other historians and sociologists interested in biblical mythology, its roots and influences.

Quote:
That said, I've taken some time to respond to the main points of your blog, which is really only an affirmation of information you copied directly out of books, rather than any actual historical research on you part.

Though an entertaining read, the arguments you present are by no means new, and have been repeatedly dismantled by the Church throughout the centuries--they present no significant problems here, once the considerable amount of logical errors you commit are eliminated.

By 'respond' do you mean 'attack with baseless accusations'?

By 'dismantled' do you mean 'denied and killed/imprisoned the people making the arguments'?



Quote:
Overall, your conclusion ( "your" is used loosely here, since the bulk of the argument is largely copied from someone else's hard work) is built upon a faulty premise--namely, that Christian theology finds its basis in the texts of the New Testament, and that any inconsistencies, whether real or imagined, somehow "prove" the artifice. In point of fact, the New Testament is a book of the Church, not the other way around; its texts do not comprise a complete picture of Christian theology, nor do they claim to. The texts of the New Testament are not meant to be the final authority, but to serve the final authority, which is the Holy See. To find an accurate definition of any given doctrine, the Catechism--not the Gospels or Pauline epistles--is the definitive authority.

How very convenient. The books that grant the church the supposed authority have no authority over the church??? The 'guidance' of the catechism is alleged to be derived from the bible, not the bible derived from the catechism. The Sacred Scriptures are mentioned FIRST as the principal sources for the catechism.

Catechism Section III. 11 second sentence wrote:
Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium.

Quote:
That said, knowing as we do that the canon of Scripture in the New Testament was not finalized and ratified until late in the Fourth century, it is absurd to believe that the Church, having been in existence for centuries and seen its share of heresy and internal strife, would intentionally compile from hundreds of texts and manuscripts a canon of Scripture that was inherently contradictory; having already established itself throughout Asia Minor, the Mediterranean, and a good portion of Europe, and having secured itself as the official religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine I, the Church could certainly have easily edited its future canon of Scriptures to eliminate any supposed incongruities between its official teachings, the Gospels and Paul's writings. But they didn't do this, and for good reason--no substantive contradictions exist that effect the underlying Truth that Scripture contains.

Have you read the history surrounding the establishment of the church from any other source BESIDES the church? The idea that the church used its power to simply subvert knowledge or FORCE its doctrine is well documented even today.

I'm only going to ask you to re-read your last sentence in that paragraph very slowly to yourself. The plea for 'underlying truth' is so sad that I almost stopped reading your post and disregarded you as a troll.

Quote:
To the casual reader, one can see how the accounts of the Resurrection in the four Gospels might seem incongruous at first glance, however the claim that they are contradictory is demonstrably false.

First glance. Second glance. Four hundredth glance. Greek glance. KJV glance. NIV glance. NASV glance.

It seems that the only way for the scriptures to make sense is not to read them at all and just trust what the church tells you they mean. The 'blind faith' analogy isn't too far from literal blindness with special regard to the inconsistencies of the alleged 'saviour's' last moments and supposed resurrection.

Wouldn't someone as important as jesus(an individual) demand more attention when writing his biography?


Quote:
This is fallacious thinking at its worst. First, with the exception of Revelation, none of the New Testament authors make any explicit claim to be writing under the direct influence of God, let alone make any claim of inerrancy or infallibility, so this is nothing but a Straw Man.

That is an inaccurate assessment in the fact that you have disregarded the countless references to 'being written in the spirit' made by the authors of the scriptures. Something that parallels the gnostic ideology in every way. You seem to have it backwards in that John of/on Patmos was dreaming. The rest claim to be moved by the spirit after Pentecost in Acts 2:4.

Quote:
Second, the baseless rejection of the eyewitness argument as "irrelevant" is equally dishonest, as it rejects out-of-hand the very real subjective nature of eyewitness accounts of historical events, simply because it inconveniences your presupposed conclusions. No reasonable person would deny that the battle of Gettysburg ever happened, yet it is one of the most contested events of American History, with conflicting eyewitness reports concerning almost every aspect of the battle. By your reasoning, then, we must reject the notion that the battle of Gettysburg ever occurred, since no consistent narrative between eyewitness accounts can be established.

No. Fallacious thinking is comparing an entire BATTLE with thousands of men to one event with one man.

1. Crucifixion/Resurrection = fender bender in a parking lot

2. Battle of Gettysburg = 400 car pile-up on I-65

One can make a reasonable request for accurate chronology of events in the first instance.

In the second instance, it is tracing order out of chaos. Errors are acceptable without disregarding the entire event. Incidentally, the information about Gettysburg has contemporary evidence.

Quote:
Of course, no rational person would deny that the battle of Gettysburg occurred, because conflicting accounts over various details of an historical event do not invalidate the historicity of the event as a whole.

Conflicting CONTEMPORARY accounts. An important word was left out of your assertion.

Quote:
Returning to the Resurrection accounts, all four Gospels are in agreement on the only points that matter: That Christ was crucified, died, and was placed in a tomb; that on the third day the women (all four Gospels include Mary Magdalene) came to the tomb, and found it empty, and in all four accounts, Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene, then to Peter and the other apostles. Subverting the fundamental agreement of all four Gospel accounts on the basis of minor (and ultimately irrelevant) discrepancies in eyewitness accounts is simply dishonest scholarship.

No. Focusing on only the big pieces of an alleged extraordinary event shows nothing more than blind faith in the event. The 'devil is in the details' and the failure to accurately document these details is fundamental to the event never happening in the first place.

Michael/macgawd wrote:
Rook Hawkins, jesus mythicist wrote:
"The second problem that Dennis brings up is, "Why should the Resurrection be of such significance." He makes the following list to support the many 'resurrections' which occurred before, during and after Jesus."


More intellectual dishonesty. The list of resurrections occurring "before, during and after Jesus" certainly proves the author's willingness to pad his conclusions with blatant misrepresentations. His first example, 1 Samuel 28:7-15, is not a resurrection at all, but Saul conferring with Samuel's spirit through the aid of a medium; the examples from Ezekiel are not resurrections, but resuscitations (the original Hebrew does not use the word for 'resurrection&#39Eye-wink; his citing of Luke 9:28-30 ignores the context, which is a vision given to Peter, John and James of the Transfiguration--the event is significant in that it acknowledges Jesus fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, but no physical resurrection occurs here, either. A handful of resurrections over the course of thousands of years hardly makes for "commonplace".

Actually, Mr. Dishonest, the first example was Elijah in 1Kings 17:22 And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.

YOU HAD BETTER APOLOGIZE FOR THAT ONE! Dishonesty is most certainly NOT tolerated when attacking the person's reputation. The other ones that you ignored DO point to the fact that the resurrection was not a one-time thing and Ergo not special but commonplace in the mythology/theology.

Quote:
An observation: You and the authors you heavily reference seem intent upon changing the nature of Scripture at a whim--alternating between hyper-literalism and pure allegory whenever it suits your argument.

Sticks and Stones. Rubber and Glue, motherfucker. I'd hate to point out the fact that there are over 23,000 denominations in the 'christian' faith that do the exact same thing except they aren't opening the floor to debate/discourse on the subjects of 'hyper-literalism' or 'pure allegory'. You're just being obnoxious now. So don't be surprised if there are more ad homs among the valid rebuttal arguments.

fucktard wrote:
Rook Hawkins, jesus mythicist wrote:
"Dennis states, "So why attribute so much importance to the event. By the time Christ rose from the dead this was a rather common occurrence. Moreover, people not only before Jesus but after as well." This is a very astute point and I would expect nothing less from my esteemed friend on the matter. As it was stated by Hume that "such prodigious events never happen in our days" when in the days of the scripture they were as common as there were men alive.

Hume wasn't taking a stab at religion here, merely trying to get the point across that it was odd that miracles have simply vanished from reality while if somebody rose from the dead in Jesus' day, it was just another normal occurrence of a prophet summoning the power of God."


First, the claim that miracles have "simply vanished" is certainly debatable, but I'm more interested in the argument of why people in the time of Jesus should be impressed by resurrection, if it was such a common occurrence. If it were as common as you suggest, then indeed--why would anyone believe it? How could Christianity, based solely on what is argued to be a mundane claim of the miraculous, spread so rapidly throughout the Mediterranean and Asia Minor--areas that you argue were already rife with claims of god-men and miraculous resurrections? You argue that no historian of note from that area and region comments on the miracles routinely performed by Christians as proof positive that they are outright inventions--if this be the case, then how could 12 ordinary men convince so many to abandon one set of identical beliefs for another?

Because the other resurrection stories didn't all contain an empty promise of 'heaven' for one reason.

ALSO, and here is where the sociological aspect of christianity(and later islam) comes into play, Judea was on the fringe of the Roman Empire. It's easy to see how one myth can supplant another if the ruling class/government isn't favored. I could call into evidence the attitudes with regard to the war on terror of Americans as compared to those same Americans five to seven years ago. As well as those on the other side of the war on terror, the terrorists.



Quote:
The notion that the ideology of the resurrection of the dead in the Old Testament can be gleaned from handful of verses taken out of context is a hasty generalization. You commit the same error of logic that many Fundamentalist Christians do when trying to support their erroneous arguments: you fail to account for the greater context, e.g., the literary style of the writer, the social/political environment in which it was written, and the overall message that the author is attempting to convey. The text of the Bible is a narrative of the relationship between God and Man, and encompasses the entire spectrum of human emotion and experience, yet you wrongly assume that a handful of verses isolated from their context are sufficient to reduce this complex relationship down to a single proposition.

Ummm To the contrary. It is you that have presupposed this 'greater context' to exist in the first place.

If anything, the context of scripture with regard to the sociological factors involved at the time of the writing is the PRIMARY ARGUMENT.

As far as the 'literary style of the writer', fucker, what part of 'ancient text analysis' do you NOT understand? How else are historians supposed to know that something is written by the same person or merely dictated to someone else or even anecdotal?

I think that you are so far into left field that we'll have three outs before you get to the dugout.

Quote:
While the Old Testament may not contain the word "resurrection", this in no way proves that the ideology was not present. Here are a few verses that you ignored:

"At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book. Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever." - Daniel 12:1-4

"Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For your dew is a radiant dew, and the earth will give birth to those long dead.' - Isaiah 26:19

"O that my words were written down! O that they were inscribed in a book! O that with an iron pen and with lead they were engraved on a rock forever! For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he shall stand upon the earth; and after my skin has been thus destroyed, then in my flesh shall I see God, whom I shall see on my side, and my eyes shall behold, and not another." Job - 19:23

While these verses do not definitively establish the doctrine of the resurrection of the body in detail as the Gospels do, they nevertheless clearly show that the idea was not as foreign to the people of Israel as you claim.

Ahhh. The "techiat hameitim" is fundamental to the coming of the messiah. Agreed. However, as the story really goes, a jewish carpenter's son thought he was the son of god instead of just the messiah/moschiach. Unfortunately, it was/is just a story like all of the rest meant to divide the sects in Judea further and steal followers from the other faiths. That's the conclusion that I have come to in my studies of Rook's and other historians works.



Quote:
Concerning Paul and his understanding of the Resurrection, you have written much, and I will not waste much time quoting individual parts, however your assessment of Paul is predicated on an erroneous understanding of the nature of the Resurrection, as taught by the Church. Although you quote the Catechism at the beginning of your blog, you quote selectively, and ignore the greater context. The Church has always taught that at the resurrection, our immortal souls will be reunited with our mortal bodies--the same body that we died in. However, this body will be a "glorified body", granted by God "incorruptible life by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus' Resurrection". CCC 997

The Catechism teaches clearly how this resurrection will occur:

"Christ is raised with his own body: 'See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself'; but did not return to an earthly life. So, in him, 'all of them will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear,' but Christ 'will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body,' into a 'spiritual body.' Phil. 3:21, 1 Cor. 15:44

"This 'how' exceeds our imagination and understanding; it is accessible only to faith. Yet our participation in the Eucharist already gives us a foretaste of Christ's transfiguration of our bodies: Just as bread that comes from the earth, after God's blessing has been invoked upon it, is no longer ordinary bread, but Eucharist, formed of two things, the one earthly and the other heavenly: so too our bodies, which partake of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possess the hope of resurrection." - CCC 999-1000

Wait a damned minute. AREN'T YOU JUST QUOTING THE CATECHISM SELECTIVELY HERE!!!!!!!!!!! Fucking hypocrite.

Quote:
While we will be raised in the bodies we died in, that mortal body will be transformed--"glorified" through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ--it is the same body, but new, spiritual, and wholly incorruptible. How does this compare to Paul's understanding? Paul writes in Romans 6:4-5,

"Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in the newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be reunited with him in a resurrection like his."

"A resurrection like his". And what was Christ's resurrection like? The Catechism states:

"By means of touch and the sharing of a meal, the risen Jesus establishes direct contact with his disciples. He invites them in this way to recognize that he is not a ghost and above all to verify that the risen body in which he appears to them is the same body that had been tortured and crucified, for it still bears traces of his passion. Yet at the same time this authentic, real body possesses the new properties of a glorious body: not limited by space and time but able to be present how and where it wills; for Christ's humanity can no longer be confined to earth and belongs henceforth only to the Father's divine realm. For this reason too the risen Jesus enjoys the sovereign freedom of appearing as he wishes: in the guise of a gardener or in other forms familiar to his disciples, precisely to awaken their faith" - CCC 645

I find no contradiction between what Paul says about the resurrection, and what the Church teaches--in this regard, your argument is nothing but smoke and mirrors, altering the meaning of the text to suit your preconceived notions.

Sticks and Stones. Another selective quotation. Rook has addressed this before during a show by illustrating the contradiction in Paul's OWN words.I'm getting tired right now, but I can find the exact quotes in direct contradiction with each other later if you want to press this point.

Let's also be honest that YOU can also be accused of 'preconceived notions' due to your indoctrination into the church.

Quote:
As for how you characterize Paul's understanding of the Resurrection, no amount of smoke and mirrors can help you escape the logic traps you yourself have set. You admit that the early Church Fathers' take on the Resurrection is similar to that of the Catechism, and repeatedly assert that the Pauline letters predate the Gospels, which you claim present a view of the Resurrection diametrically opposed to that of Paul. Yet if this were true, we would expect to see Paul's version on the Resurrection in subsequent Christian texts, including the Gospels, which were almost certainly written by Christians who would have learned the faith in churches that Paul himself founded, but we don't--we get a picture of the Resurrection that mirrors that of the Catechism. And finally, if Paul's view of the Resurrection was as you claim, it would make it similar to that of the Gnostics or Manicaeans, and it is inconceivable that the Church would have included them in the canon of Scripture, having absorbed considerable damage from these heresies prior to the establishment of the New Testament canon.

Wait just another damned moment. You were the one that earlier said that the church is defined through the catechism, not scripture. So what the fuck?

Paul founded the churches and they changed the story and it went into the catechism. end of story. or actually just the torrid beginnings.

Incidentally, Retard, Manichaeans(correct spelling for you) WERE Gnostics. Obviously you need to read more about the Essenic notions and their influence on the early church. Come back when you've read more than the catechism and a few catholic apologetics.

If I can PWN you then Rook would have a field day with your happy ass. Who the fuck do you think I've been learning this stuff from???????

Quote:
So we're left with one of two possibilities: A.) That for 2,000 years, scholars and theologians within and without the Church have consistently misinterpreted Paul's writings, only to be undone by a 24-year-old self-professed historian; or B.) your conclusions are faulty, based on misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and simple intellectual dishonesty. Since the simplest answer tends to be the correct one, B would seem the logical choice, given the fallacious arguments you present here, and the clear anti-Christian bias of the authors you heavily borrow from.

Michael

You forgot choice C. Michael can't stand that the things taught by the church and the catechism are probably not REAL and he wants to disregard a historian's views because the historian is a 24 yr. old atheist.

 

[This theist OWNED by darth_josh, 34 yr. old jesus mythicist understudy to Rook Hawkins, 24 yr. old jesus mythicist and historian]

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Macgawd
Theist
Macgawd's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Hello darth, darth_josh

Hello darth,

darth_josh wrote:
Wait a minute. Part of research is studying what has already been researched.

