“I now think it is clear that the argument for the historicity of Mohammad flying on a winged horse to Jerusalem is strong enough to stand on its own. It won’t convince anyone who is strongly committed to naturalism and won’t accept the possibility of miracles, but I think for most people it adds to the evidence that Allah is the One and Only God.”
“I now think it is clear that the argument for the historicity of Joseph Smith receiving the Golden Plates from the angel Moroni is strong enough to stand on its own. It won’t convince anyone who is strongly committed to naturalism and won’t accept the possibility of miracles, but I think for most people it adds to the evidence that the Mormon Church holds the true doctrines of the Christian Faith.
Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–1986), beginning in 1952 as a successor to his earlier self-help system, Dianetics. Hubbard characterized Scientology as a religion, and in 1953 he incorporated the Church of Scientology in Camden, New Jersey.
Scientology teaches that people are immortal beings who have forgotten their true nature.[a Gnostic belief – arch.] Its method of spiritual rehabilitation is a type of counselling known as auditing, in which practitioners aim to consciously re-experience painful or traumatic events in their past in order to free themselves of their limiting effects. Study materials and auditing sessions are made available to members on a fee-for-service basis, which the church describes as a “fixed donation”.
Further controversy has focused on Scientology’s belief that souls (“thetans”) reincarnate and have lived on other planets before living on Earth and that some of the related teachings are not revealed to practitioners until they have paid thousands of dollars to the Church of Scientology. Another controversial belief held by Scientologists is that the practice of psychiatry is destructive and abusive and must be abolished.
Ok. Unk doesn’t want to present his evidence for the Resurrection to me because I am uncooperative in following his rules of discussion. So, I went to Unk’s blog and found his “strong evidence” for the Resurrection. I will copy and paste it below. I’d be curious to know others’ opinion of Unk’s “strong evidence”:
The resurrection of Jesus is obviously one of the central teachings of christianity, and is also under attack from sceptics. Disciples need to know why they believe it in the first place, how to defend their belief, and even perhaps how to use the resurrection as a challenge to non-believers.
Attacks on the resurrection
Sceptics argue that the resurrection couldn’t have occurred, or that there is insufficient evidence that it occurred:
•it is scientifically impossible, or so unlikely that any other explanation of the facts must be better;
•the Bible accounts are inconsistent, and they were not written by eyewitnesses;
•the Bible stories are biased, and we have no other confirmation of the stories;
•the resurrection stories are legends (perhaps based on pagan myths of dying and rising gods) which developed later; some even say Jesus never existed.
Evidence for the resurrection
As usual in these historical questions, I think the best place to start is the conclusions of secular historians, the majority of whom conclude that:
•Jesus was a real person who was executed and buried near Jerusalem about 30 CE.
•His tomb was later empty.
•His followers had experiences of seeing Jesus that convinced them he was alive.
•This belief, which can be traced back to the very early days of christianity, was a major factor in the subsequent growth of the christian church.
Arguments for the resurrection
•The tomb must have been empty or the disciples couldn’t have preached the resurrection in Jerusalem.
•Hallucinations cannot account for the appearances of Jesus to many people at once, and that he did physical things like eat fish.
•The gospels confirm each other, and are sufficiently consistent of the important facts to make them useful historical documents.
•There is no trace of pagan mythology affecting first century Jewish or christian thought.
•It is hard to believe the disciples would have suffered persecution and even martyrdom for something they knew to be a lie.
Can the gospel accounts be reconciled?
Oxford scholar, the late John Wenham, has attempted to reconcile the disparate gospel accounts. Based on plausible assumptions about the identification of some of the un-named (or ambiguously identified) characters in the story and of the writers of the gospels, Wenham has woven a narrative that explains all the Easter events and the appearances of Jesus in a logical way. Key to his explanation is his view that each gospel writer reported those appearances and conversations where he or his sources were present – hence the diversity of accounts.
His account may or may not be historical fact, but it is a fascinating reconstruction, and shows that the gospels are not necessarily inconsistent. It’s an old book – Easter Enigma by John Wenham – but can be bought online and is highly recommended.
Believing the resurrection
Based on the historical ‘facts’, a person who believes in God clearly has no necessary reason to disbelieve in miracles, and thus sufficient reason to believe Jesus was raised from death. Wenham’s harmonisation strengthens this belief.
Arguing the resurrection.
William Lane Craig commonly uses the ‘minimal facts approach’ to argue in public debates that the resurrection shows that God probably exists. He explains how every alternative hypothesis is implausible (a matter many historians agree on) and that the explanation that the resurrection of Jesus really was a work of God is in fact the only hypothesis that explains all the facts. He very often wins these points.
However many other christians are content to simply argue that once they believe in God, the resurrection is a reasonable belief. They are reinforced in this conclusion by (Jeffery Lowder, founder of the Secular Web site for the Internet Infidels), who investigated the arguments for and against, and concluded:
“On the basis of the available evidence (and the arguments I’ve seen), I conclude that a rational person may accept or reject the resurrection.”
he was said to have a tomb. the romans usually left those crucified on the cross until they rotted and were eaten by bugs and birds. (maybe there is something legit about the romans making exceptions for jewish crucifixions on the passover, but i do not know).
anyone can point to an empty tomb and say that anyone was once buried there. do empty tombs usually prove raising from the dead?
