Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can "confidence in what we hope for"
and an "assurance about what we do not see"
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #100]

Correct n me if I misunderstand, as you seem to stop short of claiming the resurrection took place, but seem to be arguing that it did.

This is the basic view of Gospel that I doubt - that it is reliable enough to suppose the resurrection (in the gospels) happened, give or take a few wild contradictions.

I propose that they didn't happen and the evidence proves that. But for some reason, nobody is looking at the evidence.

The Pauline resurrection - visions are nothing to do with the Gospels accounts; demonstrably.

The Gospel accounts are do contradictory they have to be made up.

That's at least as good a hypothesis as 'it happened somewhat like that', and if fact the doubt is better supported by the evidence.

I can tell that Mr Average is reluctant to rethink what he has been spoonfed by evangelism all his life but they will see in time, that's where the evidence points. Jesus may have been real; he probably did none of the thinks in the Gospels, but the resurrection accounts are wrong. It did not happen.

[Difflugia]

...[Habermas] stops short of claiming that they believed in a physical resurrection.

Not sure where you got that idea.

Habermas and Licona's book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus has an entire section, Heavenly Vision or Bodily Appearance? (Part 4.9 pages 154 - 165), where they argue for a physical resurrection.

The section you're talking about is Habermas going beyond his "minimal facts" argument of things to which scholars agree. He says in the first sentence of the section to which you refer, "The nature of Jesus' resurrection body is not discussed within a minimal-facts argument."

When actually discussing his claims about scholars, he cops only to, "There is a virtual consensus among scholars who study Jesus' resurrection that, subsequent to Jesus' death by crucifixion, his disciples really believed that he appeared to them risen from the dead" (p. 49). His reticence is more obvious in The Secret of the Talpiot Tomb when he writes, "For example, the vast majority of scholars today think, at the very least, that Jesus' disciples along with others thought that they had seen appearances of the risen Jesus." My copy's digital, so no page numbers, but it's in chapter 5 if you want to look it up.

Habermas knows that even for his minimal facts arguments, the scholars don't paint the picture he wants them to.

[Difflugia]

Because, you see, we have enough facts and evidence to know this is not a fictional tale. We know this because we have most scholars today who are convinced the early disciples truly believed they had encountered the risen Christ.

They're convinced that the early disciples truly believed they had encountered the risen Christ in some way, but not necessarily in any objective and physical sense.

Bart Ehrman deals with this extensively in How Jesus Became God and devotes a whole chapter to it. Introducing chapter 5, "The Resurrection of Jesus: What We Can Know," he says this:

It is striking, and frequently overlooked by casual observers of the early Christian tradition, that even though it was a universal belief among the first Christians that Jesus had been raised from the dead, there was not a uniformity of belief concerning what, exactly, "raised from the dead" meant. In particular, early Christians had long and heated debates about the nature of the resurrectionspecifically, the nature of the resurrected body. Here I explore three options for what that resurrected body of Jesus actually was, as evidenced in writings from the early church.

I start with our earliest recorded source, the writings of Paul, and once again with his "resurrection chapter" (1 Cor. 15), so named because it is devoted to the question of Jesuss resurrection and the future resurrection of believers. Here Paul stresses that Jesus rose from the dead in a spiritual body. Both terms are important for understanding Pauls view of the resurrection of Jesus: Jesus was raised in the body; but it was a body that was spiritual.

A few paragraphs later, he continues:

Modern readers are not the only ones who find Pauls views confusing or who read Paul to mean something that he didnt say. We know that other Christians stressed either one or the other aspect of his spiritual body to an extreme. Some maintained that Jesus was not raised in the body at all but only in the spirit, and others insisted that his raised body was so closely connected to his corpse that it bore all the marks of its mortality still upon it.

Some ancient Christianstaking a line very similar to that found among Pauls opponents in Corinthmaintained that Jesus was raised in the spirit, not in the body; that his body died and rotted in the grave, as bodies do; but that his spirit lived on and ascended to heaven. This view became prominent among various groups of Gnostic Christians.