Did we read the same blog? Everywhere that someone else's initial thoughts were discussed, they were cited. Your accusation of 'bare minimum citation' is FALSE. There were numbered footnotes leading to the source of the material in the paragraph.


Copying entire passages a book, footnoting it, and merely adding, "Dennis says" is not research. In fact, it falls very short of the academic standards of a high school book report, let alone any claim to genuine scholarship. Had Rook done at least some of the work himself, I'd be far less critical, but copying someone else's work, then simply agreeing with its conclusions is just lazy. If Rook is passing himself off as a "scholar" and "historian", then he's an abject fraud.

Quote:
Dennis McKinsey has been studying the bible longer than I have been alive. So have some preachers. Unlike preachers, Rook, Carrier, and McKinsey have studied the historical aspect of the texts with relation to the approximate times of their writing and the sociological impact on the writing.


But unlike Rook and Mr. McKinsey, seminary schools require preachers and priests to study Biblical Greek and Hebrew a minimum of three years. McKinsey, and as far as I know Rook, know no ancient languages, and encourage people to read the Bible "Cold", i.e., take the text at face value only, without consideration to historical, cultural, social or political context.

Quote:
Dennis McKinsey has a Master's degree in social sciences from Indiana University. AND YOU'RE TRYING TO TELL ME THAT HE ISN'T QUALIFIED TO SPEAK/WRITE ON THE SUBJECT AT HAND!


That's right. A Masters Degree in social sciences does not qualify one to be a Biblical scholar any more than my degree in graphic design qualifies me to be a structural engineer.

But don't take my word for it. Listen to what some other atheist skeptics have to say about McKinsey's work:

In his essay entitled, "How Not to Argue Against the Historicity and Resurrection of Jesus", Jeffrey Jay Lowder writes:

"Although McKinsey occasionally raises some good points concerning the Resurrection and the extrabiblical references to Jesus, they are often hidden within many more objections that are either irrelevant, fallacious, inconclusive, or some combination of the above. Moreover, there are many important issues related to the historicity of Jesus and the Resurrection, which McKinsey ignores. Although McKinsey discusses the historicity of Jesus, he ignores many of the extrabiblical references and more importantly the New Testament evidence itself. Likewise, McKinsey’s treatment of the Resurrection is horribly incomplete: he does not assess the historicity of the burial story, the empty tomb, the guard, the Jewish polemic, the appearances, etc. With all due respect to McKinsey, it appears he does not understand the basic principles of historiography. Given these shortcomings in the sections on the historicity and resurrection of Jesus, I can't help but wonder what deficiencies exist in the rest of McKinsey’s Encyclopedia. I do not recommend skeptics rely on McKinsey’s scholarship without first independently verifying his claims in a reliable source. And I hope that in the future Prometheus Books has a bona fide Bible scholar or historian review submissions in Biblical criticism before accepting a manuscript for publication"

Skeptic Farrell Till writes:

"Those who submit articles should understand that they may have to defend what they say, so they should make sure that they are informed enough on the issues to know how to reply to the solutions that inerrantists may propose. I therefore strongly urge that newcomers to the issue of biblical discrepancies not try to write articles with no more background than having read something in Bible Handbook, Bible Absurdities, or The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, because examples of biblical discrepancies are often discussed only superficially in works like these."

The fact of the matter is, people like Dennis McKinsey and Richard Carrier are fringe elements in the field of Biblical scholarship, roughly analogous to archaeologists who think aliens built the pyramids--their views are not based on legitimate scholarship, and are aimed squarely at like-minded ( or is it simple-minded) atheists who hate everything about Christianity, and will do anything to discredit it, even if it means academic fraud.

Quote:
How very convenient. The books that grant the church the supposed authority have no authority over the church??? The 'guidance' of the catechism is alleged to be derived from the bible, not the bible derived from the catechism. The Sacred Scriptures are mentioned FIRST as the principal sources for the catechism. Catechism Section III. 11 second sentence Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium.


First of all, the Gospels do not grant the Church its authority, God grants the Church authority. Since the Gospels were not written until decades after Jesus' death, how did Christians know what to believe for 20-30 years? How could Paul have founded Christian churches before there were Gospel accounts to give him the authority to do so?

Secondly, the listing of Sacred Scripture first in the Catechism does not mean that Scripture is given precedence. Had you bothered to continue reading, you would have known how the Church views its relationship with Scripture:

75"Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the Apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.

76In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed down in two ways: Orally "by the Apostles who handed on, by the spoken word or by preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received--whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit."

In writing "by those Apostles and other men associated with the Apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".

82As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence".

Since the Gospels were not written until decades after Jesus' death, and since the New Testament canon of Scriptures was not compiled until the 4th century, A.D., claiming that Christianity is derived from writings that had not yet been written is patently absurd.

Quote:
Have you read the history surrounding the establishment of the church from any other source BESIDES the church? The idea that the church used its power to simply subvert knowledge or FORCE its doctrine is well documented even today.


Let's suppose that's true. Then why would the Church intentionally include books in its Bible that prove that Jesus was not raised from the dead?

Quote:
That is an inaccurate assessment in the fact that you have disregarded the countless references to 'being written in the spirit' made by the authors of the scriptures. Something that parallels the gnostic ideology in every way. You seem to have it backwards in that John of/on Patmos was dreaming. The rest claim to be moved by the spirit after Pentecost in Acts 2:4.


Since you're the expert, can you cite for me where the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John claim that they are "writing in the spirit"?

Quote:
No. Focusing on only the big pieces of an alleged extraordinary event shows nothing more than blind faith in the event. The 'devil is in the details' and the failure to accurately document these details is fundamental to the event never happening in the first place.


That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Any rational person would start with what the stories have in common, then approach the differences in relation to the context of each Gospel. For example, each Gospel account was written for a different audience, so is there significance in the details that can be explained by cultural-social-political forces? A rational person would conclude that the major similarities of the stories indicate a uniformity of belief between writers. An irrational person would simply read the text "cold", without regard to original languages and historical context.

Quote:
Actually, Mr. Dishonest, the first example was Elijah in 1Kings 17:22 And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.


Irrelevant. You said it yourself--the child was revived, not resurrected. The original text does not use the Hebrew word for 'resurrection'. This is what happens when you read the text "cold", and when you don't understand the meaning of resurrection. Get a clue.

Quote:
YOU HAD BETTER APOLOGIZE FOR THAT ONE! Dishonesty is most certainly NOT tolerated when attacking the person's reputation. The other ones that you ignored DO point to the fact that the resurrection was not a one-time thing and Ergo not special but commonplace in the mythology/theology.


First, I will not apologize for your own ignorance. Second, even if McKinsey's list were all bona fide resurrections, that's a handful in a couple of thousand years--that hardly makes for "commonplace". Third, McKinsey contradicts himself by first pointing out that there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus' miracles or the miracles performed by his apostles, yet wishes to argue that miraculous resurrections were "commonplace". Then if that is the case, then there aught to be some account somewhere from Pliny, Tacitus or some other scholar about the mundane practice of bodies miraculously returning to a glorious immortal life. Yet the only accounts of resurrections are in the Bible--a source that McKinsey rejects outright as trustworthy!! It's so ridiculously absurd, I can barely make sense of it.

Quote:
Sticks and Stones. Rubber and Glue, motherfucker.


What, are you Rook's mother? His gay lover or something, to get so irrational over an observation?

Quote:
I'd hate to point out the fact that there are over 23,000 denominations in the 'christian' faith that do the exact same thing except they aren't opening the floor to debate/discourse on the subjects of 'hyper-literalism' or 'pure allegory'. You're just being obnoxious now. So don't be surprised if there are more ad homs among the valid rebuttal arguments.


I'd say your estimate of Christian denominations is grossly exaggerated, but I'd use the same arguments against them: They are mistaken about deriving their authority from a book didn't exist for three centuries after Christianity began, and that does not even claim divine origin for itself.

The rest of your post is laced with irrationalities and invective, so I shall not respond further. If claiming that you "pwned" me is important to you, and makes you feel better about yourself, then by all means, gloat. I certainly won't lose any sleep over it.

Michael

BANNED FOR: DISHONESTY

REPEATED OFFENDER

THIS THREAD FOR DETAILS:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/biblical_errancy/4335


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
My original question

My original question remains. Did we read the same blog? We probably did. I just read the whole thing. The Greek and associated descriptions of the text are his.
Rook isn't 'passing himself off' as anything. You're the one who has attacked the man's credentials without knowing why others have described Rook with the terms 'jesus mythicist', 'historian', 'scholar', and 'teacher'.
Rook can read and speak Greek AND understands the type of writing associated with the periods in which the texts have been dated. His scholarship in this has been tested on several occasions by better people than you or I.

You said it yourself:

macgawd wrote:
...and as far as I know Rook, know no ancient languages, and encourage people to read the Bible "Cold", i.e., take the text at face value only, without consideration to historical, cultural, social or political context.

You did not know and therefore your attacks were baseless accusations.

macgawd wrote:
A Masters Degree in social sciences does not qualify one to be a Biblical scholar any more than my degree in graphic design qualifies me to be a structural engineer.

Again, you're telling me that a degree in social science has no bearing on the way that the scriptures were written and the social context of the times in which they were written? Yet your degree in graphic design allows you to criticize biblical scholars? I'm confused.

[macgawd goes on to quote Lowder's five year old critique of McKinsey's Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy.]
Maybe thinking doesn't change when following christianity. It does change under review and critique.
Incidentally, I have a completely different opinion with regard to Lowder than those that I have read from Rook.
One wonders about the origin of The Empty Tomb since the article that you quoted was written three years prior to its publication. I'm just sayin'.
In my opinion, and one that he will hear face to face, not just on a message board is that Lowder is the apologists/apologetics best friend by ALLOWING the presupposition that even a man named jesus christ ever existed in spite of the lack of contemporary evidence.


[quotes Farrell Till] AN ENGLISH TEACHER???!!! that weighs in on biblical historicity and you'll quote him, but a social science professor can't??? Professor Till actually cites some of the same references to material as McKinsey. It was good while it lasted.
Oddly enough, Till's primary 'bitch' was a disdain for the readily available material on the internet. One would think from the quote that Prof. Till would want people to have multiple sources to study. Unfortunately, when subscriptions decline.... well, I've said enough concerning that anyway.

macgawd wrote:
The fact of the matter is, people like Dennis McKinsey and Richard Carrier are fringe elements in the field of Biblical scholarship, roughly analogous to archaeologists who think aliens built the pyramids--their views are not based on legitimate scholarship, and are aimed squarely at like-minded ( or is it simple-minded) atheists who hate everything about Christianity, and will do anything to discredit it, even if it means academic fraud.


ROTFLMAO Carrier as a 'fringe element in the field of biblical scholarship'?! Now THAT was funny. Here is Carrier's biography page:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bio.html
Take a look at those degrees. If there is a question on the historicity of something ancient then THAT'S someone to get a perspective from in my opinion. Rook and Carrier are buddies, dude. They are also critical of each other's work which would discount the accusation concerning 'academic fraud' among historians because of their ideology.
That's the equivalent of calling you a pedophile because you have read the catechism and are religious in my opinion.

macgawd wrote:
First of all, the Gospels do not grant the Church its authority, God grants the Church authority.


Presup not acknowledged. Prove that god granted the church its powers.

Besides that. Later on in this same post I agreed with you that the church gives the church its powers and uses scripture to support as well as this alleged 'spirit'.

Again I say, "How very convenient."
Quote:
76In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed down in two ways: Orally "by the Apostles who handed on, by the spoken word or by preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received--whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit."


Oooh Yeah. Throw that one at Rook again. LOL. I'd love to hear him tear into those arguments surrounding that again.

macgawd wrote:
Since the Gospels were not written until decades after Jesus' death, and since the New Testament canon of Scriptures was not compiled until the 4th century, A.D., claiming that Christianity is derived from writings that had not yet been written is patently absurd.


I don't think I made that claim. I believe we were discussing the catechism, not all of chritendom. It seems that you equated catechism to christianity.

Oh I love this game:
macgawd wrote:
Let's suppose that's true. Then why would the Church intentionally include books in its Bible that prove that Jesus was not raised from the dead?

Why would there be books deliberately left in/out of the bible at all?
Please see apocrypha(deuterocanonical), pseudepigrapha, and the current debate with regard to the Gospel of Judas.
One wonders why the church wouldn't use the Book of Enoch as prophecy and affirmation of the other books. lol.
Perhaps when I know as much about history, language, and context then I might consider discussing Enoch at length since I laughed my ass off the first time through it. Why? Because I'm not the first person that could see where certain christian cults were influenced.

macgawd wrote:
Since you're the expert, can you cite for me where the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John claim that they are "writing in the spirit"?

LOL. I am no expert. You've already helped me:
Quote:
In writing "by those Apostles and other men associated with the Apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".



Quote:
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Any rational person would start with what the stories have in common, then approach the differences in relation to the context of each Gospel. For example, each Gospel account was written for a different audience, so is there significance in the details that can be explained by cultural-social-political forces? A rational person would conclude that the major similarities of the stories indicate a uniformity of belief between writers. An irrational person would simply read the text "cold", without regard to original languages and historical context.


You completely disregarded the car-wreck analogy as my argument for this. The scriptures should not differ on so many parts if we're discussing one person and one instance. Also, this special pleading that people only talked about the resurrection among themselves until someone was 'moved' to write it down is the stupidest thing that I've ever heard.

macgawd wrote:

Irrelevant. You said it yourself--the child was revived, not resurrected. The original text does not use the Hebrew word for 'resurrection'. This is what happens when you read the text "cold", and when you don't understand the meaning of resurrection. Get a clue.


I posted the transliterated hebrew word for resurrection: techiat hameitim
It seems to me that christianity just added heaven/Elysium from Greek influence.
However, I would probably need someone with a social science degree, ancient historian, or ancient text expert to verify this. Oh Wait. That's what this whole thread is about.

Here. I'll even help you with YOUR argument:
http://www.thechristianrabbi.org/resurrection.htm
You'll have to read the whole thing, but pay attention 1/3 of the way down.
You cite secular historians to attack atheists, I'll cite christian jews to attack catholics. lol.

Quote:
First, I will not apologize for your own ignorance. Second, even if McKinsey's list were all bona fide resurrections, that's a handful in a couple of thousand years--that hardly makes for "commonplace". Third, McKinsey contradicts himself by first pointing out that there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus' miracles or the miracles performed by his apostles, yet wishes to argue that miraculous resurrections were "commonplace". Then if that is the case, then there aught to be some account somewhere from Pliny, Tacitus or some other scholar about the mundane practice of bodies miraculously returning to a glorious immortal life. Yet the only accounts of resurrections are in the Bible--a source that McKinsey rejects outright as trustworthy!! It's so ridiculously absurd, I can barely make sense of it.

My ignorance is just my cross to bear. Unfortunately, you are the one that elected to leave out the examples in the list that you could not even muster a pitiful defense for. You speak of academic honesty and then conveniently ignore parts of someone's work that supports their argument?
Ahhh. That's right. You're a theist and as such have a different standard of hypocrisy. Is that it? You see? I can admit that I don't know all of these examples YET. However, I will not disregard one just because it doesn't fit any preconceived notions that I might have. Please try to use that as an example of honesty in the future.

macgawd wrote:
darth_josh wrote:

Sticks and Stones. Rubber and Glue, motherfucker.


What, are you Rook's mother? His gay lover or something, to get so irrational over an observation?


No. I saw someone whom I consider to be reputable attacked by someone that did nothing but insult the person instead of the argument. I see that too much.

macgawd wrote:
I'd say your estimate of Christian denominations is grossly exaggerated, but I'd use the same arguments against them: They are mistaken about deriving their authority from a book didn't exist for three centuries after Christianity began, and that does not even claim divine origin for itself.