“that tomb is empty, whoever was in there must be alive again.”
I do not reference him as a middle ground archaeologist, I reference him as a non minimalist archaeologist with some standing – I said that quite clearly. My disagreement with you remains your statement that the overwhelming majority of archaeologists and scholars are minimalists, when this is clearly not true. As I have shown and you continue to not refute.
Knowing your penchant for exactitude when it comes to wording in such discussions, let me backtrack a little just in case you have grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick and
continue to beat about the burning bush with it.
You are upset with my use of the word ”overwhelming”.
am going to accept that we both understand the meaning of overwhelming:. Vastly superior number.
The vast majority of scholars etc.
Any problems with this you can always check a dictionary for a more exact wording.
Moving on.
Now let’s clarify to what I am referring.
I agree that there are alternate views of the bible.
I agree that the ”middle ground” may very well be the predominant view of the entire bible, and even the Old Testament.
However ….
The overwhelming scholarly and archaeological view of the Pentateuch, and specifically the Egyptian Slavery, Moses, the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan is minimalist – or more specifically it is considered fiction – it did not happen – which Finkelstein thoroughly explains in the video that Arch provided.
I strongly suggest you watch it.
Believe me there is no straw man; no academic of any note considers there is any veracity to these biblical tales.
As the Davies quote that I have offered states:
Apart from the well-funded (and fundamentalist) “biblical archaeologists,” we are in fact nearly all “minimalists” now.[3]
—Philip Davies, “Beyond Labels: What Comes Next?”
Emeritus Professor.
Maybe this quote might clarify the scholarly and archaeological position better for you?
Professor Ze’ev Herzog of Tel Aviv University in the foreword to his 1999 essay, Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho: “The patriarchs’ acts are legendary stories, we did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, we did not conquer the land… Those who take an interest have known these facts for years.” Reviewing Herzog’s paper, Professor Magen Broshi, archaeologist at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, endorsed the essays startlingly blunt opening remarks, stating, *“There is no serious scholar in Israel or in the world who does not accept this position. Herzog represents a large group of Israeli scholars, and he stands squarely within the consensus. Twenty years ago even I wrote of the same matters and I was not an innovator. Archaeologists simply do not take the trouble of bringing their discoveries to public attention.”
*my emphasis
There is really no point in a discussion if someone refuses to defend their statement and constructs straw men as a diversionary tactic. I’m not saying that is what you are doing, but it is looking like that. Hopefully your next response will address the statement of yours I am contesting. Thanks.
I agree, and I think the statement has been resoundly defended, don’t you? The last quote even includes one of your favorite word – consensus.
Are we done, unklee?
P.S.
If anyone else believes I have failed to make the point regarding ”overwhelming” in this issue, please say so.
“Hallucinations cannot account for the appearances of Jesus to many people at once, and that he did physical things like eat fish.” – According to writers who never met him and have no idea what he did or didn’t do.
I have already produced evidence, from scriptures themselves, that in every instance of meeting the “resurrected” Jesus, he was at first unrecognizable to any of them.
“The tomb must have been empty or the disciples couldn’t have preached the resurrection in Jerusalem.”
How do we know that the disciples preached an empty tomb story…ANYWHERE on the planet…at anytime prior to the writing of the Gospel of Mark in 65-75 AD? Paul says not a single word about an empty tomb…he doesn’t even say that there was a tomb!!
For all we know, by the time the author of Mark got around to writing down the story of Jesus in circa 70 AD, legendary material had been added to the core truth. Maybe the only core truth was this:
Jesus was crucified in 30 AD, his body tossed into a common, unmarked grave with other criminals. No one but a few Roman guards knew where the body was and they weren’t talking. Then, three days after Jesus death, one, two, or several of the disciples think that they see Jesus on a distant hill, or in a large crowd—a false sighting—but they believe that Jesus is alive. The oral story of a Resurrection begins! Then, 40 years later, “Mark” writes his Gospel…IN ROME, based on the version of the oral story circulating in Rome at the time. “Mark” writes his gospel and includes an empty tomb—something that was not part of the original story (that is why Paul never mentioned an empty tomb in any of his epistles).
So based on probabilities, which explanation is more likely for the later Christian belief of an empty tomb: My hypothetical one, or that an ancient Hebrew god reanimated the bloated, decomposing corpse of a first century Jewish prophet to walk out of his grave, eat broiled fish, and levitate into the clouds?
For the life of me, I do not understand how intelligent Christians like Unk can look at their WEAK evidence and say that their supernatural explanation is the best or even only explanation for the early Christian belief that Jesus had come back from the dead!
Revisiting the miracle story, Augustine records having witnessed many miracles but none of his own. Does anyone know if, of the many reports of miracles, there is any apostle who says I performed this miracle or is it always a third party reporting?
The tactic of arguing for the sake of seemingly only wishing to point score is frustrating, to say the least, and the only reason any sort of Christian viewpoint on this topic even enters the arena is because the evidence is neither well known or promoted, and especially not among the Christian community, and hardly at all at grassroots level.
Imagine a sermon at unklee’s church in the similar vein as Wolpe delivered at his synagogue in New York openly admitting the Pentateuch, including Moses and the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan is all fiction?