This scholar, anyway, thinks that early Christians were quite varied in what "resurrection" meant.

If these scholars are correct, and Jesus did not rise from the dead, this would mean all these folks were somehow deceived into believing that He did in fact rise from the dead, and these folks go on to proclaim this as being fact,

Just like Christians now are deceived and proclaim this deception as fact.

Moreover, let us think about the fact that if the scholars are correct, then this would mean there was indeed an empty tomb, and the disciples could not have been responsible for it being empty.

No, we have a story of an empty tomb.

We know this because all one would have had to do to stop the claim in its tracks would be to go to the tomb and produce the body.

Assuming there was a tomb in the first place, even if we, for the sake of argument, take as read that there was a body.

I mean, it simply continues to become ever more extraordinary in that we now have those who were convinced they had truly encountered the risen Christ,

There are people now that are convinced that they've truly encountered the risen Christ.

However, let us suppose the scholars are not correct, and that the early followers were not at all convinced they had encountered Christ alive after death, and it was a made-up story. This would seem to mean the early disciples had just watched their leader crucified, dead, and buried, and instead of being crushed by this event, these folks come up with a tale, and continue to proclaim this tale, and this tale from 2000 years ago, continues to have an enormous impact upon the world.

Like Spartacus, or for that matter, Julius Caesar? We haven't had 2000 years yet, but there are an awful lot of Mormons around despite their leader's death.

You're just trying to argue that people don't behave in ways that they've otherwise been proven to.

How in the world am I "misrepresenting the scholars"?

By claiming this:

I am simply making the case there are fact, evidence, and reasons to believe, and the fact that there are scholars who are not Christian who are convinced by the evidence we have that the early followers truly believed they had encountered Christ alive after death demonstrates this to be the case.

If you're willing to accept that the encounters may have been visionary and spiritual (John Dominic Crossan repeatedly uses the word "apparition"), then your statement wouldn't be a misrepresentation of scholars. Is that part of your position?

As far as Habermas is concerned, I have consumed very little by him, and he may have indeed come up with what is called "the minimal facts approach" but I can tell you that long before I had ever heard of Habermas I was saying that all I need is the letters of Paul, along with the letters addressed to Theophilus, and I can give you facts, evidence, and reasons to believe.

Luke and Acts aren't letters.

[Difflugia]

Mark representing the original form of the empty tomb story. The tomb was empty and the women ran away and said nothing and did not see Jesus, and nobody did.

An interesting scholarly take on this is that of John Dominic Crossan. He thinks that the resurrection account in the Gospel of Peter with its giant Jesus and crosses reaching into the clouds actually predates and may have influenced the Markan account.

[TRANSPONDER]

Mark representing the original form of the empty tomb story. The tomb was empty and the women ran away and said nothing and did not see Jesus, and nobody did.

An interesting scholarly take on this is that of John Dominic Crossan. He thinks that the resurrection account in the Gospel of Peter with its giant Jesus and crosses reaching into the clouds actually predates and may have influenced the Markan account.

I've heard similar. However i consider the gospel of Peter a late development. I always suspected it as it became more fanciful (1) and absurd than the others (Mark representing a more simple and down - to - earth version), but I became sure when I worked out that it borrowed elements from both Matthew and Luke, which of course Matthew and Luke do not agree on. Peter has to date from a time when Matthew and Luke were both available. i know it can be argued that it validates these stories when the gospels do not validate each other, but the hypothesis that Peter simply borrows from the gospels which were brought together in a way that the Gospel writers themselves knew nothing of (or the would have n made sure they didn't contradict each other so badly) makes as much sense and, I think, fits the evidence better.

The episode about the sentencing of Jesus goes even further in blaming the Jews. The crowd itself gets to conduct the crucifixion.