Umm. Isn't this a variation of the 'no true scotsman'?
Besides that: You're right. I exaggerated, but not the way you think. I was far too low in that estimate.
"Within Christianity, he counts 33,830 denominations."
http://www.adherents.com/misc/WCE.html

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Quote: Rook_Hawkins

Quote:
Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

This is a new blog I've started in which all my historically-researched artciles can be found: http://rookthehistorian.blogspot.com/ The most recent is on the problems of the resurrection.

"All my historically-researched articles"? If by "historically-researched articles" you mean "lifted verbatim from other people's work with only bare minimum citation", then sure.

First I just want to state that dishonesty is not tolerated here. If you are going to make such a dishonest claim, provide me a citation where I quoted verbatim anybody without citing source? If not, I demand an apology – if I do not get one expect this to be a warning. You only get one. After this, any other dishonest claims not supported without apology will be met with banning.

It’s one thing to make a claim, it’s another to impugn the reputation of somebody because you disagree with their conclusions.

Under the article is a long list of sources which I provided. This was only a 27 page blog entry, not a thesis. My thesis will have over 100 source citations.

Also, anybody claiming that “lifting verbatim” with cited sources does not account for historical research is byond ludicrous. Best tell Richard Carrier that all his authoritatively peer reviewed essays and books are worthless because they cited authoritative sources verbatim. Anybody making this claim knows absolutely NOTHING about historical verisimilitude and even less about writing an authoritative paper.

Quote:
It should also be noted the author you copy from most heavily, Dennis McKinsey, has no credibility as a Biblical scholar--he reads no ancient languages pertinent to ancient Biblical texts, and has no formal education relating to ancient history and scholarship.

Most heavily? Another dishonest claim, did you even READ what I wrote or did you skim it? I expect another apology – this is two now. If I don’t get one of these expect to be banned.

I quoted Dennis only one out of the six sections, and only part of that section was dedicated to his book. If anything, I quoted more from Richard Carrier then any other person in my article, including using several of his slides from the Licona debate at UCLA.

For reference Dennis is quoted three times in Section III, Carrier is quoted over 13 times in all six sections and four times alone in the same section Dennis is quoted in, in section III. If you want to mince more, I quoted Augustine more then I quoted McKinsey.

Also, your claim that he doesn’t have a basis in scholarship, which is false: He obtained a bachelor's degree in philosophy in 1962 and a master's degree in the social sciences in 1964 from the University of Indiana and taught social studies full time at the secondary level for 10 years. He has also been a community college instructor in sociology and a secondary guidance counselor. For brief periods he was civil rights investigator, a truant officer, and a government researcher.

Social science has a discipline IN history as well as philosophy. Despite this is a normal Christian plea of attacking the man not the message – Dennis still makes an excellent point.

Quote:
That said, I've taken some time to respond to the main points of your blog, which is really only an affirmation of information you copied directly out of books, rather than any actual historical research on you part.

Oh, right…I did not historical research at all – so, all of the early church fathers I quoted, the Talmud, scripture – all comes from where exactly? This I dishonest claim #3. You owe me three apologies.

Again, you’re lack of knowing exactly what constitutes a historical document is not surprising – what is surprising is your contempt for actual methodology. What have you done in this post but quote from the Catechism? The Catechism is fine when determining the position of the church on dogmatic law, but not for establish a historical methodology. You need peer reviewed research that has been scientifically weighed against the facts. This is what quoting people does – especially established sources like Carrier, Price, and others which I have systematically done.

You, on the other hand, have not.

Quote:
Though an entertaining read, the arguments you present are by no means new, and have been repeatedly dismantled by the Church throughout the centuries--they present no significant problems here, once the considerable amount of logical errors you commit are eliminated.

Right….look, I promise you these have not been “repeatedly dismantled” by any means, otherwise they would cease to be supported by actual peer reviewed scholars. In fact 25% of bonifide scholars agree with my explanation of the resurrection including the following:

(Slide from On the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Licona vs. Carrier; UCLA debate)

Origen also viewed the resurrection as Paul did, as well as the author of Hebrews. A scholarly consensus on something doesn’t happen until 95% of scholars agree on something – this is not one of those things.

Other scholars not listed who agree with this theory are such as Doctor Price, Wilhelm Bousset, and Marvin Meyer. Now, stop this foolishness.

Quote:
Overall, your conclusion ( "your" is used loosely here, since the bulk of the argument is largely copied from someone else's hard work)

Okay I’m now stating this as clear as possible – if I don’t get an apology from you for your outright disrespect, dishonesty, and stupidity during this pros I will ban you. This is just getting ridiculous.

You want to act as if the methodology of ALL scholarly work which is done in ANY field, especially that concerning history, is somehow mute because YOU disagree with it. You are basically slapping the hell out of everyone who ever published a thesis, paper, and peer reviewed article on the subject of ancient history and classical civilization ever written! Do you know how ignorant you are? This is not something to be debated – this is how things are done. If you just submitted a work based on no source citations or other articles before you – you’d be laughed out of the board room!

Ask any doctorate-holding individual how things are done – they aren’t as you think, just publishing any old work based solely on how YOU feel. This is anti-scientific and anti-scholarly.

Bart Ehrman writes in his Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code, “…Some people are inclined simply to believe anything found in a canonical source (whether it is the writings of Julius Caesar, George Washington, or the Bible), whereas others are inclined to believe anything that contradicts a canonical source. This latter approach is especially favored by people who are attracted to conspiracy theories – but also by intellectually curious people who believe the maxim that “the winners write the history” and are therefore intrigued by the possibility of recovering the “other side” of the story. Critical historians can’t approach sources in that way, automatically favoring one side against the other. Instead, every source has to be carefully weighed and evaluated….The critical historian looks at all of these sources, comparing them carefully with one another, determining which ones can be trusted as reliable and which ones need to be taken with a pound of salt.” (Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code, Pp. xxiii)

 

And:

 

“For critical historians, the sources in the Bible have to be treated like every other source from the past – they need to be examined critically to see if they are reliable or not. Among other things, this involves seeing how they stack up against other sources from the time – to see, for example, if they are contradicted by these other sources, then the historian needs to have reasons. It isn’t good enough to say that if something is stated in the Bible it is necessarily accurate. What if in the retelling of the story the biblical writer changed a historical event for reasons of his own? But on the other hand – and this is a point I need to stress – if there is a source that is outside the Bible that tells a different story (for example, the Gospel of Mary), that source is not necessarily right either. All sources need to be evaluated to see which ones are more reliable and which ones less so.” (Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code, Pp. xxiii)

By the way, this is all Oxford University Press. Like I said – apologize.

Quote:
is built upon a faulty premise--namely, that Christian theology finds its basis in the texts of the New Testament, and that any inconsistencies, whether real or imagined, somehow "prove" the artifice. In point of fact, the New Testament is a book of the Church, not the other way around; its texts do not comprise a complete picture of Christian theology, nor do they claim to.

You often do not read your bible, do you?

  • "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminsh from it" (Deut. 12:32)
  • "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Prov. 30:6).
  • And we can't forget the most chilling one from Rev. 22:18-19, "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book."

Adding theology that is outside the realm of the Bible is condemnable.

Quote:
The texts of the New Testament are not meant to be the final authority, but to serve the final authority, which is the Holy See. To find an accurate definition of any given doctrine, the Catechism--not the Gospels or Pauline epistles--is the definitive authority.

So Christianity is really Paulianity?

Quote:
That said, knowing as we do that the canon of Scripture in the New Testament was not finalized and ratified until late in the Fourth century, it is absurd to believe that the Church, having been in existence for centuries and seen its share of heresy and internal strife, would intentionally compile from hundreds of texts and manuscripts a canon of Scripture that was inherently contradictory; having already established itself throughout Asia Minor, the Mediterranean, and a good portion of Europe, and having secured itself as the official religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine I, the Church could certainly have easily edited its future canon of Scriptures to eliminate any supposed incongruities between its official teachings, the Gospels and Paul's writings. But they didn't do this, and for good reason--no substantive contradictions exist that effect the underlying Truth that Scripture contains.

Your knowledge of scripture and church history is pathetic. Bart Ehrman and Bruce Metzger have written extensively on the corruption of scripture and doctrine by the church throughout the history of the church. In fact, Ehrman would find huge fault in your words.

Price also makes it very well known the fact that Paul’s letters weren’t even COLLECTED until Marcion in the second century – and Marcion was a heretic! Even more damning to your case is the fact that heresiologists already existed in the second century – the fact proves that even EARLY Christians were differing in what the doctrine of the church was. The following is part of Page 3 of Bart Ehrman’s The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Christological Controversies in the Text of the New Testament;


To claim as you do that these doctrines were unattested by the church through the centuries is not only ignorant, it’s preposterous. There was certainly problems with understanding doctrines. Both the Gnostics and Anti-Gnostics, Adoptionists, Sarssisists and Mystics were all claiming the truth of Christ and all had decidedly unconventional ideologies compared to each other.

This was the state of chaos (and it was chaotic) in the first four centuries. It wasn’t until Arius challenged the council as per determining a way to foundationalize scripture and dogma to explain the controversies OF scripture. Eusebius documented the proceedings as well as others.

Quote:
To the casual reader, one can see how the accounts of the Resurrection in the four Gospels might seem incongruous at first glance, however the claim that they are contradictory is demonstrably false. You write:

I love how you don’t back up your claims. Show me how the accounts do not differ? I know you can’t. Another apology for your dishonesty is deserved now.

Quote:
Quote:
"As Dennis recalls, "If the stories were consistent, one could write one long continuous narrative incorporating all four versions without fear of divergencies. Yet, this has never been done without adding, altering or omitting key verses. Apologists often submit the witness-at-an-auto-accident argument which is quite irrelevant since two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive versions of the same event can not be simultaneously accurate. One or the other is false. Moreover, witnesses at an accident, unlike gospel writers, are not claiming inerrancy."

This is fallacious thinking at its worst. First, with the exception of Revelation, none of the New Testament authors make any explicit claim to be writing under the direct influence of God, let alone make any claim of inerrancy or infallibility, so this is nothing but a Straw Man.

Wow, somebody REALLY needs to read their Bible. You are full of shit.

· 1 Corinthians 14:37, “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”

· 2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

· 2 Peter 1:21, “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

According to doctrine the Bible itself is directly inspired by God through the Holy Spirit which according to the trinity is God. Nothing I say is baseless, you twit – a name you earnestly deserve based on your post thus far.

Quote:
Second, the baseless rejection of the eyewitness argument as "irrelevant" is equally dishonest, as it rejects out-of-hand the very real subjective nature of eyewitness accounts of historical events, simply because it inconveniences your presupposed conclusions.

The Gospel accounts are not eyewitnesses. Even early Church fathers observed this fact. Eusebius even corrects Papias on the subject of Matthews eye-witness status (which in itself is ironic) in Ecclesiastical History III:XXXIX: 12-19. Even stating as much that Papias was a man of little intelligence and often delved into false doctrine produced by others no on fault of hi own wanting to commit heresy but rather that he just didn’t know better – and that it is mainly the fault of Papias that the others whom followed, like that of Iraeneus, were steered in the wrong direction on the example of this very issue!

No scholar today of worth feels the Gospels were eyewitnesses. This is explained in great detail is several authoritative books like Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible, the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Eerdman’s Commentary of the Bible, The Oxford History of Christian Worship, The Pre-Nicene New Testament (Price), What is a Gospel (Talbert). This is also not up for debate, this is universally accepted by majority scholarship.

Quote:
No reasonable person would deny that the battle of Gettysburg ever happened, yet it is one of the most contested events of American History, with conflicting eyewitness reports concerning almost every aspect of the battle.

No, not really. Civil War history is my second passion, and I’m also an avid reenactor. There are no conflicting accounts of the supporting basis of Christianity. The conflicts of the accounts are the fact that we have THOUSANDS of accounts of the Battle. Not only that but we have more then just battle reports and journals but funding records for munitions and equipment, quartermaster requisitions of the battle, correspondence and enemy attestation and newspaper articles, various other things as well.

You are merely digging a hole for yourself by using such an attested example of the most evidenciated war in the 19th century while comparing it to one of the most obscure, baseless and vague events in a small little area of the world with no real influence in the day – that is given your special pleading argument that the event actually even happened.

There are no contemporaneous accounts, no enemy attestation, no physical evidence to the event, and the ‘evidence’ we have is the very worst kind: Unknown and otherwise anonymous authors, no sources are cited by the second-hand witnesses (the Gospel writers themselves), no citations or papyri exist from supposed witnesses like Peter or Joseph, no enemy testimony can be called (In the example of the evidence for Julius Caesar, Cicero would count as an enemy as he hated Caesar and he himself wished he had taken part in Caesar's assassination), no physical evidence exists to prove that Jesus died and was resurrected or even lived, no credible historian or scholar of the day thought to write anything of him down, and what we do have - as mentioned above in terms of the Gospel accounts - is not good evidence for establishing historical context and historicity of any kind.

This is all discussed in some detail in Section III had you bothered to read it.

Quote:
By your reasoning, then, we must reject the notion that the battle of Gettysburg ever occurred, since no consistent narrative between eyewitness accounts can be established.

The dishonesty abounds, and knows no end does it? This is a projection on your account, as you see the resurrection to BE AS significant as the battle of Gettysburg, but in terms of historical credibility, the two are not even in the same playing field – fuck that it’s not even the same sport – as one has tons of contemporaneous attestation while the other has NOTHING for 40 years. Don’t be a fucking idiot.

 

In fact, according to your logic, the resurrection – in order to be appropriately compared and analogized to Gettysburg – would need the following:

1.) Testimony from thousands of people of a variety of status’, including generals, politicians, civilians, followers, enemies, scholars, historians and even the emperor. All would need to be contemporaneous.

2.) Verification from outside empires would be needed to also establish the historicity of Jesus – like that of the Turks or the Egyptians.

3.) The archeological evidence would have to be ASTOUNDING! We would need to find birth records of the apostles and Jesus, of Mary and Joseph, of John the Baptist – we would need pottery, oil lamps, plates, cups, inscribed coins, points of roman whips, the empty tomb, the fractures in the crust from the earthquakes and the empty graves of the saints as mentioned in the Gospels, DNA evidence, the knife of Peter, the centurions spear, etc… And we’d have to have additional attestation to these events as well – more then four unnamed, anonymous, late sources that all conflict.

4.) We’d need the actual written word of Jesus, or at least penned by a scribe while he dictated and made it clear that was the case.

You can’t present ANY of the above. The best analogy to the historicity of Christ and the events of the Gospel is better compared to the Legend of King Arthur and the sword in the stone. Both have the same amount of evidence (I think Jesus is less historically accurate actually), both have no attestation, no physical evidence, no basis what so ever – and both were equally as supernatural, both had heroes and villains, an oppressive people, etc…

You want to make analogies, make them the correct way and don’t just assume, as we all know what assuming does – right? It makes an ass out of you…

Quote:
Of course, no rational person would deny that the battle of Gettysburg occurred, because conflicting accounts over various details of an historical event do not invalidate the historicity of the event as a whole.

However the Gospel accounts are not historical narratives, as also explained in detail in my blog. Read also What Is A Gospel, by Talbert.

Quote:
Returning to the Resurrection accounts, all four Gospels are in agreement on the only points that matter: That Christ was crucified, died, and was placed in a tomb; that on the third day the women (all four Gospels include Mary Magdalene) came to the tomb, and found it empty, and in all four accounts, Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene, then to Peter and the other apostles.

Somebody just killed their argument. Really? All of these events are universally in agreement? Let’s look at them:

1. Christ was Placed in a Tomb – You would think the Gospel writers would get this detail right, and all in agreement? Wrong.

Mark 15:42-47

Matthew 27:57-66

Luke 23:50-56

John 19:38-42

42. And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,

 

43. Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.

44. And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.

45. And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.

 

 

 

46. And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.

47. And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.

 

 

57. When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:

58. He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.

59. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

60. And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

61. And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.

62. Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,

63. Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

64. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

65. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.

66. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

 

 

50. And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:

 

 

 


51.
(The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of themEye-wink he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.