There would likely be a shitstorm and it is probable that while most would still put on a stubborn front a fair number would soon put two and two together regarding the impact upon the New Testament and openly question why they had been lied to for goodness’ knows how long?
It does not bother me one iota whether the likes of unkle concedes this or not, what is important is the truth is demonstrated, especially for those who are unsure. There are enough honestly intelligent people out there who will question and will welcome this, painful as it might turn out to be. Those of us that believed got over Santa Claus. Christians will get over this as well.
I had a similar encounter a few days ago and a blogger whom I have chatted with for sometime was also unaware of the evidence surrounding these matters.
It is surprising how many people are in fact ignorant of the facts; even someone as apparently well read as unklee demonstrates a surprising level of ignorance, some of it would appear to be willful, when it comes to such scholarly issues. In fact, one might believe he simply does care, which displays a monumental amount of hubris.
This of course , is the power of religious indoctrination.
And the thing of it is, is that if ANYone were going to get their panties in wad over the Patriarchs and the Exodus having been legends, rather than historical figures, it should far more likely be the Jewish scholars, rather that us Goyim, and yet that’s not the case – they are much more honest and forthright than Christians!
The empty tomb argument has never carried much weight for me either.
Let’s say that early disciples were spreading the story of the resurrection. Why should we suppose that the people hearing the story would have felt the need to verify the empty tomb, and how would they have gone about doing it? It’s not like the disciples bought air time on on the local TV station to spread their message — I imagine most of their evangelism efforts were one-on-one or in small groups. Just conversations between a few individuals, in other words. So how likely is it that any of those individuals would have been in a position to actually know if the tomb was empty or not? And for the people who heard the story and dismissed it, why would they have cared enough to disprove it?
Now, I’m sure that Unk will toss my above hypothetical explanation for the early Christian belief in an empty tomb out the window, because according to Unk, “the majority of ‘historians’ believe that the actual tomb of Jesus really was empty”. Unk uses Christian apologist Gary Habermas as his source for this claim, and states that Habermas has released his data for all the world to review and confirm. (Last I heard Habermas had refused to release his data.) But, even if this assertion is true, it doesn’t make any real difference. And here’s why:
There are still other, much more probable NATURAL explanations for an empty tomb and the early Christian belief in a Resurrection of Jesus, that that an ancient Hebrew god performed a supernatural act.
Here’s one: Joseph of Arimethea really did bury Jesus in his tomb that night. The guards were there the minute Joseph rolled the stone in place. The guards sealed the tomb and faithfully guarded for the rest of that night and the next (sunlit) day. Joseph had buried Jesus in his tomb to get the body off the cross and into a grave so as not to defile the Passover. However, sunset Saturday night was the end of Passover and the Sabbath. One minute after sunset, Arimethea arrives with a letter from Pilate to the guards, allowing Arimethea to remove Jesus’ body and dump it into an unmarked, mass grave with the two thieves who had been crucified with Jesus.
Neither Joseph, the Sanhedrin, the guards, nor Pilate felt any compunction to notify Jesus’ disciples of the removal and reburial of the body. The women show up Sunday morning and the tomb was empty! Superstitious, uneducated Galilean fisherman start having visions and or false sightings of Jesus, and within days…JESUS IS RISEN!
And there are many other possible explanation for the empty tomb. If anyone wants, I will be happy to list them.
even if they did want to see it, was there a certified registry of who was buried where back then? I mean, what proof would you offer anyways? an empty tomb? any empty tomb?
it’s just proof of any empty tomb, not who’s it was, or is for, or that the previous tenant suddenly became undead.
today, does a missing body ever potentially indicate undead?
“cant find the body?”
“likely, the person was killed, but rose from the dead, and flew into heaven. it’s the only explanation that answers everything. and if miracles are possible, then this is likely. Since it answers everything, it’s most likely. case closed.”
Ok, no one asked for another possible natural explanation for an empty tomb…but here is another:
Saturday night, the following thought suddenly hits Pilate like a bolt of lightening: What the
F*%#! was I thinking! I just allowed the “King of the Jews” to be buried in a rich man’s mausoleum in the capital city of Judea. It will become a national shrine for every Jew who wants to kick Rome out of Palestine! I have enough unrest in this god-forsaken stretch of desolate wasteland as it is.
“Guards. Go to the guards at the tomb of the “Jewish King”. Tell them to break the seal, roll back the stone, grab the corpse, and go dump it in a hole or garbage dump where no one will find it.”
The women show up Sunday morning and…THE TOMB IS EMPTY!
And the visions, false sightings, and hallucinations—individual and/or group—begin…and 40 years later an anonymous writer in Rome writes the Gospel of Mark with an empty tomb (but no post-resurrection appearances!)
“It seems to me that we’re going down a rabbit hole that doesn’t even deal with what’s important to each side.”
Hi Nate, yes I quite agree with you here. But sometimes disagreements about evidence and authority have to be addressed before one can get onto the important things. Take climate change. If a climate change sceptic says all the scientists are lying and the real evidence is ….., then the discussion can go nowhere until that statement is resolved.