And he gave him over to the people before the first day of their feast of the Unleavened Bread. [6] But having taken the Lord, running, they were pushing him and saying, 'Let us drag along the Son of God now that we have power over him.' [7] And they clothed him with purple and sat him on a chair of judgment, saying: 'Judge justly, King of Israel.' [8] And a certain one of them, having brought a thorny crown, put it on the head of the Lord. [9] And others who were standing there were spitting in his face, and others slapped his cheeks. Others were jabbing him with a reed; and some scourged him, saying, 'With such honor let us honor the Son of God.'

In fact I'll try to quote it, as I love the crazy old suppressed gospel of Peter

The end of what survives has also elements of Mark and John, not present in the others.

And having gone off, they found the sepulcher opened. And having come forward, they bent down there and saw there a certain young man seated in the middle of the sepulcher, comely and clothed with a splendid robe, who said to them: [56] 'Why have you come? Whom do you seek? Not that one who was crucified? He is risen and gone away. But if you do not believe, bend down and see the place where he lay, because he is not here. For he is risen and gone away to there whence he was sent.' [57] Then the women fled frightened.
[58] Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. [59] But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful; and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home. [60] But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord ...

The women running away in fear is Mark (though could say it is Original) but the disciples going to fish after the resurrection is specific to John, and i even hear it was a later addition to John (though I haven't heard how we know). In fact the whole clumsy and summarised style of Peter reminds me of the later add - on to Mark, the freer logion. which i believe translates as 'fabricated garbage'.

(1) the only episode in the current gospels that has the same craziness is Matthew's descending angel. And that tomb - guard (specific to Matthew) also appears in Peter.
But in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; [36] and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher. [37] But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered. [38] And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). [39] And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, [40] and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens. [41] And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' [42] And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.' [43]

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #103]

They're convinced that the early disciples truly believed they had encountered the risen Christ in some way, but not necessarily in any objective and physical sense.

Correct, and I have a few points here. The first question I would ask is, what has convinced all these scholars the early disciples truly believed they had encountered the risen Christ? Well, that would be the facts and evidence we have which have convinced them. In other words, the facts and evidence we have, in the mind of these scholars demands this to be the case. I can tell you though, this certainly demands some sort of explanation. How in the world do we have all these folks claiming to have witnessed the same thing, and then these claims go on to have one of the most, if not the most significant impacts the world has ever known? And you want to say this sort of thing is not out of the ordinary? Does this sort of thing occur on a regular basis?

Next, since we agree the scholars are convinced the early followers truly believed they had encountered Christ after death, then this is certainly evidence for the resurrection, unless you have some sort of explanation for these folks being convinced in what they saw, which would not include a resurrection. Again, the fact that Ehrman insists that he is "not taking a stand" speaks volumes. My friend, the reason he will not take a stand, is because there is no other known explanation for the facts and evidence we have, which could explain the facts and evidence we have, other than a resurrection. In other words, when one attempts to sit down and come up with any other explanation and go on to think about what all would have to be involved for such an explanation to be the case, they will discover that such an explanation will not hold up to the facts. So then, what is the reason to rule out the resurrection? Well, that would be because a resurrection is impossible. My friend, if you have a dead body which is buried, an empty tomb, and very strong evidence there are hundreds of folks who are convinced they saw this dead person alive after death, and no other explanation which can explain all the facts and evidence we have, then this is why we have the saying, "if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck"!.

The last point I will make here is when you say, "not necessarily"? Well, why not? That would be because they know they cannot, and so do you. In other words, if the scholars who are opposed could in fact say it was necessarily so, I can assure you they would. They would love to, but in order to remain intellectually honest, they know they cannot. I'm just telling you; the evidence is mounting up, and I am not in any way suggesting that what I have said proves a resurrection, but it is certainly reasons to believe.

