Online note taking app - Notes.ionotes

Fast | Easy | Short

Online Note Services - notes.io

Well, here is the Part 1 of the rebuttal.

Point #1: The Resurrection is a vindication of Jesus' radical self-claims.

There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus ever made those radical self-claims. The only place where Jesus makes "radical" self-claims is in the oral tradition of the year 90-95 CE when the gospel of John. The gospel of John absolutely has numerous occasions where Jesus claims to be God (John 10:31, John 14:9, John 8:58, John 20:28). These claims, in fact any claims about being divine are absolutely not found in our earliest sources. Nowhere in Mark, Matthew and Luke does Jesus ever claim to be God.

Let me make something clear. The gospel writers of Mark, Matthew and Luke absolutely believed Jesus to be God but in their writings none of them record any claims **by Jesus himself** to be God that were circulating in the oral tradition at the time. The only controversial claim is claiming to have the authority to forgive sins (Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:10) but so what? The disciples of Jesus were also allowed to forgive sins and to not forgive sins (John 20:23). Hopefully, we can agree that the disciples whom Jesus told very clearly "If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” are not divine.

Let me make it clear once again, every single author believes that Jesus is God, however, none of the oral tradition at the time of Mark, Matthew and Luke had anything about Jesus being God. Jesus only has radical self-claims by the time of the oral tradition in John. They absolutely try to portray Jesus as God as much as possible (Prepare the way of the Lord) but unfortunately all of that is useless since none of that is a claim made by Jesus. It is a claim made by the author.

If anything, the claims that Jesus made for himself in the synoptic gospels are all that a mere prophet would make (Matthew 21:11, Luke 24:19, Matthew 13:57, Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34, Matthew 26:39, Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32).

That is a clear development and evolution of the figure of Jesus from a Jewish Prophet to God.

Point #2: Crucifixion and the appeal to authority.

You make an argument from authority by saying all scholars believe the Crucifixion. Arguments and appeals to authority are great when we do not have access to the data like in the field of Quantum mechanics when we need 3 years of education just to understand the terminology, then we can use physicists' authority because we do not have the data. But in this case, we have access to the same data as the scholars of the New testament. We have access to all the canonicals, apocryphal writings as well as the writings of the early church fathers.

Moreover, Bob Price and Richard Carrier do not believe that Jesus was crucified and they do not believe that Jesus even existed.

And EP Sanders identifies himself as a "liberal, modern, secularized Protestant" in his book "Jesus and Judaism. Not Jewish at all.

If we take the appeal to authority seriously, then I can dismiss this entire video by noting that you are a biologist with no credentials in history or the New Testament.

Point #3: Attestation in multiple early sources.

First of all, Paul absolutely does not claim to get the Corinthian creed from eyewitnesses. That's apologetic fiction. All Paul says in Galatians 1 is that after he converted, he preached the Gospel in Arabia for 3 years then went to Jerusalem and only met Cephas and James for 15 nights and then left only to return to Jerusalem 10+ years later. He absolutely does not claim that he got any material from eyewitnesses. Where does Paul say that he got the Corinthian creed (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) from eyewitnesses during his visit to Jerusalem.

Second of all, He clearly denies getting the Corinthian creed from eyewitnesses since the gospel he preaches (1 Corinthians 15:1-2) is not from any man or human source (Galatians 1:11-12) so clearly Paul did not receive the creed from humans including eyewitnesses or disciples. He also says that the apostles of Jerusalem did not contribute anything to his preaching (Galatians 2:6) so the apostles and disciples at Jerusalem did not contribute anything to Paul's preaching so they did not give him the Corinthian creed.

Moreover, Paul clearly made it up or it is at least a post-pauline interpolation since such great evidence of the resurrection like the 500 eyewitnesses is nowhere in the gospels and Paul clearly and explicitly tells us that he is not a reliable source of information since he is a zealous deceiver. (1 Corinthians 9:20-22), With this in mind that Paul is a deceiver willing to make up anything to convince people to his side, it is important to note that the only time Paul cites such an important piece of evidence/apologetic is to people who deny the Resurrection. (1 Corinthians 15:12).

For a full annihilation, here is Robert Price (https://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html)

There is no evidence that the Romans or Jews mocked Christian beliefs.


Point #4: Burial

You bring very weak evidence here. Josephus is writing about Jewish laws. According to everyone, Jesus had a Roman "curcifixion" and trial so the laws would be inapplicable in this situation. Let just put aside all the legal errors in Mark's gospel (https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/comments/88boid/ungrateful/dwk8uzg/?context=3) and focus on the burial story. The reason it was likely for Mark to invent Joseph of Arimathea is to show that everybody surrounding Jesus acknowledged that he was the messiah. Mark invents a pagan Roman centurion who acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God (Just like the peacemakers are called sons of God in Matthew 23:9) and a Jewish person acknowledging Jesus as messiah. This would have made the Jesus story more marketable to Jews and Romans.

Point #5: Narrow range of theories

Come on, really? All you could do is hallucination, mythic and conspiracy theory? Well I lean towards the mythic theory. But what about Swoon and Substitution theory? What about the wrong tomb theory and the decomposed body theory?