In the case of the Pentateuch, Ark asked me a series of questions and I answered. The he made an ambit claim that the view that the Exodus stories were fiction was the overwhelming view of scholars. Now if that was true, there would need to be no more discussion. But it isn’t true. So either I stop discussing because it is like beating my head against the same brick wall as the climate change deniers, or I press him to justify that statement. Which I have and he hasn’t – only continued to quote a few minimalists and deny the existence of anyone else.
I presume your comment arises out of some sense of frustration. I feel the same, and I imagine he does too. I think even if he was right, it would be a difficult statement to prove, in which case it is a statement better left as an opinion than as a fact claim.
Anyway, I think it is probably best if I try once more and then I’ll retire unhurt (a cricket analogy) and ease your frustration, which you know is an aim of mine ! 🙂
“So, again, please list the papers you’ve read which support your claims.”
Hi John, I’m not sure why you are asking this question for I have already answered it. I have read very few papers on this matter and I only have one claim – that there is a wider range of scholarly view than what Ark claims. That is a fact, and can only be denied if implicitly one includes the proviso that the only scholars that count are the scholars that Ark approves of, and he obviously disapproves of the maximalists.
“I presume your comment arises out of some sense of frustration. I feel the same, and I imagine he does too. I think even if he was right, it would be a difficult statement to prove, in which case it is a statement better left as an opinion than as a fact claim.” —Unk
At every turn, Christians attempt to make their UNREASONABLE supernatural belief system reasonable instead of admitting that all “strong” evidence points to it being a superstition. No, Unk, your claim that the legends of the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan can be reasonably believed to have been historical events is not an accepted, rational opinion, about which good people can agree to disagree.. Your view on this subject is on the fringe. It is no longer considered a rational position by any respected archeologist. You might as well be arguing against the reality of man-made Climate Change.
Unk: “Hallucinations cannot account for the appearances of Jesus to many people at once, and that he did physical things like eat fish.”
Tens of thousands of Roman Catholics have seen the Virgin Mary appear to them; Tens of thousands of Hindus have watched the Hindu (stone) gods drink milk from spoons offered to them. Thousands of people, all over the world, of many different religions, claim to have seen all kinds of weird things..,but.that doesn’t mean that these people really saw what they thought they saw!
Superstitious people see and hear superstitious things.
It’s not rocket science to conclude that the first century claim that five hundred people saw Jesus at the same time in the same place is no different than the mass visions/hallucinations claimed today. Why do Protestant Christians believe ONE man, Paul, who wasn’t even making an eyewitness statement of being there with the 500 witnesses, but was quoting information that he had “received” from others, therefore second, third, fourth, fiftieth- hand information, that 500 people saw a ghost, but, they won’t buy for a second, modern “ghost sightings” from other religions…even if they have televised proof, as claim the Hindus of their milk-sipping stone idols???
Unk: “The gospels confirm each other, and are sufficiently consistent of the important facts to make them useful historical documents.”
OMG. This is an argument I would expect from a fundamentalist, but not from an educated, intelligent moderate/liberal Christian such as Unk. Has Unk ever heard about the Synoptic Problem: the fact that Matthew, Luke, and probably John (while on LSD) plagiarized large sections of Mark, the first gospel written, into their stories??? These are NOT four independent, corroborating accounts of the life of Jesus by any stretch of UnkleE’s or anyone else’s imagination.
The “majority of scholars” have noticed something very odd about the four Gospels. The four gospels seem to say the same thing, chapter after chapter (except John…who was on LSD…)almost word for word (and sometimes LITERALLY word for word)…until they get to the post resurrection appearances…then all Hell breaks loose and the four accounts are so contradictory that only a die-hard Christian would assert that they are harmonizable.
Interesting, huh? It is as if “Matthew”, “Luke”, and “John” made up their own endings to “Mark’s” original ending that ended with the women fleeing the tomb and “telling NO ONE”!
.. an ambit claim that the view that the Exodus stories were fiction was the overwhelming view of scholars. Now if that was true, there would need to be no more discussion. But it isn’t true.
Yes, it is true.
It seem that at least three people on this thread recognise what I have written to be a true representation of the facts including the word usage of overwhelming and it seems the only scholars/archaeologists who still believe in a middle ground or worse on this issue are as Davies notes, Fundamentalist.
So, either you are not reading the evidence I have provided, do not understand or you are now simply being obtuse on purpose.
But let me include it once more. Just for you.
Professor Ze’ev Herzog of Tel Aviv University in the foreword to his 1999 essay, Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho: “The patriarchs’ acts are legendary stories, we did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, we did not conquer the land… Those who take an interest have known these facts for years.” Reviewing Herzog’s paper, Professor Magen Broshi, archaeologist at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, endorsed the essays startlingly blunt opening remarks, stating, *“There is no serious scholar in Israel or in the world who does not accept this position. Herzog represents a large group of Israeli scholars, and he stands squarely within the consensus. Twenty years ago even I wrote of the same matters and I was not an innovator. Archaeologists simply do not take the trouble of bringing their discoveries to public attention.”
If you still dispute this statement then I am afraid the onus is on you to provide at least a statement from a recognized archaeologist or qualified, relevant scholar refuting it.
Unk: “There is no trace of pagan mythology affecting first century Jewish or christian thought.”