It is striking, and frequently overlooked by casual observers of the early Christian tradition, that even though it was a universal belief among the first Christians that Jesus had been raised from the dead, there was not a uniformity of belief concerning what, exactly, "raised from the dead" meant. In particular, early Christians had long and heated debates about the nature of the resurrectionspecifically, the nature of the resurrected body. Here I explore three options for what that resurrected body of Jesus actually was, as evidenced in writings from the early church.

I start with our earliest recorded source, the writings of Paul, and once again with his "resurrection chapter" (1 Cor. 15), so named because it is devoted to the question of Jesuss resurrection and the future resurrection of believers. Here Paul stresses that Jesus rose from the dead in a spiritual body. Both terms are important for understanding Pauls view of the resurrection of Jesus: Jesus was raised in the body; but it was a body that was spiritual.

All the above is doing is to give even more evidence. I mean, Ehrman has already acknowledged the facts, and evidence demonstrates the early disciples were convinced they had encountered the risen Christ. Now he is simply questioning as to what sort of resurrection we are talking about? I can tell you that he does not eliminate a real physical bodily resurrection, because he cannot. What he is telling us is, he is simply giving us other options, and he is not taking a stand on which options we should take, because he is on record as saying,

" Im not taking a stand on whether the visions were veridical or not. Thats my entire *point*. Im not taking a stand. If you think the visions were veridical, then you think Jesus was really raised. You can take that view".

The reason he says, "you can take that view" is because he understands one can examine the facts and evidence and come to this conclusion, which is one of the reasons he is not taking a stand. The other reason he is not taking a stand, is because he understands that there is no alternative explanation which can explain the facts and evidence we have.

Modern readers are not the only ones who find Pauls views confusing or who read Paul to mean something that he didnt say. We know that other Christians stressed either one or the other aspect of his spiritual body to an extreme. Some maintained that Jesus was not raised in the body at all but only in the spirit, and others insisted that his raised body was so closely connected to his corpse that it bore all the marks of its mortality still upon it.

Some ancient Christianstaking a line very similar to that found among Pauls opponents in Corinthmaintained that Jesus was raised in the spirit, not in the body; that his body died and rotted in the grave, as bodies do; but that his spirit lived on and ascended to heaven. This view became prominent among various groups of Gnostic Christians.

Ehrman is not telling us anything above that we do not already know. But notice carefully, that he is not arguing against the resurrection. Rather, he is simply pointing out that different folks had competing views of what sort of resurrection it was. The point is, he cannot argue against the resurrection, because he has already admitted that the early followers of Jesus were convinced, they had witnessed Jesus alive after death with no other explanation, and Ehrman insists he is "not taking a stand". Again, the fact that he insists he is not taking a stand, speaks volumes!

Just like Christians now are deceived and proclaim this deception as fact.

Oh? So, you certainly seem to be taking a stand. This should mean you can give us an explanation of the facts and evidence we have, which would not include the extraordinary? If you can, it will be the first I have ever heard. I can tell you that I am not proclaiming the resurrection to be a fact. I am simply demonstrating there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the resurrection.

No, we have a story of an empty tomb.

That the empty tomb would be an empty story simply does not hold up to the facts. Rather, it is wishful thinking. There is no way these folks could have been claiming an empty tomb, without the tomb being empty. There would have been too many folks such as me who would have ensured this to be the case.

Assuming there was a tomb in the first place, even if we, for the sake of argument, take as read that there was a body.

My friend, Jesus was crucified as a public spectacle for all to see. It is even reported that the authorities were afraid of the theft of the body. Again, what you are attempting to sell will not hold up to the facts.

Like Spartacus, or for that matter, Julius Caesar?

Sort of funny? I had to look up Spartacus, so I do not see how this would compare. As far as Julius Caesar is concerned, yes, he seemed to have accomplished some extraordinary things, and how are we so convinced about Julius Caesar? Well, that would be through reading ancient letters which we do not believe to be completely reliable, but we are certain that we can know certain events occurred by reading these letters. In the same way, as we read what is contained in the New Testament, we do not even have to believe them to be reliable in order to be able to be confident about certain things, as the scholars demonstrate.