52. This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.

53. And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.

54. And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.

55. And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.


56. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

38. And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.

39. And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

 

 


40.
Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

 

 


41. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.

42. There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

 

 

According to this chart, there are several discrepancies which beg to differ. For example, two Gospels paint Joseph as a disciple of Christ, while two paint him as a councilor. One has a story about a centurion going to the cross to check if Jesus was actually dead which the others do not contain, and another has the story of the Pharisees rolling the stone slab over the door of the tomb, while the others have Joseph closing the stone lab himself. Two have Mary Magdalene was with him, one says only Nicodemus. This is FAR from any sort of agreement. Lets continue because things only get worse for you.

2. Third Day Resurrection – you think that the Resurrection happened within three days? Perhaps you can’t count.

Mark 15:37

Mark 15:42

Mark 16:9

Matt. 28:1

And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath

Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Combining these verses prove that this 3 days and 3 nights prophecy in Matt. 12:40 has failed utterly. Mark 15 shows that Jesus died on the day before the Sabbath which is Friday and Mark 16:9/Matt. 28:1 shows that Jesus rose on Saturday night or Sunday morning. This is hardly three days and three nights. It is barely a day and a half.

And even if some of these details are in agreement that doesn’t change the fact that these other details are in conflict. In fact it again makes the point that

Subverting the fundamental agreement of all four Gospel accounts on the basis of minor (and ultimately irrelevant) discrepancies in eyewitness accounts is simply dishonest scholarship.

Quote:
You continue:

Quote:
"The second problem that Dennis brings up is, "Why should the Resurrection be of such significance." He makes the following list to support the many 'resurrections' which occurred before, during and after Jesus."

More intellectual dishonesty. The list of resurrections occurring "before, during and after Jesus" certainly proves the author's willingness to pad his conclusions with blatant misrepresentations.

First, I’m not dishonest – you’re just projecting. Are you seriously going to suggest these resurrections didn’t happen?

Quote:
His first example, 1 Samuel 28:7-15, is not a resurrection at all, but Saul conferring with Samuel's spirit through the aid of a medium;

Talk about dishonesty - Elijah raised a child from the dead (1Kings 17:17, 21-22) was my first example. If you can’t even read my essay how can you possibly comment on it? Are you this incredibly lost in your delusion that you’ll lie for it? You think this is right? Is this going to show me how to appropriately handle a historical essay - by making up facts?

As for 1 Samuel however, let’s look at this verse.

“Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor. And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee. And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die? And Saul sware to her by the LORD, saying, As the LORD liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing. Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel. And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul. And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself. And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.”

He used a medium to bring Paul from the earth – the woman did not speak FOR Samuel but Samuel himself spoke – in the form of an old man – whom had arisen from the earth. This is a resurrection.

Quote:
the examples from Ezekiel are not resurrections, but resuscitations (the original Hebrew does not use the word for 'resurrection&#39Eye-wink;

Unfortunately the Greek doesn’t agree with you, Gawd. There is no difference between resuscitation and resurrection. In fact to claim there is, is a direct confliction with what we know of the Greek words used to describe the resurrection of Christ by even Paul and the Gospel writers. Below is another slide from Carrier in his debate with Licona:

Quote:
his citing of Luke 9:28-30 ignores the context, which is a vision given to Peter, John and James of the Transfiguration--the event is significant in that it acknowledges Jesus fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, but no physical resurrection occurs here, either.

Please, you want to really get into this? Well whether you want to or not we are going to.

Luke 9:28-30, “And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering. And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:”

The Greek:

εγενετο δε μετα τους λογους τουτους ωσει ημεραι οκτω και παραλαβων τον πετρον και ιωαννην και ιακωβον ανεβη εις το ορος προσευξασθαι. και εγενετο εν τω προσευχεσθαι αυτον το ειδος του προσωπου αυτου ετερον και ο ιματισμος αυτου λευκος εξαστραπτων. και ιδου ανδρες δυο συνελαλουν αυτω οιτινες ησαν μωσης και ηλιας

The problem with your absurd rationalization is that “vision” does not describe this incident at all. Not only is that explanation not in the text (the author of Luke does not seem to include “vision” in the sense that the disciples saw anything made of pneuma) but the Greek doesn’t even allow for this sort of understanding of the verse.

The Greek word which would have been perfect for your rationalization is phasma or φασμα. The definition of this word is so perfect for your claimed “vision” experience it would be absurd for the author of Luke not to use it. According to the LSJ, this word means apparition, phantom, appearance, phenomenon, spectral appearance. This word does not appear in the Greek at all.

In verse 31, the Greek word φθντες is used. The word is from the root of which is οραω or horao which is “sight” in this case – as they physically saw something. (Or more appropriately they stared at it!) In no way can this be construed to mean “vision” in the sense that the disciples saw a spiritual manifestation instead of a physical one.

Quote:
A handful of resurrections over the course of thousands of years hardly makes for "commonplace".

What about the resurrection of the saints? In the time of the NT it seems that people are resurrected everywhere! Don’t overstate your case, aside from the fact you have none, it makes you look more and more foolish.

Quote:
An observation: You and the authors you heavily reference seem intent upon changing the nature of Scripture at a whim--alternating between hyper-literalism and pure allegory whenever it suits your argument.

You mean…like you just did? Don’t project. You can’t even read my entire blog post before replying – you have no room for criticism here, bud.

Quote:
You continue:

Quote:
"Dennis states, "So why attribute so much importance to the event. By the time Christ rose from the dead this was a rather common occurrence. Moreover, people not only before Jesus but after as well." This is a very astute point and I would expect nothing less from my esteemed friend on the matter. As it was stated by Hume that "such prodigious events never happen in our days" when in the days of the scripture they were as common as there were men alive.

Hume wasn't taking a stab at religion here, merely trying to get the point across that it was odd that miracles have simply vanished from reality while if somebody rose from the dead in Jesus' day, it was just another normal occurrence of a prophet summoning the power of God."

First, the claim that miracles have "simply vanished" is certainly debatable, but I'm more interested in the argument of why people in the time of Jesus should be impressed by resurrection, if it was such a common occurrence.

That isn’t just a question but a refutation. Congrats you just dug another hole for yourself.

Quote:
If it were as common as you suggest, then indeed--why would anyone believe it?

Another hole. You are merely exposing the flaws of your Bible and your dogma. I didn’t create such a contradictory system – YOUR religion did. I know it’s absurd to believe in such things – you’re the one who is trying to defend it remember?

Quote:
How could Christianity, based solely on what is argued to be a mundane claim of the miraculous, spread so rapidly throughout the Mediterranean and Asia Minor--areas that you argue were already rife with claims of god-men and miraculous resurrections?

Because such ideas as God-Men and resurrections were so popular. It stands to reason that it was a popular ideology – which is why so much of the tenants of Christianity reflect that of earlier mystery religions like Orphism and Zoroastrianism. Christians also were not afraid to kill or destroy works that opposed them – the aforementioned Greek mystery cults did NOT do those things – as the Gnostics, they believed every ideology and religion has some semblance of wisdom to be attained from it. Christians, on the other hand, felt that knowledge and wisdom were secondary to obedience to God, and as stated, often rid themselves and others of things which opposed that ideal.

And you ignore the fact that, as stated in my blog and earlier, that such a large divergence of Christianity existed in the first few centuries. As even Celsus stated in 178 CE:

“At the start of their movement, they were very few in number and unified in purpose. Since that time, they have spread all around and now number in the thousands. It is not surprising, therefore, that there are divisions among them – factions of all sorts, each wanting to have its own territory. Nor is it surprising that these factions have become so numerous, the various parties have taken to condemning each other, so that they have only one thing – if that – in common: the name “Christian.” But despite clinging proudly to their name, in most other respects they are at odds. I suppose, however, that it is more amazing that there are any points of agreement at all, given the fact that their belief rests on no solid foundation.” (Celsus, On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians; Christian Doctrine Compared to that of the Greeks, Hoffman)

And as per why they gained popularity so quickly, Celsus also states, “Now, it will be wondered how men so disparate in their beliefs can persuade others to join their ranks. The Christians use sundry methods of persuasion, and invent a number of terrifying incentives.” (ibid.)

Paul even states, “But never the less, crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by treacherous deceit.” (2 Cor. 12:16)

Quote:
You argue that no historian of note from that area and region comments on the miracles routinely performed by Christians as proof positive that they are outright inventions--if this be the case, then how could 12 ordinary men convince so many to abandon one set of identical beliefs for another?

They are able to convince people because ordinary men are generally stupid and gullible. Historians are not stupid and not gullible. Of course, this begs the question that there were 12 disciples in the first place. And as I have already explained in my blog entry – not only do miraculous events in antiquity help boost your prestige but it was also a common place to cite things without any sort of evidence. Dreams and visions were cited not only by Christians but Pagan of their Gods and in the same manner as Christians before and after Christianity.

More importantly, Paul recounts and makes it very clear in Galatians that he had a DIRECT revelation, and states explicitly that he did not receive testimony from a man – this is important because it was considered MORE valid to have a direct vision instead of hearsay. This is evidenced by Paul over and over.

Quote:
You write:

Quote:
"The third major problem connected with the resurrection is the contradiction between the ideology of the resurrection of the dead in the Old and New testaments. This will later be explained in the chapter to follow on Paul, however there are some key verses that need to be considered. For example, take Eccle. 3:19-21, "For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same: as one dies so dies the other. ...man has no advantage over beasts;... All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth." (See Also: Job 7:9-10, 1 Tim. 6:15-16, Isaiah 26:14)"

The notion that the ideology of the resurrection of the dead in the Old Testament can be gleaned from handful of verses taken out of context is a hasty generalization. You commit the same error of logic that many Fundamentalist Christians do when trying to support their erroneous arguments: you fail to account for the greater context, e.g., the literary style of the writer, the social/political environment in which it was written, and the overall message that the author is attempting to convey.

Actually it is YOU who are doing this – the Jews had no concept of an immortal soul before the Greeks – this is why the New Testament is so different from the Old – because the New Testament is from direct inspiration of the Greek myths which proceeded it for example Orphism which I wet into detail about in my blog! I know you didn’t get past the third section now.

Quote:
The text of the Bible is a narrative of the relationship between God and Man, and encompasses the entire spectrum of human emotion and experience, yet you wrongly assume that a handful of verses isolated from their context are sufficient to reduce this complex relationship down to a single proposition.

No, actually, I don’t feel that way at all.

Quote:
You continue:

Quote:
"Robert Ingersoll remarked on this issue, "The Old Testament tells us how we lost immortality and it does not say a word about another world, from the first mistake in Genesis to the last curse in Malachi. No man in the Old Testament stands by the dead and says, "We shall meet again." From the top of Sinai came no hope of another world." ("Orthodoxy", Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 2, page 424)"

Another Straw Man.

Do you even know what a straw man is?! You have used this word some times in this post yet you don’t use it correctly. What am I straw manning? Who am I putting words in the mouth of? I was the one who was making the argument in the first place! I can’t put words in my own mouth!

Now if what you meant, and I think you did, was that this argument is irrelevant, I can only assume that is because you did not read the whole of the article – you barely read half of it. As far as I’m concerned, you haven’t even grasped the point – so you can’t be expected to attack it with anything short of credulity.

Quote:
While the Old Testament may not contain the word "resurrection", this in no way proves that the ideology was not present.

This is just like you – misrepresent the words of another purposefully to suit your case. Now THIS is a strawman argument! I nor Ingersoll never made the case that because the word “resurrection” never appeared in the OT that that is the reason why the Jews had no concept of the resurrection – rather it is because the OT is so firmly anti-afterlife that we come to this conclusion. I can provide many scripture verses to support this annhilistic ideology.

Quote:
Here are a few verses that you ignored:

"At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book. Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever." - Daniel 12:1-4

Note, that in verse 2 it states “MANY” not “ALL” in which this cannot be about the resurrection. It also says “some shall have everlasting life” – not all? Unless you are going to suggest that some people don’t have souls or can’t have a resurrection?

In fact, this is a direct reference to Daniel 11:33. Talk about not understanding the times and culture of the day – this book deals specifically with the persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes during the time of Babylonian captivity. It has nothing to do with actual resurrection.

Quote:
"Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For your dew is a radiant dew, and the earth will give birth to those long dead.' - Isaiah 26:19

Again, you are not understanding the times of the book and the political climate of the day. The dead is Israel – which will be restored in the times of the messianic age. It is Israel who shall be restored and brought back to life – NOT people. (Eerdman’s Commentary on the Bible, Pp. 516-17)

Quote:
"O that my words were written down! O that they were inscribed in a book! O that with an iron pen and with lead they were engraved on a rock forever! For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he shall stand upon the earth; and after my skin has been thus destroyed, then in my flesh shall I see God, whom I shall see on my side, and my eyes shall behold, and not another." Job - 19:23

While these verses do not definitively establish the doctrine of the resurrection of the body in detail as the Gospels do, they nevertheless clearly show that the idea was not as foreign to the people of Israel as you claim.

I never claimed it was foreign – straw man. I stated it was uncommon and the resurrection that did occur only happened to the elite or the temple priests who would be resurrected as sons of God. Also, in fact, there is speculation that Chapters 24-27 of Isaiah were later additions, which would be interesting.

Quote:
Concerning Paul and his understanding of the Resurrection, you have written much, and I will not waste much time quoting individual parts, however your assessment of Paul is predicated on an erroneous understanding of the nature of the Resurrection, as taught by the Church.

Dishonesty abounds. I know you didn’t bother reading past Section III.

Quote:
Although you quote the Catechism at the beginning of your blog, you quote selectively, and ignore the greater context.

Don’t be foolish! What I used was equivalent to understanding the resurrection doctrine. If anybody is being selective it’s you – in not showing how I erred. I wasn’t trying to prove the Catechism was wrong or right, as you are going to attempt in the following verses, and where you inadequately misrepresented my position – just as you misrepresent the verses you supplied. I used it merely to establish the general ideology of the resurrection as it pertained to specific points I was making. There was no need to quote it any more then I did.

Quote:
The Church has always taught that at the resurrection, our immortal souls will be reunited with our mortal bodies--the same body that we died in.

But this is simply not true. Origen certainly didn’t, and neither did Paul, as sown above and in my blog.

Quote:
However, this body will be a "glorified body", granted by God "incorruptible life by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus' Resurrection". CCC 997

But what exactly this “glorified” body is, is exactly what is in dispute. By not only the church and its many denominations hundreds of years ago – but also in our own day and age.

Quote:
The Catechism teaches clearly how this resurrection will occur:

"Christ is raised with his own body: 'See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself'; but did not return to an earthly life. So, in him, 'all of them will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear,' but Christ 'will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body,' into a 'spiritual body.' Phil. 3:21, 1 Cor. 15:44

And I’ve VERY clearly shown how Paul does not discuss this same body system in 1 Corinthians 15, another example of you NOT READING.

Quote:
“This 'how' exceeds our imagination and understanding; it is accessible only to faith. Yet our participation in the Eucharist already gives us a foretaste of Christ's transfiguration of our bodies: Just as bread that comes from the earth, after God's blessing has been invoked upon it, is no longer ordinary bread, but Eucharist, formed of two things, the one earthly and the other heavenly: so too our bodies, which partake of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possess the hope of resurrection." - CCC 999-1000

While we will be raised in the bodies we died in, that mortal body will be transformed--"glorified" through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ--it is the same body, but new, spiritual, and wholly incorruptible. How does this compare to Paul's understanding? Paul writes in Romans 6:4-5,

"Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in the newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be reunited with him in a resurrection like his."

Don’t be a fool. I’ve already covered all of this. The problem is you don’t read. There is no way this is referring to a same-body resurrection.