Well, let’s see: The Jews believed that a walking/talking snake tricked the first humans into eating a magical apple; and because they did eat the magical apple, an invisible deity cursed the earth and heavens. Later on in this Jewish story, we learn about donkeys that can talk, people who don’t burn in furnaces, etc., etc.
Nope. No mythology here.
Then there are the early Christians who believed that their virgin-born demi-god walked on water, flew to the top of high mountains and the highest pinnacle of tall buildings (superman??) such as the temple…and topped off his dazzling performance by coming out of his grave, with the assistance of “angels” with a super-hero body what could walk through locked doors and levitate into outer space!!
Finding Truth 
“I now think it is clear that the argument for the historicity of Mohammad flying on a winged horse to Jerusalem is strong enough to stand on its own. It won’t convince anyone who is strongly committed to naturalism and won’t accept the possibility of miracles, but I think for most people it adds to the evidence that Allah is the One and Only God.”
LikeLiked by 4 people
“I now think it is clear that the argument for the historicity of Joseph Smith receiving the Golden Plates from the angel Moroni is strong enough to stand on its own. It won’t convince anyone who is strongly committed to naturalism and won’t accept the possibility of miracles, but I think for most people it adds to the evidence that the Mormon Church holds the true doctrines of the Christian Faith.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Gary – don’t forget Scientology —
[Emphasis, mine]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok. Unk doesn’t want to present his evidence for the Resurrection to me because I am uncooperative in following his rules of discussion. So, I went to Unk’s blog and found his “strong evidence” for the Resurrection. I will copy and paste it below. I’d be curious to know others’ opinion of Unk’s “strong evidence”:
The resurrection of Jesus is obviously one of the central teachings of christianity, and is also under attack from sceptics. Disciples need to know why they believe it in the first place, how to defend their belief, and even perhaps how to use the resurrection as a challenge to non-believers.
Attacks on the resurrection
Sceptics argue that the resurrection couldn’t have occurred, or that there is insufficient evidence that it occurred:
•it is scientifically impossible, or so unlikely that any other explanation of the facts must be better;
•the Bible accounts are inconsistent, and they were not written by eyewitnesses;
•the Bible stories are biased, and we have no other confirmation of the stories;
•the resurrection stories are legends (perhaps based on pagan myths of dying and rising gods) which developed later; some even say Jesus never existed.
Evidence for the resurrection
As usual in these historical questions, I think the best place to start is the conclusions of secular historians, the majority of whom conclude that:
•Jesus was a real person who was executed and buried near Jerusalem about 30 CE.
•His tomb was later empty.
•His followers had experiences of seeing Jesus that convinced them he was alive.
•This belief, which can be traced back to the very early days of christianity, was a major factor in the subsequent growth of the christian church.
Arguments for the resurrection
•The tomb must have been empty or the disciples couldn’t have preached the resurrection in Jerusalem.
•Hallucinations cannot account for the appearances of Jesus to many people at once, and that he did physical things like eat fish.
•The gospels confirm each other, and are sufficiently consistent of the important facts to make them useful historical documents.
•There is no trace of pagan mythology affecting first century Jewish or christian thought.
•It is hard to believe the disciples would have suffered persecution and even martyrdom for something they knew to be a lie.
Can the gospel accounts be reconciled?
Oxford scholar, the late John Wenham, has attempted to reconcile the disparate gospel accounts. Based on plausible assumptions about the identification of some of the un-named (or ambiguously identified) characters in the story and of the writers of the gospels, Wenham has woven a narrative that explains all the Easter events and the appearances of Jesus in a logical way. Key to his explanation is his view that each gospel writer reported those appearances and conversations where he or his sources were present – hence the diversity of accounts.
His account may or may not be historical fact, but it is a fascinating reconstruction, and shows that the gospels are not necessarily inconsistent. It’s an old book – Easter Enigma by John Wenham – but can be bought online and is highly recommended.
Believing the resurrection
Based on the historical ‘facts’, a person who believes in God clearly has no necessary reason to disbelieve in miracles, and thus sufficient reason to believe Jesus was raised from death. Wenham’s harmonisation strengthens this belief.
Arguing the resurrection.
William Lane Craig commonly uses the ‘minimal facts approach’ to argue in public debates that the resurrection shows that God probably exists. He explains how every alternative hypothesis is implausible (a matter many historians agree on) and that the explanation that the resurrection of Jesus really was a work of God is in fact the only hypothesis that explains all the facts. He very often wins these points.
However many other christians are content to simply argue that once they believe in God, the resurrection is a reasonable belief. They are reinforced in this conclusion by (Jeffery Lowder, founder of the Secular Web site for the Internet Infidels), who investigated the arguments for and against, and concluded:
“On the basis of the available evidence (and the arguments I’ve seen), I conclude that a rational person may accept or reject the resurrection.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
his tomb was said to be empty.
he was said to have a tomb. the romans usually left those crucified on the cross until they rotted and were eaten by bugs and birds. (maybe there is something legit about the romans making exceptions for jewish crucifixions on the passover, but i do not know).
anyone can point to an empty tomb and say that anyone was once buried there. do empty tombs usually prove raising from the dead?
“that tomb is empty, whoever was in there must be alive again.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
i’d still like to see an inconsistency that cant be reconciled with the same type of what ifs and maybes used to reconcile the bible.