We haven't had 2000 years yet, but there are an awful lot of Mormons around despite their leader's death.

I really love it when there are those who want to compare Christianity to a religion. First, I do not have to know a thing about any of these religions, in order to know if there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the resurrection. One would have absolutely nothing to do with the other. Next, as we compare Mormonism to Christianity, what we see is, the main character of Mormonism claimed to have some sort of golden tablets. Of course, there were those who claimed to have witnessed the tablets, but when we continue on, what we find is, some of these witnesses left the Church, while others were excommunicated. Moreover, no one could interpret what the tablets had to say, other than the main character. This leaves us with having to take the word of the main character, since he was the only one who could interpret what was on the tablets.

Now, let us compare the main Character of Mormonism, to the main character of Christianity. The main character of Christianity leaves us nothing in writing at all. Rather, this main character, was crucified, dead, buried, and it was his followers at the time of his death, whom scholars are convinced saw him alive after death in some sort of way, who go on to proclaim he had risen, in the face of those who would have had every reason to stop these claims, with the life of Paul demonstrating this to be the case. Christianity is not about a list of rules and laws, of what we must do to save ourselves. Rather, it is a story played out in real history of what God has done on our behalf. In other words, Christianity is not about what we must do in order to serve God, because God certainly does not need our service. It is God who has served us, and we are now free to go out and serve others, not out of obligation to any sort of law, but rather out of gratitude for what God has done for us.

The bottom line is, one would have to take the word of the main character as far as Mormonism is concerned. As far as Christianity is concerned, what we have is those who were simply living out their lives, and the material we have is simply a by-product of their lives, and the authors had no concern, nor any idea, that what they were writing would be read by anyone other than the intended audience at the time, and they certainly had no idea about any sort of Bible. At any rate, the claims these folks were making, which the scholars are convinced they truly believed, goes on to have one of the most, if not the most, significant impacts the world has ever known, some 2000 years and counting. I mean, just think about it? It continues to have an enormous impact, even upon your own life, as you continue to debate it, some 2000 years later.

The main point is, there is certainly other explanations for the facts and evidence we have which would explain the rise of Mormonism. However, I do not know of any other explanation which would explain the facts and evidence we have concerning the Christian claims, which would not include the extraordinary. Maybe you can supply us with such an explanation which the scholars such as Ehrman have failed to do?

You're just trying to argue that people don't behave in ways that they've otherwise been proven to.

Well, no! I have not at all argued about "how people behave". Rather, my appeal has continually been to the facts and evidence we have, which has convinced the scholars that the early disciples were convinced in what they say. What best explains this? Can you give us an explanation which would not include the extraordinary? I'm just telling you, most scholars who dedicate their life to the study of such things, will not attempt to give any sort of alternative explanation, because there is no known alternative explanation, which can explain the facts and evidence we have. It's really that simple.

If you're willing to accept that the encounters may have been visionary and spiritual (John Dominic Crossan repeatedly uses the word "apparition"), then your statement wouldn't be a misrepresentation of scholars. Is that part of your position?

I mean, let's look at what Crossan is saying. He is convinced the early disciples truly believed they had encountered Christ alive after death. Then, like Ehrman, is simply supplying us with another option. He is certainly not insisting that this is the case, because he cannot. I have said all along that there are scholars who are not Christian, whom I will assume do not believe in the resurrection. However, most of these same scholars understand that the evidence demands the early followers were convinced in what they saw. Therefore, they are forced with attempting to supply some sort of alternative. The problem is, these alternatives either do not explain all the facts we have, or they end up being extraordinary themselves, which leaves those going with what they believe to be the least extraordinary. So then, when you bring up what Crossan has to say, it is not helping your argument, but is rather working against it.