Quote:
"A resurrection like his". And what was Christ's resurrection like? The Catechism states:

"By means of touch and the sharing of a meal, the risen Jesus establishes direct contact with his disciples. He invites them in this way to recognize that he is not a ghost and above all to verify that the risen body in which he appears to them is the same body that had been tortured and crucified, for it still bears traces of his passion. Yet at the same time this authentic, real body possesses the new properties of a glorious body: not limited by space and time but able to be present how and where it wills; for Christ's humanity can no longer be confined to earth and belongs henceforth only to the Father's divine realm. For this reason too the risen Jesus enjoys the sovereign freedom of appearing as he wishes: in the guise of a gardener or in other forms familiar to his disciples, precisely to awaken their faith" - CCC 645

I find no contradiction between what Paul says about the resurrection, and what the Church teaches--in this regard, your argument is nothing but smoke and mirrors, altering the meaning of the text to suit your preconceived notions.

Of course you don’t, because you didn’t bother to read it. You had to use the CCC because you and I both know this doctrine is NOT Pauline in any fashion. If it were you’d have picked a verse in Paul to explain what the CCC had to. The problem I that you can’t because the concept of a same-body resurrection is not Pauline but a doctrine developed later.

Case in point: You can’t act as if you know a subject if you’re going to not even read it – you have shown your dishonesty and I won’t stand for it. You’re a liar and a troll. You have been refuted.

Just to continue making my case a bit more however, the following prove that Origen did not believe in a same-body resurrection doctrine:

“Our Saviour also, after the resurrection, when old things had already passed away, and all things had become new, Himself a new man, and the first-born from the dead,” (Origen, De Principiis 1:3:7)

 

“But now, also, for the sake of logical order in our treatise, there will be no absurdity in restating a few points from such works, especially since some take offence at the creed of the Church, as if our belief in the resurrection were foolish, and altogether devoid of sense; and these are principally heretics, who, I think, are to be answered in the following manner. If they also admit that there is a resurrection of the dead, let them answer us this, What is that which died? Was it not a body? It is of the body, then, that there will be a resurrection. Let them next tell us if they think that we are to make use of bodies or not. I think that when the Apostle Paul says, that "it is sown a natural body, it will arise a spiritual body," they cannot deny that it is a body which arises, or that in the resurrection we are to make use of bodies. What then? If it is certain that we are to make use of bodies, and if the bodies which have fallen are declared to rise again (for only that which before has fallen can be properly said to rise again), it can be a matter of doubt to no one that they rise again, in order that we may be clothed with them a second time at the resurrection. The one thing is closely connected with the other. For if bodies rise again, they undoubtedly rise to be coverings for us; and if it is necessary for us to be invested with bodies, as it is certainly necessary, we ought to be invested with no other than our own. But if it is true that these rise again, and that they arise "spiritual" bodies, there can be no doubt that they are said to rise from the dead, after casting away corruption and laying aside mortality; otherwise it will appear vain and superfluous for any one to arise from the dead in order to die a second time. And this, finally, may be more distinctly comprehended thus, if one carefully consider what are the qualities of an animal body, which, when sown into the earth, recovers the qualities of a spiritual body. For it is out of the animal body that the very power and grace of the resurrection educe the spiritual body, when it transmutes it from a condition of indignity to one of glory.” (Origen, De Principiis 2:10:1)

 

“We now turn our attention to some of our own (believers), who, either from feebleness of intellect or want of proper instruction, adopt a very low and abject view of the resurrection of the body. We ask these persons in what manner they understand that an animal body is to be changed by the grace of the resurrection, and to become a spiritual one; and how that which is sown in weakness will arise in power; how that which is planted in dishonour will arise in glory; and that which was sown in corruption, will be changed to a state of incorruption. Because if they believe the apostle, that a body which arises in glory, and power, and incorruptibility, has already become spiritual, it appears absurd and contrary to his meaning to say that it can again be entangled with the passions of flesh and blood, seeing the apostle manifestly declares that "flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God, nor shall corruption inherit incorruption." But how do they understand the declaration of the apostle, "We shall all be changed?" This transformation certainly is to be looked for, according to the order which we have taught above; and in it, undoubtedly, it becomes us to hope for something worthy of divine grace; and this we believe will take place in the order in which the apostle describes the sowing in the ground of a "bare grain of corn, or of any other fruit," to which "God gives a body as it pleases Him," as soon as the grain of corn is dead.” (Origen, De Principiis, 2:10:3) 

Perhaps I’ll add more to this list later.

Let this be a lesson to anybody – if you plan to tangle with the major leaguers, know what the hell it is you’re trying to refute.  Especially if you pl to attack me personally, and make false claims, I would at least fact-check those claims.  Chances are it will be the only fact checking you do anyway.  I will not stand for dishonesty. 

 

MacGawd is banned for his blanant dishonesty in this thread and his trolling, his ad hominem's and a few other things.  All one needs to do is read to see the lies and deceit in his words.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
I enjoyed reading this. =)

I enjoyed reading this. =)


M
Theist
Posts: 68
Joined: 2007-02-04
User is offlineOffline
First, let me note that I

First, let me note that I merely skimmed this little rebuttal in an attempt to understand you Mr. Hawkins and your expertise. I looked through the majority of this short debate and some of your blog, but I just really wanted to touch up on some of the issues you bring to the table in hopes that you will accept a proposition of mine at the end. The things I do not feel like debating I have taken out simply to save time and my sleeping schedule.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:


First I just want to state that dishonesty is not tolerated here. If you are going to make such a dishonest claim, provide me a citation where I quoted verbatim anybody without citing source? If not, I demand an apology – if I do not get one expect this to be a warning. You only get one. After this, any other dishonest claims not supported without apology will be met with banning.

That is good that you do not tolerate dishonesty; however, if I may be blunt, it appears very dishonest that you would claim that this man would only recieve a warning (even if he didn't apologize) after your response...yet at the end of your response you banned him. Unless I'm missing something here please correct me and I will apologize.




Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Quote:
is built upon a faulty premise--namely, that Christian theology finds its basis in the texts of the New Testament, and that any inconsistencies, whether real or imagined, somehow "prove" the artifice. In point of fact, the New Testament is a book of the Church, not the other way around; its texts do not comprise a complete picture of Christian theology, nor do they claim to.

You often do not read your bible, do you?

  • "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminsh from it" (Deut. 12:32)
  • "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Prov. 30:6).
  • And we can't forget the most chilling one from Rev. 22:18-19, "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book."

Adding theology that is outside the realm of the Bible is condemnable.

Hmm. The first citation you made was in reference to the Mosaic Law (Torah) not the "Bible". The second quote, taken from Proverbs, is in reference to all that God speaks and is recorded. This does not necessarily mean that all that God spoke was recorded or that we have found all recordings. The third quotation I cannot understand why you used, as it is only in reference to adding to the Revelation as seen by the author John...unless you can somehow prove it is mentioning all of the Biblical documents.

I believe you have used these quotations to suit your limited view. I don't know if I would go so far as to say that you are being dishonest, but I certainly will call you wrong.

Furthermore, I agree that adding theology outside the realm of the Bible is condemnable, but what is debatable is what is 'outside the realm of the Bible' as well as if something not explicitly recorded is condemned by the Bible or not. We have and use Theology to understand the Bible and to also understand greater things not explicitly stated in the Bible.


 

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Your knowledge of scripture and church history is pathetic. Bart Ehrman and Bruce Metzger have written extensively on the corruption of scripture and doctrine by the church throughout the history of the church. In fact, Ehrman would find huge fault in your words.

Probably, but what of other scholars that oppose Ehrman and Metzger. I am aware of their opinions, but I am wondering if you viewed others before coming to these conclusions?

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Price also makes it very well known the fact that Paul’s letters weren’t even COLLECTED until Marcion in the second century – and Marcion was a heretic! Even more damning to your case is the fact that heresiologists already existed in the second century – the fact proves that even EARLY Christians were differing in what the doctrine of the church was. The following is part of Page 3 of Bart Ehrman’s The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Christological Controversies in the Text of the New Testament;


To claim as you do that these doctrines were unattested by the church through the centuries is not only ignorant, it’s preposterous. There was certainly problems with understanding doctrines. Both the Gnostics and Anti-Gnostics, Adoptionists, Sarssisists and Mystics were all claiming the truth of Christ and all had decidedly unconventional ideologies compared to each other.

This was the state of chaos (and it was chaotic) in the first four centuries. It wasn’t until Arius challenged the council as per determining a way to foundationalize scripture and dogma to explain the controversies OF scripture. Eusebius documented the proceedings as well as others.

 

It seems to I that you are only using the authority of those that oppose the the idea that the records of the early Church (NT) were corrupted, without really looking into other scholars views. I could be wrong mind you, so please correct me. Also, I really don't see how a division is ideas makes the case for a corrupted set of documents. And yes, they all had different ideologies, but you seem to leave out the factor that they also incorporated many of their previous ideologies to support their newly found beliefs in the Christ. The Stoics are a prime example.

 

Furthermore, let us note that Marcion became a heretic and was not always so. I don't even know why this is really relevant to begin with (him being a heretic), but the Pauline Epistles were already circulating before his time (as also noted by Eusebius), he merely collected them in opposition to the Tanakh, so as to have a set of his own scriptures because of his idea that the Old Testament God and the New Testament God were radically different personas. It was until after him that the early church fathers began to see the importance of Apostolic sucession and the creation of an official cannon to combat the heretics.

 



Rook_Hawkins wrote:

The Gospel accounts are not eyewitnesses. Even early Church fathers observed this fact. Eusebius even corrects Papias on the subject of Matthews eye-witness status (which in itself is ironic) in Ecclesiastical History III:XXXIX: 12-19. Even stating as much that Papias was a man of little intelligence and often delved into false doctrine produced by others no on fault of hi own wanting to commit heresy but rather that he just didn’t know better – and that it is mainly the fault of Papias that the others whom followed, like that of Iraeneus, were steered in the wrong direction on the example of this very issue!

What? If you are implying that Papias was being corrected for believing that Matthew was an eye-witness then I'm sorry, but you must have severely misread those documents. I happen to have a copy of of "The History of the Church", by Eusebius in my library and Eusebius states nothing of the sort. III:XXIV: 1-13 states that Matthew and John, the eyewitnesses of the Christ's life, wrote their Gospels down. Both of them wrote as though "in necessity". Only Lukes and Marks are considered by Eusebius to be second hand accounts. And in saying so he declares that Mark's gospel was the second one written, directly from the mouth of Peter the Apostle.

Furthermore, Eusebius certainly does think little of Papias, but he does not correct Papias in the manner of which you may be implying. I assume you are stating that Papias believed Matthew to be an eyewitness account and that Eusebius was correcting this 'lie'. I assume you are talking about III:XXXIX 15:

Eusebius, 'History of the Church' wrote:
"Of Matthew he [Papias] has this to say: Matthew compiled the Sayings in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could."

...which is contrary to what Eusebius declares about Matthew and his gospel in III:XXIV: 1-13:

Eusebius, 'History of the Church' wrote:
"Matthew had begun by preaching to Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote."

 

Furthermore, Eusebius also attributes a false story about Mark fabricated by Papias in III:XXX:15

And lastly, obviously Eusebius is going to attribute 'errors' in manners of Theology to Papias, which passed down to Ireaneus. He did in fact believe basically everything Origen did at the time of writing this, which was a rather liberal usage of allegorizing the text.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
No scholar today of worth feels the Gospels were eyewitnesses.

If you mean that none of them were then I would have to disagree on your 'scholars of worth' comment. That's a nice way to poison the well and all, but other than that there isn't much going there.


 

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Please, you want to really get into this? Well whether you want to or not we are going to.

Luke 9:28-30, “And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering. And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:”

The Greek:

εγενετο δε μετα τους λογους τουτους ωσει ημεραι οκτω και παραλαβων τον πετρον και ιωαννην και ιακωβον ανεβη εις το ορος προσευξασθαι. και εγενετο εν τω προσευχεσθαι αυτον το ειδος του προσωπου αυτου ετερον και ο ιματισμος αυτου λευκος εξαστραπτων. και ιδου ανδρες δυο συνελαλουν αυτω οιτινες ησαν μωσης και ηλιας

The problem with your absurd rationalization is that “vision” does not describe this incident at all. Not only is that explanation not in the text (the author of Luke does not seem to include “vision” in the sense that the disciples saw anything made of pneuma) but the Greek doesn’t even allow for this sort of understanding of the verse.

The Greek word which would have been perfect for your rationalization is phasma or φασμα. The definition of this word is so perfect for your claimed “vision” experience it would be absurd for the author of Luke not to use it. According to the LSJ, this word means apparition, phantom, appearance, phenomenon, spectral appearance. This word does not appear in the Greek at all.

In verse 31, the Greek word φθντες is used. The word is from the root of which is οραω or horao which is “sight” in this case – as they physically saw something. (Or more appropriately they stared at it!) In no way can this be construed to mean “vision” in the sense that the disciples saw a spiritual manifestation instead of a physical one.

 

You are completely limiting the Greek in this instance. With this sort of argument I suppose you dismiss the vision of Peter in Acts 10 to be an actual physical appearance because the word 'horao' is mentioned in conjunction with the word "horama" (vision). Unless you really do see the vision of the blanket and animals as a truly physical appearance than I suppose you can be consistent, but I really wouldn't understand justification for that.

Furthermore, he obtains his interpretation of this event being a "vision" from the same story in Matthew, where the Christ tells His desciples to not tell this horama to anyone (Matt. 17:9). And if you want to appeal to Eusebius so much as you have done in this rebuttal I suggest you also note that he and many others believed in his time that Matthew was the first Gospel written, which would therefore allow for this interpretation to be valid in light of the fact that Luke was written later.

 

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Paul even states, “But never the less, crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by treacherous deceit.” (2 Cor. 12:16)

Well this should be obvious as sarcasm. Before you say "pffft" hear me out. Throughout much of 2 Corinthians Paul is defending his ministry and his Apostleship. He even declares in 2 Corinthians 11:13 that there are "false apostles, decietful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ." 

It would seem unreasonable that he would declare that he is being decietful after denouncing those that decieve others. Furthermore, if you read the passage before and after the one you quoted you will get a better grasps of the sarcasm:

NASB, 2 Corinthians 12:15-17 wrote:
I will most gladly spend and be expended for your souls If I love you more, am I to be loved less?

 But be that as it may, I did not burden you myself; nevertheless, crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by deceit.

  Certainly I have not taken advantage of you through any of those whom I have sent to you, have I?






As for everything else I have my beliefs and studies behind me as well; however I am also tired and wish to go to bed. The primary reason for this reply, though, was to ask if you could unban Gawd. In recognizing your own limitations and errors above that I believe I have pointed out rather clearly, I ask of you to please unban him. If not in recognizing that, at least in the fact that you first declared a warning and then you instead banned him (which would be an act of dishonesty).

In doing this I will have a little chit-chat with him and try to get him to apologize for his tone in this thread.

And don't worry. In due time you and I will have our day of debate.

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
macgawd was also present in

macgawd was also present in the chatroom and earned his ban there as well in my opinion.

I pointed out his baseless accusations first. He responded with more as well as quoted articles that were five(almost six) years old from people that have since altered their opinions.

The comments with regard to the scriptures being altered is due to the fact that the catechism has twisted the scriptures to the church's ends and excused that with disclaimers referencing the holy spirit as guidance.

There are 36 hours in between that you must not have seen between base accusation and bye-bye.

This was posted 5 days prior in another thread:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/the_rational_response_squad/4578

macgawd wrote:
First, the people with webcams are Sapient's personal groupies, and will happily eat the corn out of his shit at his bidding--don't expect any independent thought there. Second, Sapient and his ilk will make any absurd claim to avoid rational discussion; saying you are "nothing", or that your views are "irrational because you make up your own definitions" are simply ways of evading the discussion. If you listen to Sapient, you realize quickly that he doesn't know very much about anything, which is why his "debates" always degrade into an angry tirade of invectives and personal insults against his opponent, until that opponent simply gives up in frustration. At which point, Sapient declares "victory", and his mindless thrall of lackeys will all sing the praises of Sapient with insipid comments of how he "pwned".

That was quite enough in my opinion. I am no 'mindless lackey' and I don't 'sing praises' to anyone unworthy on a case by case basis. (ask me about the 'humanist challenge' sometime for an example.) If you think that this thread was the reason then you need to read more of the site. And that needs to be the last off-topic post in this thread.