I have yet to see one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Knowing your penchant for exactitude when it comes to wording in such discussions, let me backtrack a little just in case you have grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick and
continue to beat about the burning bush with it.
You are upset with my use of the word ”overwhelming”.
am going to accept that we both understand the meaning of overwhelming:. Vastly superior number.
The vast majority of scholars etc.
Any problems with this you can always check a dictionary for a more exact wording.
Moving on.
Now let’s clarify to what I am referring.
I agree that there are alternate views of the bible.
I agree that the ”middle ground” may very well be the predominant view of the entire bible, and even the Old Testament.
However ….
The overwhelming scholarly and archaeological view of the Pentateuch, and specifically the Egyptian Slavery, Moses, the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan is minimalist – or more specifically it is considered fiction – it did not happen – which Finkelstein thoroughly explains in the video that Arch provided.
I strongly suggest you watch it.
Believe me there is no straw man; no academic of any note considers there is any veracity to these biblical tales.
As the Davies quote that I have offered states:
Apart from the well-funded (and fundamentalist) “biblical archaeologists,” we are in fact nearly all “minimalists” now.[3]
—Philip Davies, “Beyond Labels: What Comes Next?”
Emeritus Professor.
Maybe this quote might clarify the scholarly and archaeological position better for you?
Professor Ze’ev Herzog of Tel Aviv University in the foreword to his 1999 essay, Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho: “The patriarchs’ acts are legendary stories, we did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, we did not conquer the land… Those who take an interest have known these facts for years.” Reviewing Herzog’s paper, Professor Magen Broshi, archaeologist at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, endorsed the essays startlingly blunt opening remarks, stating, *“There is no serious scholar in Israel or in the world who does not accept this position. Herzog represents a large group of Israeli scholars, and he stands squarely within the consensus. Twenty years ago even I wrote of the same matters and I was not an innovator. Archaeologists simply do not take the trouble of bringing their discoveries to public attention.”
*my emphasis
I agree, and I think the statement has been resoundly defended, don’t you? The last quote even includes one of your favorite word – consensus.
Are we done, unklee?
P.S.
If anyone else believes I have failed to make the point regarding ”overwhelming” in this issue, please say so.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Very well said, Ark. But don’t expect Unk to concede that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Hallucinations cannot account for the appearances of Jesus to many people at once, and that he did physical things like eat fish.” – According to writers who never met him and have no idea what he did or didn’t do.
I have already produced evidence, from scriptures themselves, that in every instance of meeting the “resurrected” Jesus, he was at first unrecognizable to any of them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The tomb must have been empty or the disciples couldn’t have preached the resurrection in Jerusalem.”
How do we know that the disciples preached an empty tomb story…ANYWHERE on the planet…at anytime prior to the writing of the Gospel of Mark in 65-75 AD? Paul says not a single word about an empty tomb…he doesn’t even say that there was a tomb!!
For all we know, by the time the author of Mark got around to writing down the story of Jesus in circa 70 AD, legendary material had been added to the core truth. Maybe the only core truth was this:
Jesus was crucified in 30 AD, his body tossed into a common, unmarked grave with other criminals. No one but a few Roman guards knew where the body was and they weren’t talking. Then, three days after Jesus death, one, two, or several of the disciples think that they see Jesus on a distant hill, or in a large crowd—a false sighting—but they believe that Jesus is alive. The oral story of a Resurrection begins! Then, 40 years later, “Mark” writes his Gospel…IN ROME, based on the version of the oral story circulating in Rome at the time. “Mark” writes his gospel and includes an empty tomb—something that was not part of the original story (that is why Paul never mentioned an empty tomb in any of his epistles).
So based on probabilities, which explanation is more likely for the later Christian belief of an empty tomb: My hypothetical one, or that an ancient Hebrew god reanimated the bloated, decomposing corpse of a first century Jewish prophet to walk out of his grave, eat broiled fish, and levitate into the clouds?
For the life of me, I do not understand how intelligent Christians like Unk can look at their WEAK evidence and say that their supernatural explanation is the best or even only explanation for the early Christian belief that Jesus had come back from the dead!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Revisiting the miracle story, Augustine records having witnessed many miracles but none of his own. Does anyone know if, of the many reports of miracles, there is any apostle who says I performed this miracle or is it always a third party reporting?
LikeLike
@Gary.
The tactic of arguing for the sake of seemingly only wishing to point score is frustrating, to say the least, and the only reason any sort of Christian viewpoint on this topic even enters the arena is because the evidence is neither well known or promoted, and especially not among the Christian community, and hardly at all at grassroots level.
Imagine a sermon at unklee’s church in the similar vein as Wolpe delivered at his synagogue in New York openly admitting the Pentateuch, including Moses and the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan is all fiction?
There would likely be a shitstorm and it is probable that while most would still put on a stubborn front a fair number would soon put two and two together regarding the impact upon the New Testament and openly question why they had been lied to for goodness’ knows how long?
It does not bother me one iota whether the likes of unkle concedes this or not, what is important is the truth is demonstrated, especially for those who are unsure. There are enough honestly intelligent people out there who will question and will welcome this, painful as it might turn out to be. Those of us that believed got over Santa Claus. Christians will get over this as well.