Allow me to explain what my position is. My position is, there is no way one can sit down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false and come away believing there are easy answers. In other words, it is not as easy as many Christians make it out to be, but it is also not as easy as many of those opposed make it out to be. I as a Christian, am not insisting that a resurrection has occurred, and I am not insisting there would be no reason to doubt. Rather, I am demonstrating there are reasons to believe. In other words, I am not insisting you have no reason to hold to the position you have, but you certainly seem to be insisting that I have no reason to believe as I do. So then, what we have is a Christian who is intellectually honest, who is not insisting there would be no reason for those who may hold a different position, as opposed to an unbeliever who wants to insist there would be no reason to be opposed to the position they hold, when the fact of the matter is, most all scholars opposed would not take such a stand because they understand that this would be intellectually dishonest. It is one thing to examine the facts and evidence we have and come to a conclusion. It is quite another to examine the facts and evidence we have and come to the conclusion that there would be no reason to come to a different conclusion. In the end, there are no easy answers as you are attempting to make out.

Luke and Acts aren't letters.

Really? I believe the last time you made such a statement you qualified it with, "more than likely not". Now you seem to be saying they are definitely not. Can you demonstrate this to be the case? In the end, it really does not matter to the point I was making in that all I need is the letters of Paul along with what is called The Gospel of Luke, and The Actions of the Apostles, and I can give you facts, evidence, and reasons to believe.

[TRANSPONDER]

The position is thiz, at least from where I am. Yes, I think Paul was real. Thus I think the disciopkles were real, and very probably Jesus was real and crucified.

I have no problem with those claims at all.

However I do have a problem with the claim that the resurrection belief of the disciples and indeed Paul is in any way of a solid body walking around Sunday still with the holes in for identification.

The resurrection was an idea of theirs and their vision of Jesus, just...a vision.

The walking Jesus was not originally there. Three contradictory stories were added to invent a solid body resurrection.

Now, I don't care if you deny it. Not unless you present better evidence. Without that you have nothing to persuade me and - and this is the point - nobody else who can still question.

Remember, the point of debate is not to see how much you can deny but how many t you can persuade.

[Difflugia]

And you want to say this sort of thing is not out of the ordinary? Does this sort of thing occur on a regular basis?

"I encountered Jesus!"

Next, since we agree the scholars are convinced the early followers truly believed they had encountered Christ after death, then this is certainly evidence for the resurrection, unless you have some sort of explanation for these folks being convinced in what they saw, which would not include a resurrection.

If you mean the same thing by "saw" that scholars mean by "experienced" or "encountered," then religious fervor and a vivid imaginiation are sufficient explanations.

My friend, if you have a dead body which is buried, an empty tomb, and very strong evidence there are hundreds of folks who are convinced they saw this dead person alive after death,

We don't have any of those things. We have stories about those things.

and no other explanation which can explain all the facts and evidence we have, then this is why we have the saying, "if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck"!.

"If we have a story about a duck, there must really be a duck!"

They're convinced that the early disciples truly believed they had encountered the risen Christ in some way, but not necessarily in any objective and physical sense.

The last point I will make here is when you say, "not necessarily"? Well, why not?

Because we have a number of stories about experiences of the risen Christ, but those stories conflict with each other and the earliest we have seems to be one of spiritual bodies and visions. Since we see different relationships to objective reality even between the stories we have, there's no reasonable way to claim that the experiences of the earliest disciples were at any particular point along a continuum from imaginary to concrete. In short, that's what "not necessarily" means.

I can tell you that he does not eliminate a real physical bodily resurrection, because he cannot.

As I've told you before and will probably tell you again, "possible" and "probable" are not the same thing. Santa Claus and leprechauns are possible.

The reason he says, "you can take that view" is because he understands one can examine the facts and evidence and come to this conclusion, which is one of the reasons he is not taking a stand.

People can and do examine the facts and evidence and come to the conclusion that Santa Claus is real. That many of them are four years old makes the statement no less true.