 

 

I can't wait to read the next installment in this ON-GOING study, but it had better be a discussion with regard to material and NOT a place to attack people with baseless accusations or it just makes for more frustration.

Also, I'll freely admit to being a Rook groupie because so far everything he has offered has been honest, verifiable, and presented in a learnable format for a layman such as I. In other words, the more you guys can 'dumb down' the conversation the better for me and the others reading. I'm with you both so far please don't lose me. lol.

I realize that you were tired, but it makes it easier for thread continuity if you post responses to each piece in a reply for everyone. That also helps with honesty because then it doesn't look like you're specifically avoiding something that makes you 'uncomfortable'.

Since this thread is on the resurrection and its problems, I'd really like to just hear about that.

I've got a plethora of questions with regard to the other stuff preceding this alleged 'event' so let's get to the 'meat' here. pun intended.

phasma for horao would seem more logical unless it was meant to be deliberately misleading (in my unscholarly opinion) because there is a difference between dream and ghost. Why not ὀπτασία optasuia throughout? (I don't know why that bolded after I pasted the greek) Isn't that because just like Rook said that it would be more of a phasma in this instance unless it was all a dream?

If that sounded retarded please remember that I'm just learning.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Roly1976
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Wonder if anyone (esp Rook)

Wonder if anyone (esp Rook) has seen the BBC documentary Did Jesus Die?  Think it's been aired in USA, but can't see it available on DVD, and only bits on YouTube.  Basically raises a lot of resurrection contradictions and questions, eg the herbs joseph brought are for healing not embalming apparently, and looks at stories that Jesus went off preaching to Kashmir, where there's an incongruous east-west tomb with a memorial of footmarks with crucifiction wounds...  It's really good, done by a director called Richard Denton who I believe has worked with Dawkins before etc.  Doc was based I think on this book on Amazon http://www.amazon.co.uk/Saving-Savior-Christ-Survive-Crucifixion/dp/0970828012 though I haven't read it...


M
Theist
Posts: 68
Joined: 2007-02-04
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: macgawd

darth_josh wrote:

macgawd was also present in the chatroom and earned his ban there as well in my opinion.

I pointed out his baseless accusations first. He responded with more as well as quoted articles that were five(almost six) years old from people that have since altered their opinions.

The comments with regard to the scriptures being altered is due to the fact that the catechism has twisted the scriptures to the church's ends and excused that with disclaimers referencing the holy spirit as guidance.

There are 36 hours in between that you must not have seen between base accusation and bye-bye.

This was posted 5 days prior in another thread:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/the_rational_response_squad/4578

macgawd wrote:
First, the people with webcams are Sapient's personal groupies, and will happily eat the corn out of his shit at his bidding--don't expect any independent thought there. Second, Sapient and his ilk will make any absurd claim to avoid rational discussion; saying you are "nothing", or that your views are "irrational because you make up your own definitions" are simply ways of evading the discussion. If you listen to Sapient, you realize quickly that he doesn't know very much about anything, which is why his "debates" always degrade into an angry tirade of invectives and personal insults against his opponent, until that opponent simply gives up in frustration. At which point, Sapient declares "victory", and his mindless thrall of lackeys will all sing the praises of Sapient with insipid comments of how he "pwned".

That was quite enough in my opinion. I am no 'mindless lackey' and I don't 'sing praises' to anyone unworthy on a case by case basis. (ask me about the 'humanist challenge' sometime for an example.) If you think that this thread was the reason then you need to read more of the site. And that needs to be the last off-topic post in this thread.

 

 

I can't wait to read the next installment in this ON-GOING study, but it had better be a discussion with regard to material and NOT a place to attack people with baseless accusations or it just makes for more frustration.

Also, I'll freely admit to being a Rook groupie because so far everything he has offered has been honest, verifiable, and presented in a learnable format for a layman such as I. In other words, the more you guys can 'dumb down' the conversation the better for me and the others reading. I'm with you both so far please don't lose me. lol.

I realize that you were tired, but it makes it easier for thread continuity if you post responses to each piece in a reply for everyone. That also helps with honesty because then it doesn't look like you're specifically avoiding something that makes you 'uncomfortable'.

Since this thread is on the resurrection and its problems, I'd really like to just hear about that.

I've got a plethora of questions with regard to the other stuff preceding this alleged 'event' so let's get to the 'meat' here. pun intended.

phasma for horao would seem more logical unless it was meant to be deliberately misleading (in my unscholarly opinion) because there is a difference between dream and ghost. Why not ὀπτασία optasuia throughout? (I don't know why that bolded after I pasted the greek) Isn't that because just like Rook said that it would be more of a phasma in this instance unless it was all a dream?

If that sounded retarded please remember that I'm just learning.

 

Well, it was also an issue of merely trying to get him unbanned, because while I thought he had a poor tone and was misled elsewhere, I thought he might also be promising if he calmed down a bit and thought about what he was saying.

Furthermore, while Hawkins may be honest this doesn't make him immune to being wrong. If my assessment of some of his work is in fact true, these little errors should be noted as being quite odd to make for a professed historian.

And lastly, the word phasma is not required to describe a vision, which is why I said that Rook was limiting the Greek in this sense. The vision in Acts 10 proves just as much of this. No Greek writer had to explicitly point out that something was 'like a dream' in order for people to understand the nature of the vision.

And simply speaking in technicalities, what the disciples saw on the Mt. was not a dream (as they weren't sleeping when they saw it) and it can be argued that it was neither a ghost as well. 

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
First, let me note that I merely skimmed this little rebuttal in an attempt to understand you Mr. Hawkins and your expertise. I looked through the majority of this short debate and some of your blog, but I just really wanted to touch up on some of the issues you bring to the table in hopes that you will accept a proposition of mine at the end. The things I do not feel like debating I have taken out simply to save time and my sleeping schedule.

Perhaps then you should not have bothered replying – I do not appreciate people who skim. This is why scholarship based on full-reading is always going to be better then that based on laziness.

Quote:
Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

First I just want to state that dishonesty is not tolerated here. If you are going to make such a dishonest claim, provide me a citation where I quoted verbatim anybody without citing source? If not, I demand an apology – if I do not get one expect this to be a warning. You only get one. After this, any other dishonest claims not supported without apology will be met with banning.

That is good that you do not tolerate dishonesty; however, if I may be blunt, it appears very dishonest that you would claim that this man would only recieve a warning (even if he didn't apologize) after your response...yet at the end of your response you banned him. Unless I'm missing something here please correct me and I will apologize.

I wrote my response over several days – in fact I had company so it did take quite a bit longer to finish. In that time he repeatedly had shown his dishonesty over and over, and also in the chat room, and also via e-mail. He earned his ban, I didn’t give it out freely.

I left this part in because I honestly forgot I had said it. Otherwise I may have taken it out to alleviate the problem – but earnestly it’s quite irrelevant, and it’s there now and I have no reason to remove it.

Quote:
Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Quote:

is built upon a faulty premise--namely, that Christian theology finds its basis in the texts of the New Testament, and that any inconsistencies, whether real or imagined, somehow "prove" the artifice. In point of fact, the New Testament is a book of the Church, not the other way around; its texts do not comprise a complete picture of Christian theology, nor do they claim to.

You often do not read your bible, do you?

  • "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminsh from it" (Deut. 12:32)
  • "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Prov. 30:6).
  • And we can't forget the most chilling one from Rev. 22:18-19, "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book."

Adding theology that is outside the realm of the Bible is condemnable.

Hmm. The first citation you made was in reference to the Mosaic Law (Torah) not the "Bible".

How is that? This is not the same God of the New Testament? His laws do not count outside all this? Then why does Jesus reiterate what is said here in Matt. 5:17-20?

I agree with you, however, that when this statement was written that it was directed at the 613 statutes. However, this is not my belief, and it isn’t my dogma – its YOUR dogma that makes the OT part of the Bible – and makes the bible scripture, and your God is still inspiring the NT, and giving out new laws in the NT. SO this phrase still applies to the NT according to your dogmatic ideology. And that is really what was being discussed here.

Quote:
The second quote, taken from Proverbs, is in reference to all that God speaks and is recorded. This does not necessarily mean that all that God spoke was recorded or that we have found all recordings.

But that’s quite irrelevant. If God “spoke” and his words were “recorded” then what WAS recorded had to be dictated perfectly – otherwise they weren’t inspired by a perfect God. This is a conundrum that has existed in theology for quite a long time. IF God is perfect, then everything God does must follow to be perfect – because imperfection can not come from perfection.

Quote:
The third quotation I cannot understand why you used, as it is only in reference to adding to the Revelation as seen by the author John...unless you can somehow prove it is mentioning all of the Biblical documents.

So then Revelations is the only book inspired by God? Come now, you are trying to be both a Christian and a Textual Critic – you can not be both I’m afraid, or perhaps you CAN be, but you’re still being dishonest with yourself. To claim that this verse only applies to Revelations is to admit that the rest of your Bible isn’t inspired by God at all. Might as well apply that to 2 Timothy 3:16 as well.

Quote:
I believe you have used these quotations to suit your limited view. I don't know if I would go so far as to say that you are being dishonest, but I certainly will call you wrong.

No, that is not the case at all, and in fact I believe it is you who is now being dishonest. I wouldn’t say you’re doing it willfully here, although maybe you are. MacGawd believes the Bible to be God’s word, as do you probably, and in so much as the Bible is concerned according to your belief the Bible must be perfect and it must be flawless, otherwise God did not inspire it, and therefore it isn’t God’s word. This is the very premise of the reason I used these verses. I fully know their usage via textual critics and scholars. But that is irrelevant as fr as my conversation with MacGawd – THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT SKIM REPLIES.

And I’m quite satisfied with your limited reaction based on your limited understanding of the big picture.

Quote:
Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Your knowledge of scripture and church history is pathetic. Bart Ehrman and Bruce Metzger have written extensively on the corruption of scripture and doctrine by the church throughout the history of the church. In fact, Ehrman would find huge fault in your words.

Probably, but what of other scholars that oppose Ehrman and Metzger. I am aware of their opinions, but I am wondering if you viewed others before coming to these conclusions?

Because they are honestly NOT accurate scholarship. Who do you suppose I use? Strobel? Habermass? Bullucks – the texts are CLEARLY tampered with. We have evidence even in our earliest manuscripts! Look at the Vaticanus (which I have a copy of) and check out the Greek between the 1st and 2nd column of the page which contains the verses between 2 Thess. 3:11-18, Hebr. 1:1-22. Here’s a few images to help you:


And closer into the margin:


The Greek here is:αμαθης και κακε αφεν τον παλαιον μη μεταποιει

Literally, it is “Fool and knave, leave the old don’t alter!” or as Bart Ehrman and others have translated it, “Fool and knave, leave the old reading don’t change it!”

In all, there are dozens of cases where a scribe has altered either purposefully or ignorantly a line of text, especially when the text – such as is the case of the NT – is written in the form of scriptou continua.

The fact is anybody arguing for the non-corruption of the text is completely arrogant, ill-informed or straight-out lying. There have been so many revisions, altercations and discrepancies between the some 500,000 manuscripts we have that trying to claim they are perfect and unaltered is like suggesting a screen door is made out of solid oak paneling.

And Bart Ehrman used to be one of those people who thought the NT was accurate, 100% flawless – the fact that he has dropped such ideology makes him perfect for my case and for my example.

Also, Ehrman has also been proven to be a top scholar of the NT and of Textual Criticism.

Quote:
Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Price also makes it very well known the fact that Paul’s letters weren’t even COLLECTED until Marcion in the second century – and Marcion was a heretic! Even more damning to your case is the fact that heresiologists already existed in the second century – the fact proves that even EARLY Christians were differing in what the doctrine of the church was. The following is part of Page 3 of Bart Ehrman’s The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Christological Controversies in the Text of the New Testament;

To claim as you do that these doctrines were unattested by the church through the centuries is not only ignorant, it’s preposterous. There was certainly problems with understanding doctrines. Both the Gnostics and Anti-Gnostics, Adoptionists, Sarssisists and Mystics were all claiming the truth of Christ and all had decidedly unconventional ideologies compared to each other.

This was the state of chaos (and it was chaotic) in the first four centuries. It wasn’t until Arius challenged the council as per determining a way to foundationalize scripture and dogma to explain the controversies OF scripture. Eusebius documented the proceedings as well as others.

It seems to I that you are only using the authority of those that oppose the the idea that the records of the early Church (NT) were corrupted, without really looking into other scholars views.

Presuppose much? That’s some assumption, there M. I have looked over other “scholars” views on the subject. But their arguments are either out of date, based on faith, or highly corruptive themselves. Scholars like Carrier, Ehrman, Price, Metzger and Meyer have all proven to be top notch and highly dependable – they have all published well researched, high-quality peer reviewed papers. What sort of peer reviewed papers has Strobel or McDowell published? Licona?

It’s not like I’m using Gandy and Freke, or Kersey Graves, Frank Zindler or even Joseph Atwill – these are scholars who are generally unbias, well versed in languages, and have proven merit. I’m an honest enough person to know what the general scholarly consensus is on things – I don’t delve into fringe. On this particular subject, the Resurrection, 25% of bonifide scholars are in agreement with me – perhaps more. Including N.T. Wright, Richard Carrier and others.

Quote:
I could be wrong mind you, so please correct me.

Done.

Quote:
Also, I really don't see how a division is ideas makes the case for a corrupted set of documents.

Perhaps that is because you skimmed instead of reading.

Quote:
And yes, they all had different ideologies, but you seem to leave out the factor that they also incorporated many of their previous ideologies to support their newly found beliefs in the Christ. The Stoics are a prime example.

You BETTER explain that one.

Quote:
Furthermore, let us note that Marcion became a heretic and was not always so.

Irrelevant much?

Quote:
I don't even know why this is really relevant to begin with (him being a heretic), but the Pauline Epistles were already circulating before his time (as also noted by Eusebius),

So you’re going to use a 4th century source to verify a second century ideology? They may have been circulating but it would appear NOBODY knew of them before the second century. How is it that Justin Martyr knew nothing or said nothing of the Pauline Corpus? Why is it that Polycarp in 135 CE was the first to acknowledge them? Start using your head. Nobody USED Paul’s letters until Marcion collected them and put them into his canon.

Quote:
he merely collected them in opposition to the Tanakh, so as to have a set of his own scriptures because of his idea that the Old Testament God and the New Testament God were radically different personas.

Way to state the obvious Captain Obvious. But without Marcion nobody would have taken note to Pauline letters.

Quote:
It was until after him that the early church fathers began to see the importance of Apostolic sucession and the creation of an official cannon to combat the heretics.

You mean, it was important for the sect of Christianity that ultimately won over the sects which established the canon. Before the forth century there was no “universal” (Catholic) church – but thousands of smaller sects. As I’ve already shown was the case in several sources like that of Celsus.

 

Quote:
Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

The Gospel accounts are not eyewitnesses. Even early Church fathers observed this fact. Eusebius even corrects Papias on the subject of Matthews eye-witness status (which in itself is ironic) in Ecclesiastical History III:XXXIX: 12-19. Even stating as much that Papias was a man of little intelligence and often delved into false doctrine produced by others no on fault of hi own wanting to commit heresy but rather that he just didn’t know better – and that it is mainly the fault of Papias that the others whom followed, like that of Iraeneus, were steered in the wrong direction on the example of this very issue!

What? If you are implying that Papias was being corrected for believing that Matthew was an eye-witness then I'm sorry, but you must have severely misread those documents.

No.

Quote:
I happen to have a copy of of "The History of the Church", by Eusebius in my library and Eusebius states nothing of the sort.

Excellent! I have three copies of Papias (two in Greek) and Eusebius (Loeb Classical Library) as well. Let’s see what yours says compared to mine?

Quote:
III:XXIV: 1-13 states that Matthew and John, the eyewitnesses of the Christ's life, wrote their Gospels down. Both of them wrote as though "in necessity". Only Lukes and Marks are considered by Eusebius to be second hand accounts. And in saying so he declares that Mark's gospel was the second one written, directly from the mouth of Peter the Apostle.