I had a similar encounter a few days ago and a blogger whom I have chatted with for sometime was also unaware of the evidence surrounding these matters.
It is surprising how many people are in fact ignorant of the facts; even someone as apparently well read as unklee demonstrates a surprising level of ignorance, some of it would appear to be willful, when it comes to such scholarly issues. In fact, one might believe he simply does care, which displays a monumental amount of hubris.
This of course , is the power of religious indoctrination.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And the thing of it is, is that if ANYone were going to get their panties in wad over the Patriarchs and the Exodus having been legends, rather than historical figures, it should far more likely be the Jewish scholars, rather that us Goyim, and yet that’s not the case – they are much more honest and forthright than Christians!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Correction: does not care
LikeLike
The empty tomb argument has never carried much weight for me either.
Let’s say that early disciples were spreading the story of the resurrection. Why should we suppose that the people hearing the story would have felt the need to verify the empty tomb, and how would they have gone about doing it? It’s not like the disciples bought air time on on the local TV station to spread their message — I imagine most of their evangelism efforts were one-on-one or in small groups. Just conversations between a few individuals, in other words. So how likely is it that any of those individuals would have been in a position to actually know if the tomb was empty or not? And for the people who heard the story and dismissed it, why would they have cared enough to disprove it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now, I’m sure that Unk will toss my above hypothetical explanation for the early Christian belief in an empty tomb out the window, because according to Unk, “the majority of ‘historians’ believe that the actual tomb of Jesus really was empty”. Unk uses Christian apologist Gary Habermas as his source for this claim, and states that Habermas has released his data for all the world to review and confirm. (Last I heard Habermas had refused to release his data.) But, even if this assertion is true, it doesn’t make any real difference. And here’s why:
There are still other, much more probable NATURAL explanations for an empty tomb and the early Christian belief in a Resurrection of Jesus, that that an ancient Hebrew god performed a supernatural act.
Here’s one: Joseph of Arimethea really did bury Jesus in his tomb that night. The guards were there the minute Joseph rolled the stone in place. The guards sealed the tomb and faithfully guarded for the rest of that night and the next (sunlit) day. Joseph had buried Jesus in his tomb to get the body off the cross and into a grave so as not to defile the Passover. However, sunset Saturday night was the end of Passover and the Sabbath. One minute after sunset, Arimethea arrives with a letter from Pilate to the guards, allowing Arimethea to remove Jesus’ body and dump it into an unmarked, mass grave with the two thieves who had been crucified with Jesus.
Neither Joseph, the Sanhedrin, the guards, nor Pilate felt any compunction to notify Jesus’ disciples of the removal and reburial of the body. The women show up Sunday morning and the tomb was empty! Superstitious, uneducated Galilean fisherman start having visions and or false sightings of Jesus, and within days…JESUS IS RISEN!
And there are many other possible explanation for the empty tomb. If anyone wants, I will be happy to list them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
even if they did want to see it, was there a certified registry of who was buried where back then? I mean, what proof would you offer anyways? an empty tomb? any empty tomb?
it’s just proof of any empty tomb, not who’s it was, or is for, or that the previous tenant suddenly became undead.
today, does a missing body ever potentially indicate undead?
“cant find the body?”
“likely, the person was killed, but rose from the dead, and flew into heaven. it’s the only explanation that answers everything. and if miracles are possible, then this is likely. Since it answers everything, it’s most likely. case closed.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok, no one asked for another possible natural explanation for an empty tomb…but here is another:
Saturday night, the following thought suddenly hits Pilate like a bolt of lightening: What the
F*%#! was I thinking! I just allowed the “King of the Jews” to be buried in a rich man’s mausoleum in the capital city of Judea. It will become a national shrine for every Jew who wants to kick Rome out of Palestine! I have enough unrest in this god-forsaken stretch of desolate wasteland as it is.
“Guards. Go to the guards at the tomb of the “Jewish King”. Tell them to break the seal, roll back the stone, grab the corpse, and go dump it in a hole or garbage dump where no one will find it.”
The women show up Sunday morning and…THE TOMB IS EMPTY!
And the visions, false sightings, and hallucinations—individual and/or group—begin…and 40 years later an anonymous writer in Rome writes the Gospel of Mark with an empty tomb (but no post-resurrection appearances!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It seems to me that we’re going down a rabbit hole that doesn’t even deal with what’s important to each side.”
Hi Nate, yes I quite agree with you here. But sometimes disagreements about evidence and authority have to be addressed before one can get onto the important things. Take climate change. If a climate change sceptic says all the scientists are lying and the real evidence is ….., then the discussion can go nowhere until that statement is resolved.
In the case of the Pentateuch, Ark asked me a series of questions and I answered. The he made an ambit claim that the view that the Exodus stories were fiction was the overwhelming view of scholars. Now if that was true, there would need to be no more discussion. But it isn’t true. So either I stop discussing because it is like beating my head against the same brick wall as the climate change deniers, or I press him to justify that statement. Which I have and he hasn’t – only continued to quote a few minimalists and deny the existence of anyone else.
I presume your comment arises out of some sense of frustration. I feel the same, and I imagine he does too. I think even if he was right, it would be a difficult statement to prove, in which case it is a statement better left as an opinion than as a fact claim.