The other reason he is not taking a stand, is because he understands that there is no alternative explanation which can explain the facts and evidence we have.

If you think that's true, I suggest you read How Jesus Became God.

Rather, he is simply pointing out that different folks had competing views of what sort of resurrection it was.

And your argument has hinged on the resurrection being physical with an empty tomb and people seeing the risen Jesus in a conventional sense with their eyes. If we can't establish that, your current argument fails.

Just like Christians now are deceived and proclaim this deception as fact.

Oh? So, you certainly seem to be taking a stand. This should mean you can give us an explanation of the facts and evidence we have, which would not include the extraordinary?

People told fanciful stories about Jesus, some of which included resurrections. A few of those stories were written down,

No, we have a story of an empty tomb.

That the empty tomb would be an empty story simply does not hold up to the facts. Rather, it is wishful thinking. There is no way these folks could have been claiming an empty tomb, without the tomb being empty. There would have been too many folks such as me who would have ensured this to be the case.

Nothing suggests this is true, but let's assume that there were people that "ensured this to be the case." When they found the concrete evidence lacking, they decided not to become a Christian. I'm sure that there were still enough credulous folks left to fill the ranks. You're still improperly assuming, however, that the earliest stories even had an empty tomb. Paul's didn't and Mark wouldn't be written for another twenty years. By that time, there was no chance of finding the "empty tomb" even if someone wanted to look for it.

Assuming there was a tomb in the first place, even if we, for the sake of argument, take as read that there was a body.

My friend, Jesus was crucified as a public spectacle for all to see. It is even reported that the authorities were afraid of the theft of the body.

That's one of the stories, yes.

you certainly seem to be insisting that I have no reason to believe as I do.

No. I'm insisting that you're confusing fact, speculation, and conjecture in ways that make nonsense of the word "evidence." Even if you happen to be right, your argument is still bad.

Luke and Acts aren't letters.

Really? I believe the last time you made such a statement you qualified it with, "more than likely not". Now you seem to be saying they are definitely not.

Pick a standard to which we can both adhere.

[Goose]

...[Habermas] stops short of claiming that they believed in a physical resurrection.

Not sure where you got that idea.

Habermas and Licona's book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus has an entire section, Heavenly Vision or Bodily Appearance? (Part 4.9 pages 154 - 165), where they argue for a physical resurrection.

The section you're talking about is Habermas going beyond his "minimal facts" argument of things to which scholars agree. He says in the first sentence of the section to which you refer, "The nature of Jesus' resurrection body is not discussed within a minimal-facts argument."

They are addressing a nuanced minority view within the majority view that seeks to explain the disciples belief. The minority view that, although Jesus resurrection was still a supernatural event, his resurrected body was immaterial, the "objective vision view" as its referred to in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Although the ratio of scholars who hold this minority view is not mentioned in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Habermas does discuss it elsewhere. In an earlier post I provided you a link to where he does. I will provide it again, with his concluding comments, since you seemed to have missed it:

Conclusion

As mentioned at the outset, this study has admittedly and necessarily been sketchy. It consists chiefly of a brief survey of recent trends on the subject of natural and supernatural theories designed to explain the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Even many scholars seem to have missed the distinctive history and especially the current distribution of these theses.

My chief goal was to map a wide range of stances and, particularly, to differentiate four categorical explanationsthe natural internal and external theories, and the supernatural internal and external approaches. I also named and described two of the naturalistic theses the illumination and illusion viewsthat are seldom, if ever, either identified or qualifiedly differentiated from other views.

Though the recent upturn toward opting for naturalistic alternatives has not been overly popular, and is still far from (he most common option, the numbers are noteworthy. Not surprisingly, virtually none of these natural paths has been traveled by the scholarly pens of the most influential writers contributing to the Third Quest for the historical Jesus. On the other hand, recent years have shown a stronger migration to one of the supernatural camps.