Point #6: The women at the empty tomb as a likely invention


From https://celsus.blog/2013/06/29/knocking-out-the-pillars-of-the-minimal-facts-apologetic/

Apologetic efforts to defend the historicity of the women at the tomb primarily stress how women in 1st century CE Palestine were not considered reliable courtroom witnesses, and accordingly the author of Mark would not have invented this story because of the criterion of embarrassment. But there are many problems with this argument. For starters, this claim is factually wrong. Jeffery Lowder (pgs. 283-285) has shown in The Empty Tomb that women were allowed to serve as witnesses in court on rare occasions. But furthermore, the women are not presented as courtroom witnesses! We are not talking about a Palestinian legal document, but a Hellenistic prose novel influenced by previous Hellenistic literary motifs. Women being associated with burial rites was a common tradition in previous Greek literature. Anyone who has read Sophocles’ Antigone can see this easily. And likewise in Mark there are plausible literary reasons for women going to care for Jesus’ body.

But furthermore, if one really wants to believe that the women would be considered unreliable witnesses, and thus could not have been invented, part of their role in Mark is actually as unreliable witnesses! What happens at the original ending of Mark? The women run away and don’t tell anybody because they are too afraid. Why have this bizarre ending to the Gospel? Bart Ehrman (“The Women and the Empty Tomb”) has suggested that the reason why the women are specifically said to have told nobody about the empty tomb is because it would be a perfect explanation for why Mark’s readers had not heard the story before. If there really was no such tradition of an empty tomb prior to Mark, and the author invented the story for literary/theological purposes, how could he explain to his audience why they had never heard the story before? Because the women, unreliable witnesses that they were, ran away in fear and told no one! Hence why the story was just now being heard.

If you read the gospels, they all have a literary motif. They all have Jesus hanging out with the sinners, the tax collectors, the poor, ... the social outcasts in general. So it would make sense for Mark to make up this story with another social outcast, the women, at the forefront. The other gospel writers would all copy Mark later. Mark has disciples go re-check the women just to make sure so you both have the literary motif fulfilled and you have reliable eyewitnesses.


(Continued below)

Part 2: (Continuation from above)

Point #7: Killing the ALIVE

Your points of Appearances, Low status of women, Immediate proclamation and Voluntary suffering and empty tomb are only found in the gospels and acts (I have already dealt with the Corinthian creed above). If I can show that these documents are not reliable, then your case would be like going to the 12 Labours of Hercules to prove that Heracles is divine or like going to the Bhagvad Gita to prove the credibility of the Hindu deities. The miracles of the Hindu deities likewise have "early multiple" attestation in Ramayan, Bhagavad Gita, Vedas, Upshinads, Puranas, Rig Veda, etc.

You provided no evidence for the reliability of the gospels, sadly.

I can provide evidence against the reliability of the Christian scriptures if demanded.

Point #8: Just because something is in a good historical record, it does not become a data or a fact.

Just because a detail is mentioned in an old history book, even if that book is reliable, it is not a part of the data to be explained nor does it become what Habermas and Liecona call a "fact".

Many ancient historians report miracles that are far better attested and independently corroborated than those in the Gospels. The historians Tacitus (Ann. 6.20), Suetonius (Gal. 4), and Cassius Dio (64.1) all independently corroborate that the emperor Tiberius used his knowledge of astrology to predict the future emperor Galba’s reign. These same historians likewise independently corroborate that Vespasian could miraculously cure the blind and crippled (Tacitus, Ann. 4.81; Suetonius, Vesp. 7.2; Dio 65.8).
     
 
what is notes.io
 

Notes.io is a web-based application for taking notes. You can take your notes and share with others people. If you like taking long notes, notes.io is designed for you. To date, over 8,000,000,000 notes created and continuing...

With notes.io;

  • * You can take a note from anywhere and any device with internet connection.
  • * You can share the notes in social platforms (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, instagram etc.).
  • * You can quickly share your contents without website, blog and e-mail.
  • * You don't need to create any Account to share a note. As you wish you can use quick, easy and best shortened notes with sms, websites, e-mail, or messaging services (WhatsApp, iMessage, Telegram, Signal).
  • * Notes.io has fabulous infrastructure design for a short link and allows you to share the note as an easy and understandable link.

Fast: Notes.io is built for speed and performance. You can take a notes quickly and browse your archive.

Easy: Notes.io doesn’t require installation. Just write and share note!

Short: Notes.io’s url just 8 character. You’ll get shorten link of your note when you want to share. (Ex: notes.io/q )

Free: Notes.io works for 12 years and has been free since the day it was started.


You immediately create your first note and start sharing with the ones you wish. If you want to contact us, you can use the following communication channels;


Email: [email protected]

Twitter: http://twitter.com/notesio

Instagram: http://instagram.com/notes.io

Facebook: http://facebook.com/notesio



Regards;
Notes.io Team

     
 
Shortened Note Link
 
 
Looding Image
 
     
 
Long File
 
 

For written notes was greater than 18KB Unable to shorten.

To be smaller than 18KB, please organize your notes, or sign in.