Anyway, I think it is probably best if I try once more and then I’ll retire unhurt (a cricket analogy) and ease your frustration, which you know is an aim of mine ! 🙂
LikeLike
“So, again, please list the papers you’ve read which support your claims.”
Hi John, I’m not sure why you are asking this question for I have already answered it. I have read very few papers on this matter and I only have one claim – that there is a wider range of scholarly view than what Ark claims. That is a fact, and can only be denied if implicitly one includes the proviso that the only scholars that count are the scholars that Ark approves of, and he obviously disapproves of the maximalists.
LikeLike
“I presume your comment arises out of some sense of frustration. I feel the same, and I imagine he does too. I think even if he was right, it would be a difficult statement to prove, in which case it is a statement better left as an opinion than as a fact claim.” —Unk
At every turn, Christians attempt to make their UNREASONABLE supernatural belief system reasonable instead of admitting that all “strong” evidence points to it being a superstition. No, Unk, your claim that the legends of the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan can be reasonably believed to have been historical events is not an accepted, rational opinion, about which good people can agree to disagree.. Your view on this subject is on the fringe. It is no longer considered a rational position by any respected archeologist. You might as well be arguing against the reality of man-made Climate Change.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Unk: “Hallucinations cannot account for the appearances of Jesus to many people at once, and that he did physical things like eat fish.”
Tens of thousands of Roman Catholics have seen the Virgin Mary appear to them; Tens of thousands of Hindus have watched the Hindu (stone) gods drink milk from spoons offered to them. Thousands of people, all over the world, of many different religions, claim to have seen all kinds of weird things..,but.that doesn’t mean that these people really saw what they thought they saw!
Superstitious people see and hear superstitious things.
It’s not rocket science to conclude that the first century claim that five hundred people saw Jesus at the same time in the same place is no different than the mass visions/hallucinations claimed today. Why do Protestant Christians believe ONE man, Paul, who wasn’t even making an eyewitness statement of being there with the 500 witnesses, but was quoting information that he had “received” from others, therefore second, third, fourth, fiftieth- hand information, that 500 people saw a ghost, but, they won’t buy for a second, modern “ghost sightings” from other religions…even if they have televised proof, as claim the Hindus of their milk-sipping stone idols???
LikeLiked by 2 people
Unk: “The gospels confirm each other, and are sufficiently consistent of the important facts to make them useful historical documents.”
OMG. This is an argument I would expect from a fundamentalist, but not from an educated, intelligent moderate/liberal Christian such as Unk. Has Unk ever heard about the Synoptic Problem: the fact that Matthew, Luke, and probably John (while on LSD) plagiarized large sections of Mark, the first gospel written, into their stories??? These are NOT four independent, corroborating accounts of the life of Jesus by any stretch of UnkleE’s or anyone else’s imagination.
The “majority of scholars” have noticed something very odd about the four Gospels. The four gospels seem to say the same thing, chapter after chapter (except John…who was on LSD…)almost word for word (and sometimes LITERALLY word for word)…until they get to the post resurrection appearances…then all Hell breaks loose and the four accounts are so contradictory that only a die-hard Christian would assert that they are harmonizable.
Interesting, huh? It is as if “Matthew”, “Luke”, and “John” made up their own endings to “Mark’s” original ending that ended with the women fleeing the tomb and “telling NO ONE”!
LikeLiked by 2 people
@unklee
Yes, it is true.
It seem that at least three people on this thread recognise what I have written to be a true representation of the facts including the word usage of overwhelming and it seems the only scholars/archaeologists who still believe in a middle ground or worse on this issue are as Davies notes, Fundamentalist.
So, either you are not reading the evidence I have provided, do not understand or you are now simply being obtuse on purpose.
But let me include it once more. Just for you.
Professor Ze’ev Herzog of Tel Aviv University in the foreword to his 1999 essay, Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho: “The patriarchs’ acts are legendary stories, we did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, we did not conquer the land… Those who take an interest have known these facts for years.” Reviewing Herzog’s paper, Professor Magen Broshi, archaeologist at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, endorsed the essays startlingly blunt opening remarks, stating, *“There is no serious scholar in Israel or in the world who does not accept this position. Herzog represents a large group of Israeli scholars, and he stands squarely within the consensus. Twenty years ago even I wrote of the same matters and I was not an innovator. Archaeologists simply do not take the trouble of bringing their discoveries to public attention.”
If you still dispute this statement then I am afraid the onus is on you to provide at least a statement from a recognized archaeologist or qualified, relevant scholar refuting it.
Thank you..
LikeLike
Unk: “There is no trace of pagan mythology affecting first century Jewish or christian thought.”
Well, let’s see: The Jews believed that a walking/talking snake tricked the first humans into eating a magical apple; and because they did eat the magical apple, an invisible deity cursed the earth and heavens. Later on in this Jewish story, we learn about donkeys that can talk, people who don’t burn in furnaces, etc., etc.
Nope. No mythology here.
Then there are the early Christians who believed that their virgin-born demi-god walked on water, flew to the top of high mountains and the highest pinnacle of tall buildings (superman??) such as the temple…and topped off his dazzling performance by coming out of his grave, with the assistance of “angels” with a super-hero body what could walk through locked doors and levitate into outer space!!
Nope. No mythology there either!
LikeLiked by 1 person