False on all accords. Let’s look at the actual text under scrutiny shall we? First let’s look at the original passages in question:

“But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.” (Histories III:XXXIX:2)

 

This automatically makes Papias a third forth hand account. Jesus – Disciples – Friends – Papias – Irenæus (Since Papias’ works were no longer extant, and Eusebius is using Irenæus’ account here). This is to assume that the Holy Apostles were even the ones who had watched Jesus – more speculating.

 

It should also be noted we have no way of verifying whether or not the people mentioned here by Papias were the authors of, or mentioned in, the books in question (i.e. the Gospels). To assume that is speculation at best. Let’s look:

 

“For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.” (Histories III:XXXIX:13)

 

What’s great here is that he not only calls Papias ignorant and stupid in so many words, but also that those who believed in what he wrote also were ignorant and stupid. Just like Irenæus, who again I where the account in Eusebius comes from.

 

"This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.” (Histories III:XXXIX:15)

Note how we don’t know if Peter here is the same Peter that is mentioned in the Gospels – and note how we know nothing as to whether or not MARK mentioned here is the same Mark which wrote the account down? Again, speculating it is not proving it – and more importantly, we are using a forth-hand account – fifth if you take that this is coming from Eusebius – from the 4th century to explain something that happened in the 1st century.

It doesn’t get shadier then this.

“But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: "So then Matthew collected (Greek:λεκτο) the words (Greek:λογια) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them the best he could." And the same writer uses quotations from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.” (Histories XXXIX:16-17)

This is even better – as Papias states that Matthew is not an eyewitness but rather collected the sayings of others who wrote in Hebrew – and then each (disciple) wnt about trying his best to translate them into Greek. What I find interesting is none of these people in Papias’ writings or what he is quoted to say are placed within the lifetime of Christ – they are all simply called followers of Christ or hearers of Christ. And this is Eusebius’ source?

Let’s move on now to YOUR segments and see if you fare any better.

In Eusebius’ Histories III:XXIV:4, “And this they did because they were assisted in their ministry by one greater than man. Paul, for instance, who surpassed them all in vigor of expression and in richness of thought, committed to writing no more than the briefest epistles, although he had ten thousand ineffable things to say, seeing that he had touched the vision of the third heaven, had been carried to the very paradise of God, and had been deemed worthy to hear unspeakable utterances there.”

Note what is being discussed here: A VISION. Yes that’s right. Paul was writing down things he had observed in a vision of the third heaven – and had received his words from that of the savior himself! Paul is COMPARED to the other disciples here – which is important because Paul never witnessed Jesus in the flesh as per Galatians, and it seems as if Eusebius realizes this as well!

The very next few lines make my case clear, “Nor were the other pupils of our Savior without experience of the same things, - the twelve Apostles and the seventy-two disciples and ten-thousand others in addition to them.”

Eusebius directly compares Paul to the other followers of Christ – note how he makesit abundantly clear even explaining the grace of Paul’s experience as purely visionary – and then concludes to show that the others – including the 12 Apostles and 72 disciples and 10,000 others had experienced the SAME vision!

He continues, “Yet nevertheless of all those who had been with the Lord (Note he doesn’t say Christ here; he uses κυριου and not χριστου) only Matthew and John have left u their recollections, and tradition says they took to writing perforce.”

This entire entry makes my case. He is basing his whole proposition here on tradition, not sourced fact, and being that this is in the 4th century, that tradition could have easily been started a hundred years earlier and nobody would have been the wiser. Even more important is that this comes after the comparison to the visions of God and the third heaven – in which Eusebius starts “of ALL those…” – those being the 12 Apostles, 72 disciples and 10,000 others – only two wrote down their experiences in haste. Matthew – who we KNOW took from Mark; and John – who was a Gnostic which wrote in the second century.

So either these two people mentioned in Eusebius are not the same pseudonymous writers of the Gospels attributed to them, or this tradition is false. Either way this cannot be the Same Gospel writers discussed by Papias and later commentaried by Eusebius a few chapters later – as Eusebius makes it clear that Matthew was not an eyewitness but rather just collected the writings and then translated them with others.

Also, it is important to take into account the time in which Eusebius was writing. Arius has just challenged the council on the divinity of Christ, and the Bible was being voted in by the ecumenical council at Nicea – not only this but ople were being excommunicated by the united church (at this point) who disagreed.

 

Even more important is how much Eusebius altered or omitted the truth to bring about whatever helped the church as he ignored what hindered it, in his own words:

“I think it best to pass by all the other events which occurred in the meantime: such as those which happened to the bishops of the churches, when instead of shepherds of the rational flocks of Christ, over which they presided in an unlawful manner, the divine judgment, considering them worthy of such a charge, made them keepers of camels, an irrational beast and very crooked in the structure of its body, or condemned them to have the care of the imperial horses; — and I pass by also the insults and disgraces and tortures they endured from the imperial overseers and rulers on account of the sacred vessels and treasures of the Church; and besides these the lust of power on the part of many, the disorderly and unlawful ordinations, and the schisms among the confessors themselves; also the novelties which were zealously devised against the remnants of the Church by the new and factious members, who added innovation after innovation and forced them in unsparingly among the calamities of the persecution, heaping misfortune upon misfortune. I judge it more suitable to shun and avoid the account of these things, as I said at the beginning. But such things as are sober and praiseworthy, according to the sacred word,— "and if there be any virtue and praise," — I consider it most proper to tell and to record, and to present to believing hearers in the history of the admirable martyrs. And after this I think it best to crown the entire work with an account of the peace which has appeared unto us from heaven.” (The Martyrs of Palestine, c. XII)

As Gibbon recounts, “Such an acknowledgement will naturally incite suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which is less tinctured with credulity, and more practiced the arts of the courts, then that of almost any of his contemporaries.” (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Pp. 76)

In a footnote on this very subject he states, “The prudence of the historian has exposed his own character to censure and suspicion. It was well known that he himself had been thrown into prison; and it was suggested that he had purchased his deliverance by some dishonorable compliance. The reproach was urged in his lifetime, and even in his presence, at the Council of Tyre.” (ibid. 75-76)

This not only makes Eusebius even more suspect, but practically eliminates him as a source to prove the validity on the NT being first-hand accounts. Especially when we look at and examine the rest of the evidence.

Quote:
Furthermore, Eusebius certainly does think little of Papias, but he does not correct Papias in the manner of which you may be implying.

 

I don’t recall implying anything. I’ve made my point very clear.

 

Quote:
I assume you are stating that Papias believed Matthew to be an eyewitness account and that Eusebius was correcting this 'lie'. I assume you are talking about III:XXXIX 15

 

Heh, you almost did my work for me. Almost. I’m glad you see the contradiction here as well. Now we can move on from trying to use Eusebius and Papias as evidence for the Gospels being first-hand accounts.

Quote:
Furthermore, Eusebius also attributes a false story about Mark fabricated by Papias in III:XXX:15

And lastly, obviously Eusebius is going to attribute 'errors' in manners of Theology to Papias, which passed down to Ireaneus. He did in fact believe basically everything Origen did at the time of writing this, which was a rather liberal usage of allegorizing the text.

I agree. So we can now move on from attempting to use Eusebius and Papias as evidence for the Gospels being first hand accounts.

Quote:
Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

No scholar today of worth feels the Gospels were eyewitnesses.

If you mean that none of them were then I would have to disagree on your 'scholars of worth' comment. That's a nice way to poison the well and all, but other than that there isn't much going there.

What scholar can you really name who is unbias and peer reviewed who believes the Gospels are first hand accounts? Don’t be foolish – this IS the way it is. This is not up for debate – this is a consensus! Read EVERY SINGLE credible source there is on this subject! Eerdman’s Commentary of the Bible; Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible; The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church; The Oxford History of Christian Worship; THIS IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE WHEN THERE IS A SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS! When several hundred scholars ALL agree on something – it is very improbable for it to be ANYTHING other then what it is accepted to be. Wake up! For goodness sakes.

You continue to make absurd claims like this and I will be forced to stop taking you seriously – and so far I rather like you.

Quote:
Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Please, you want to really get into this? Well whether you want to or not we are going to.

Luke 9:28-30, “And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering. And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:”

The Greek:

εγενετο δε μετα τους λογους τουτους ωσει ημεραι οκτω και παραλαβων τον πετρον και ιωαννην και ιακωβον ανεβη εις το ορος προσευξασθαι. και εγενετο εν τω προσευχεσθαι αυτον το ειδος του προσωπου αυτου ετερον και ο ιματισμος αυτου λευκος εξαστραπτων. και ιδου ανδρες δυο συνελαλουν αυτω οιτινες ησαν μωσης και ηλιας

The problem with your absurd rationalization is that “vision” does not describe this incident at all. Not only is that explanation not in the text (the author of Luke does not seem to include “vision” in the sense that the disciples saw anything made of pneuma) but the Greek doesn’t even allow for this sort of understanding of the verse.

The Greek word which would have been perfect for your rationalization is phasma or φασμα. The definition of this word is so perfect for your claimed “vision” experience it would be absurd for the author of Luke not to use it. According to the LSJ, this word means apparition, phantom, appearance, phenomenon, spectral appearance. This word does not appear in the Greek at all.

In verse 31, the Greek word φθντες is used. The word is from the root of which is οραω or horao which is “sight” in this case – as they physically saw something. (Or more appropriately they stared at it!) In no way can this be construed to mean “vision” in the sense that the disciples saw a spiritual manifestation instead of a physical one.

You are completely limiting the Greek in this instance.

Actually, no, I’m not.

Quote:
With this sort of argument I suppose you dismiss the vision of Peter in Acts 10 to be an actual physical appearance because the word 'horao' is mentioned in conjunction with the word "horama" (vision).

No, because that is not what I am doing. This event in Acts 10 makes it clear that it IS a vision, where as in the said passage above it doesn’t. Why doesn’t the author use the word φαντασμα in which was used in Mark 6:49, when Jesus is compared to a spirit when he was walking on water?

Or let’s get closer to home in Luke, where the same author uses the word phaino or φαινο in 9:8 to describe the appearance of Elias/Eli’jah! I mean, here the SAME author uses a specific word to account for the vision of somebody who was dead – not a physical attribute. Why didn’t he use the SAME word or phrase in the SAME chapter just a few verses down?! It was because he was trying to establish the realism of the event – that the two characters were ACTUALLY physically there. Hell, thereisn’t even a RESEMBLANCE to that word in the Greek. That is why he worded it differently in the Greek, rather then using the same sort of word that he uses elsewhere.

I grow weary of having to always restate myself – I was clear the first time. Why I it you people always force me to repeat the same point over and over? Just admit you’re wrong and be done with it.

Quote:
Furthermore, he obtains his interpretation of this event being a "vision" from the same story in Matthew, where the Christ tells His desciples to not tell this horama to anyone (Matt. 17:9).

We’re discussing Luke here, who took fm MARK not Matthew, as Matthew was not circulating at this time. Get your facts straight. Now I think you are purposefully being dishonest. Luke is merely using Mark and the expounding on what Mark wrote.

Mark 9:2-8, “και μετα ημερας εξ παραλαμβανει ο ιησους τον πετρον και τον ιακωβον και ιωαννην και αναφερει αυτους εις ορος υψηλον κατ ιδιαν μονους και μετεμορφωθη εμπροσθεν αυτων. και τα ιματια αυτου εγενετο στιλβοντα λευκα λιαν οια γναφευς επι της γης ου δυναται ουτως λευκαναι. και ωφθη αυτοις ηλιας συν μωυσει και ησαν συλλαλουντες τω ιησου. και αποκριθεις ο πετρος λεγει τω ιησου ραββι καλον εστιν ημας ωδε ειναι και ποιησωμεν τρεις σκηνας σοι μιαν και μωυσει μιαν και ηλια μιαν. ου γαρ ηδει τι αποκριθη εκφοβοι γαρ εγενοντο. και εγενετο νεφελη επισκιαζουσα αυτοις και εγενετο φωνη εκ της νεφελης ουτος εστιν ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος ακουετε αυτου. και εξαπινα περιβλεψαμενοι ουκετι ουδενα ειδον μεθ εαυτων ει μη τον ιησουν μονον

Note the highlighted word? This is the same word used above in Luke, he uses the exact word Mark does. (Obviously – he is copying from it) What is more interesting is how REAL this was – as his disciples wanted to PITCH TENTS for Elijah and Moses! This event was definitely physical – had it been anything other they would not have wanted to pitch tents – this was NO vision but a physical manifestation.

This event, and also of that in the other Gospels is SIGNIFAGANT because it is a foreshadowing of Christ’s resurrection – this transfiguration HAD to happen and the resurrection of Moses and Elijah did as well to produce the foreshadowing of Christ’s physical return. This is imperative to the narratives.

Now stop being foolish.

Quote:
And if you want to appeal to Eusebius so much as you have done in this rebuttal

“As much?” I used him once in hopes that nobody would attempt to use him! This is why you need to read and not skim!

Quote:
I suggest you also note that he and many others believed in his time that Matthew was the first Gospel written, which would therefore allow for this interpretation to be valid in light of the fact that Luke was written later.

Once again your true scholarship is shown. No argument here from scholarship – everyone is pretty much in agreement on Mark being written first! Consult the sources I listed earlier. No wonder you think you have proven something here – you are being misled!

Quote:
As for everything else I have my beliefs and studies behind me as well;

No, you have your beliefs – and that’s it. I have not witnessed any study from you at all, no learned replies just fundamentalist-mentality and a poor grasping of Greek and church history. The only thing you managed to do was to expose Eusebius, but that is what I was looking to do anyway. So really you have no rebuttal at all.

Quote:
The primary reason for this reply, though, was to ask if you could unban Gawd.

Wait, let me get this straight – you come on here, try to (very BADLY I might add) make me look unschooled, and then ask me to unban somebody who did the same thing? Stop right now – the answer is no.

Quote:
In recognizing your own limitations and errors above that I believe I have pointed out rather clearly,

HA! You have done nothing of the sort, instead you have only revealed your own inadequacies. Don’t reply to me again if you can’t use modern scholarship and sources to back up your claims. THIS WAS PATHETIC!

Quote:
And don't worry. In due time you and I will have our day of debate.

After this exchange I am jumping out of my PANTS to school you. Stickam room, anytime. I’ll be there…but bring an extra pair of pants. I expect you’ll wet the first pair – especially if you come at me like you did here – you won’t last. I’m a REAL historian, boyo – not your typical conspiracy-theorist. I know how to research. So if you want this, we’ll go…but it won’t be me walking away with a tail between my legs.

Pathetic.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Rich_Rodriguez
RRS Academy AdminSuperfan
Rich_Rodriguez's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-08-11
User is offlineOffline
For your consideration

The texts of the New Testament are not meant to be the final authority, but to serve the final authority, which is the Holy See. To find an accurate definition of any given doctrine, the Catechism--not the Gospels or Pauline epistles--is the definitive authority. 

 

First of all which Catechism are you referring to - the one established in 1556 or the new updated one in 1992. Either way I find it humorous that you are using a 16th century or possibly 20th century manual interpreted by a silly man in a Miter, to trump the words of your supposed founders. This being said, I assume you also believe in the authority of the Magisterium. According to Catholic doctrine, the Magisterium is able to teach or interpret the truths of the Faith, and it does so infallibly within the Sacred Magisterium.   

 

First, with the exception of Revelation, none of the New Testament authors make any explicit claim to be writing under the direct influence of God, let alone make any claim of inerrancy or infallibility. 

 

So you obviously don’t believe that the writers of the bible were infallible- Bravo! I don’t either, but your allegiance to the Catechism is a gross example of selective reasoning. For by saying you trust in the Catechism you are putting your trust in the Magisterium which by definition is infallible. So in essence you are robbing Paul to pay Peter in this case (order chosen on purpose think about it).  

No reasonable person would deny that the battle of Gettysburg ever happened, yet it is one of the most contested events of American History, with conflicting eyewitness reports concerning almost every aspect of the battle. By your reasoning, then, we must reject the notion that the battle of Gettysburg ever occurred, since no consistent narrative between eyewitness accounts can be established. 

 

You didn’t really believe this false analogy would hold up when you wrote this did you? Let’s see, we have archeological relics from the Battles of the Civil War, we have bodies, we have contemporary eyewitness accounts, documents and orders from generals on the field and let’s not forget we have pictures!! All things you do not have concerning your myth. 

 

 

Returning to the Resurrection accounts, all four Gospels are in agreement on the only points that matter: That Christ was crucified, died, and was placed in a tomb; that on the third day the women (all four Gospels include Mary Magdalene) came to the tomb, and found it empty, and in all four accounts, Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene, then to Peter and the other apostles. Subverting the fundamental agreement of all four Gospel accounts on the basis of minor (and ultimately irrelevant) discrepancies in eyewitness accounts is simply dishonest scholarship. 

 

Ok let’s take this one in sections: all four Gospels are in agreement on the only points that matter: That Christ was crucified, died, and was placed in a tomb; that on the third day the women (all four Gospels include Mary Magdalene) came to the tomb, and found it empty, and in all four accounts, Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene, then to Peter and the other apostles. 

That Christ was crucified:  

Well let’s see what the Gospels say about the Cruci-fiction: 

  1. Who Carries Jesus’ Cross?
    In the Passion narratives, did Jesus carry his own cross or not?

    Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26 - Jesus gets help from Simon of Cyrene 

     John 19:17 - Jesus carries his own cross the whole way
     2. Inscription on Jesus’ Cross:

When crucified, Jesus’ cross had an inscription — but what did it say?

Mark 15:26 - The inscription: “The King of the Jews.”
Matthew 27:37 - The inscription: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.”
Luke 23:38 - The inscription: “This is the King of the Jews.”
John 19:19 - The inscription: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”
 

 

Jesus and the Thieves:

Some gospels say Jesus was crucified with two thieves, though the Romans never crucified thieves.

Mark - The two thieves are mentioned, but there is no conversation
Matthew 27:44 - The two thieves taunt Jesus
Luke 23:39-42 - One thief taunts Jesus and is criticized by the other. Jesus promises the 2nd thief that they would be in Paradise that day, though John and Acts say he did not ascend to heaven until 40 days after his resurrection
John - The two men aren’t described as thieves

 

Does Jesus Drink Wine or Vinegar?

Jesus is given something to drink while he is on the cross, but what?

Mark 15:23 - Jesus is given wine mixed with myrrh, but he doesn’t drink
Matthew 27:48, Luke 23:36 - Jesus is given vinegar, but he doesn’t drink
John 19:29-30 - Jesus is given vinegar and he drinks
 Jesus and the Centurion:

Romans supposedly witnessed Jesus’ crucifixion, but what did they think?

Mark 15:39 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this man was the son of God!”
Matthew 27:54 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this was the son of God.”
Luke 23:47 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this man was innocent.”
John - No centurions say anything
 

Women Watch the Crucifixion:

The gospels describe several women as having followed Jesus around, but what did they do when Jesus was crucified?

Mark 15:40, Matthew 27:55, Luke 23:49 - Several women watch Jesus from afar
John 19:25-26 - Several woman are close enough that Jesus could talk to his mother, contrary to Roman practices

 

When Was Jesus Crucified?

The crucifixion of Jesus is the central event of the Passion narrative, but the narratives don’t agree on when the crucifixion occurred.

Mark 15:25 - Jesus was crucified on the “third hour.”
John 19:14-15 - Jesus was crucified on the “sixth hour.”
Matthew, Luke - It’s not stated when the crucifixion starts, but the “sixth hour” occurs during the crucifixion
 Jesus’ Last Words:

 

Jesus’ last words before dying are important, but no one seems to have written then down.

Mark 15:34-37, Matthew 27:46-50 - Jesus says: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (but they use different Greek words for “God” — Matthew uses “Eli” and Mark uses “Eloi”)
Luke 23:46 - Jesus says: “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.”
John 19:30 - Jesus says: “It is finished.”

 3 different "last words"

"it is finished"

"into your hands I command my spirit"

"my lord, why have you forsaken me"

Could you get anymore of opposing statements than the last two? It is clear that the gospels...at least three of them, were written by people who were not actually there.

An eyewitness to a dying man may forget a few details, but NOT the last words that a man breathes.

Earthquake After the Resurrection:

Was there an earthquake when Jesus died?

Matthew 27:51-53 - At the moment Jesus dies, a massive earth quake strikes and opens tombs where dead people rise again
Mark, Luke, John - No earthquake is mentioned. No earthquake and no massive influx of formerly dead people is mentioned in any historical records, which is strange given how monumental such an event would be.
 That on the third day the women (all four Gospels include Mary Magdalene) came to the tomb, and found it empty, 

 

How Long Was Jesus in the Tomb?

Jesus is portrayed as being dead and in the tomb for a given length time, but how long?

Mark 10:34 - Jesus says he will “rise again” after “three days.”
Matthew 12:40 - Jesus says he will be in the earth “three days and three nights...”

No resurrection narrative describes Jesus as being in a tomb for three full days, or for three days and three nights.

Guarding the Tomb:
 

Would the Romans have guarded Jesus’ tomb? The gospels disagree on what happened.

Matthew 27:62-66 - A guard is stationed outside the tomb the day after Jesus’ burial
Mark, Luke, John - No guard is mentioned. In Mark and Luke, the women who approach the tomb do not appear to expect to see any guards
 Jesus is Anointed Before Burial:

It was tradition to anoint a person’s body after they died. Who anointed Jesus and when?

Mark 16:1-3, Luke 23:55-56 - A group of women who were at Jesus’ burial come back later to anoint his body
Matthew - Joseph wraps the body and the women come the next morning, but no mention is made of anointing Jesus
John 19:39-40 - Joseph of Arimathea anoints Jesus’ body before burial

Who Visited Jesus’ Tomb?

The women visiting Jesus’ tomb is central to the resurrection story, but who visited?

Mark 16:1 - Three women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, a second Mary, and Salome
Matthew 28:1 - Two women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene and another Mary
Luke 24:10 - At least five women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women.”
John 20:1 - One woman visits Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene. She later fetches Peter and another disciple
 When Did the Women Visit the Tomb?

Whoever visited and however many there were, it’s also not clear when they arrived.

Mark 16:2 - They arrive after sunrise
Matthew 28:1 - They arrive at about dawn
Luke 24:1 - It is early dawn when they arrive
John 20:1 - It is dark when they arrive
 What Was the Tomb Like?

It’s not clear what the women saw when they arrived at the tomb.

Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2, John 20:1 - The stone in front of Jesus’ tomb had been rolled away
Matthew 28:1-2 - The stone in front of Jesus’ tomb was still in place and would be rolled away later
 Who Greets the Women?

The women aren’t alone for long, but it’s not clear who greets them.

Mark 16:5 - The women enter the tomb and meet one young man in there
Matthew 28:2 - An angel arrives during an earthquake, rolls away the stone, and sits on it outside. Pilate’s guards are also there
Luke 24:2-4 - The women enter the tomb and two men suddenly appear — it’s not clear if they are inside or outside
John 20:12 - The women do not enter the tomb, but there are two angels sitting inside
 

What Do the Women Do?

Whatever happened, it must have been pretty amazing. The gospels are inconsistent in how the women react, though.

Mark 16:8 - The women keep quiet, despite being told to spread the word
Matthew 28:8 - The women go tell the disciples
Luke 24:9 - The women tell “the eleven and to all the rest.”
John 20:10-11 - Mary stays to cry while the two disciples just go home
 “discrepancies in eyewitness accounts are simply dishonest scholarship”. 

I think you are right but you should take this up with the gospel writers of that perfect book you hold under your arm! 

I find no contradiction between what Paul says about the resurrection, and what the Church teaches--in this regard, your argument is nothing but smoke and mirrors, altering the meaning of the text to suit your preconceived notions.  

Rook has already tackled this but I will put my two cents in with the help of Dan Barker: 

The church teaches bodily (physical) resurrection which is completely different than Paul’s idea of a spiritual (non-physical) rising of the spirit. (Source: Dan Barker debate on Jesus’ resurrection) 

"Christ died for our sins
in accordance with the Scriptures,
and was buried.
"And he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures and he appeared to Cephas," which is Peter, "and then to the twelve."  

There's three words I want you to look at in this hymn, in this legendary-style hymn that Paul is quoting. The first word is the word "buried." The word there is "etaphe," which is from the Greek word for "taphos," which just means "burial." It does not mean "tomb," it does not mean "sepulchre." The word for tomb is "mnema," and sepulchre is "mnemeion," (if I pronounced it correctly). It's just a place of burial. And if Jesus was truly crucified by the Roman authorities, it was their practice in those days to throw the decayed corpses of the crucified people into a common grave. Paul is not talking about a tomb here. He is simply talking about a man who died. Just like when Moses died, in Deuteronomy, he was thrown in a grave -- nobody knows where the grave was, somewhere in Moab -- yet Moses was seen resurrected bodily from the dead. Did you know that? But nobody assumes that therefore there must have been an empty tomb of Moses. Remember in Matthew 17, when Peter goes up into the mountain with Jesus, James, and John, and Jesus is transfigured, and suddenly, who does he see? Moses and Elijah. There he is. Are we to assume that there is an empty tomb of Moses because Peter saw Moses up there? Of course we don't assume that.

Paul did not have a belief in an empty tomb, and he doesn't say that he did. Now, if you think he did, you're committing a historical no-no here. What you are doing is you're committing a kind of "Back To The Future" kind of historical analysis. You think you know what is in Paul's mind because you know what the later Gospel writers in the 80s and 90s, you think you know what they said about a bodily resurrection, so you are imposing that, back in time, on to Paul's mind because you think you know better. Paul was just kind of simple, but you know what he really meant. But the earliest Christians didn't mention any of these exaggerated bodily things.

The second word I want you to look at is the word "raised." He said "he was buried. And he was raised on the third day." That's not the word "resurrected." The word resurrected is "anastasis [noun]," or "anistimi [verb]." The word that Paul used here for "raised" is the word "egeiro" -- "egergetai." That is the word that is used throughout the New Testament for the word "to wake up," to "awaken." Remember when the disciples were on this boat and there was a storm and Jesus was asleep down below? They were scared, and they went down below and they woke him up? [Matthew 8:25] They used that word "egeiro": They "woke him up." "Jesus, help, help!" And all through the New Testament we find this word "egeiro" being used not for a bodily resurrection, but for a spiritual awakening, or for just waking up.

In Romans, Paul said, "Now it is high time to awaken out of sleep." [Romans 13:11] "Egeiro." In Ephesians. We think Paul might have written Ephesians, we don't know for sure.

This is really interesting. Paul is giving a whole bunch of advice to Christians, okay? Do this, do this, avoid this, don't do that, do this, here's how to live, and right in the middle of this advice, daily advice, he says, "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." [Ephesians 5:14] What's the word that he uses? "Egeiro." Can you command a living, breathing person to rise from the dead? Of course Paul doesn't think that that word has anything to do with a bodily resurrection. The third word I want you to see in this phrase is the word "appear" or "seen," depending on the translation. That word is "ophthe." Paul uses the word "ophthe" five different times -- or was it four, I forget exactly, but he uses that word, one, two, three -- four times, and he was the last one. This is from the Greek word "horao" which is used for both physical vision and of a vision, to "have a vision." In fact, Paul had a lot of visions in the bible, and he uses that same word. When the Macedonian guy came to him and said, "Please come preach to us," [Acts 16:9] it wasn't in a bodily form -- it was a "vision," the same word. When Ananias . . . when he had a vision of Ananias [Acts 9:12], the same word. He didn't see Ananias physically. He used that word, that he had had a "vision" of Ananias. And in Matthew 17, when Peter went up the mountain and saw Moses, what's the word that was used? "Ophthe." Moses "appeared" to Peter. [Matthew 17:3]

 

Now, do we think that Moses bodily appeared to Peter? Did Moses bodily resurrect from the dead before Jesus had died for our sins? You have to believe that if you use these words consistently. Of course, I don't think most Christians believe that Moses bodily resurrected from the dead before that time -- maybe you do. But in any event, we can see that they are talking about a visionary experience here. And in First Corinthians 15, Jesus "appeared" to Peter and to James using that same word: "ophthe."Now, we know, Paul tacks himself at the end here, and he said Jesus "ophthe" to Peter, he "ophthe" to James, he "appeared" to these others, and he "appeared" to me. We all know that Jesus did not physically appear to Paul. Paul said he did. He was blinded. He was knocked off his horse. He was in the habit of hearing voices and seeing lights in the sky. The people that were with Paul didn't see anyone. The people that were with Paul didn't hear anyone. Well, it depends on which account you take. In one account the men did hear the voice [Acts 9:7], and in another account they didn't [Acts 22:9] -- there's a biblical contradiction. They didn't hear or see anyone. So, what kind of a "physical" appearance is this? In fact, this was after Jesus' ascension. What was Jesus doing? Did he ascend up above the clouds for a while, and his body hung around, and he came back down and said, "Hi, Paul. I want you to know I'm still hanging around." Do you really think there was a physical, spatially limited body of Jesus hanging up there, coming down to Paul? No, I don't think most Christians today believe that. The fact that Paul says that Jesus "ophthe" to him, and it was not a physical appearance, gives us a clue that he does not intend us to believe that the other appearances to these others were also physical. They were "spiritual" experiences, what they believed to be spiritual experiences. And, to nail this thing shut, just a few verses later, Paul is talking about the Resurrection, right? He's explaining what the Resurrection means, and he says, in I Corinthians 15:50, "Now, I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." So, how could he be talking about a physical resurrection and turn right around and say "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"? He obviously intends this to mean that Jesus resurrected, but in a spiritual way, not physically, not bodily. So, the first Resurrection account that we have has no empty tomb, no physical appearances. That's as close as we can get to the views of the early church. We see later, though, an evolution of Christian thought……..”

So we're left with one of two possibilities: A.) That for 2,000 years, scholars and theologians within and without the Church have consistently misinterpreted Paul's writings, only to be undone by a 24-year-old self-professed historian; or B.) your conclusions are faulty, based on misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and simple intellectual dishonesty. Since the simplest answer tends to be the correct one, B would seem the logical choice, given the fallacious arguments you present here, and the clear anti-Christian bias of the authors you heavily borrow from.

Now let’s see how many logical fallacies you commit in your ending rant of ignorance: False Dichotomy, Appeal to authority, Ad hominem, Straw man (shit damn Wicker man). I just have to ask one thing – Who do you worship Jesus or the Pope? You say the Catechisms trump the bible well, Ok if you believe that a committee can redefine and update scripture as they feel. I just don’t see how you still call yourself a theist since you are basically worshipping men in fancy robes. You have surrendered your life to a bunch of yahoos in fancy garb with a fetish for young boys.  

The catechisms directly contradict the bible in so many ways. For instance: How do you obtain salvation?

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy The Bible repeatedly states that salvation comes through faith-never by good works:  

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Romans 3:28 "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith…" Galatians 3:8

The catechism seems to think differently: "Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved." Pg. 222, #837 

Here are a few other nuggets of gibberish from the Catechism:  

"Let us rejoice then and give thanks that we have become not only Christians, but Christ himself. Marvel and rejoice: we have become Christ." Pg. 210, #795 

"For the Son of man became man so that we might become God." Pg. 116, #460

 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." Pg. 116, #460

"One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience." Pg. 374, #1493

"Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance:" Pg. 365, #1456

"It is called the sacrament of confession, since the disclosure or confession of sins to a priest is an essential element of this sacrament. Pg. 357, #1424 (See also Pg. 374, #1493).

  "Taken up to heaven she (Mary) did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation..." Pg. 252, #969

"Being obedient she (Mary) became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." Pg. 125, #494  

So since you believe in the authority of the Catechism and its ability to change this is my final question to you: What are you going to do when they add to penance getting screwed up the ass by a priest!!   


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
This is good stuff,

This is good stuff, guys.

=)