How do current scholars line up? In my own survey of recent resurrection sources mentioned at the start of this chapter, less than one-quarter of critical scholars who addressed the historicity question offered naturalistic theories, of either the internal or external varieties. More surprisingly, only a few specifically identified themselves as agnostic on the issue, but one suspects that there are reasons for such a low number." The almost three-quarters of remaining scholars hold either of the two views that Jesus was raised from the dead in some sense.

Further, if my survey of recent resurrection sources provides an accurate gauge, the subcategories may also be estimated, even if generally. Taken as a separate entity, the natural category was subdivided into the internal theories, such as hallucination (about a third of these particular scholars), and the objective theories, such as legend (about two-thirds). Among the supernatural positions, we have the further subdivisions of those who prefer more visionary views (less than one-quarter of these particular scholars) and those who take the position that Jesus was resurrected in a real, though still transformed, body (more than three-quarters).

Some intriguing trends have emerged. One may quibble or even disagree with the estimated percentages here, but certain broad movements seem clear.61 On the natural side, the overall position is held by a distinct minority of scholars. Within this perspective, while hallucination theses are arguably the single most popular option, the external category as a whole is decidedly more popular (approximately two to one).

The supernatural view that Jesus rose from the dead in one of two senses is a distinct majority position over the natural option (almost three to one). Very surprisingly, while the supernatural internal category (the old "objective vision theory") was the most popular among scholars through the middle to late twentieth century, it has been relegated to a minority response in recent years, in favor of bodily appearances of the risen Jesus (more than three to one).

Mapping the Recent Trend toward the Bodily Resurrection Appearances of Jesus in Light of Other Prominent Critical Positions

Habermas knows that even for his minimal facts arguments, the scholars don't paint the picture he wants them to.

What picture is that? The facts in his "minimal facts" argument are, according to the argument, facts granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject. Perhaps the picture you are referring to is his own position that Jesus rose bodily. And sure, that would not be granted by virtually all scholars. Although it's worth noting his research noted above suggests its a majority view within the majority view that Jesus did rise from the dead in some sense. That position certainly has a much stronger scholarly support than the fringe position that Jesus wasnt a real guy.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #108]

"I encountered Jesus!"

My friend, we are not talking about what folks claim today, and you know this. We are talking about the claims the early disciples made, with the facts and evidence which has convinced the scholars they truly believed this to be the case, in the face of those who would have had every reason to stop the claims. The fact that there was an empty tomb is what makes the claim extraordinary. It is not extraordinary at all for those today to make such a claim, because there is really no way to examine the claim. With this being the case, if the early followers were simply making the claim that Jesus somehow only spiritually rose, while the body remained in the grave, then these stories would have gained about as much traction as the stories you share above. In other words, the stories you have shared, has nothing to do with the occasion.

My friend, if there are those who want to have some sort of mystical experience, they can dream one up. However, as we have it reported in the New Testament, these folks were not looking to have any sort of experience with Jesus again, except to see to the body. In fact, it is reported as though they did not believe it themselves, and it is these reports which have convinced most all scholars that the early followers truly believed that the body of Jesus was no longer in the grave.

If you mean the same thing by "saw" that scholars mean by "experienced" or "encountered," then religious fervor and a vivid imaginiation are sufficient explanations.

While there may be scholars who hold to such a view, this would not include all of them. As an example, New Testament scholar Paula Fredriksen says that she is convinced by the evidence we have that the early disciples truly believed they encountered the risen Christ, she offers no other explanation. In fact, here is what she had to say,

I wasnt there. I dont know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something.

You see, like Ehrman she is not taking a stand. However, as a historian, she tells us, "but I KNOW as a historian". What we have then is, two different scholars, one of which you brought into the conversation, who is telling us as scholars, that we can be almost certain, that the early followers were not making these stories up. However, neither of them is taking a stand on what may explain this fact.

We don't have any of those things. We have stories about those things.

You can continue to refer to these things as "stories" but the fact of the matter is, it is what you refer to as "stories" which has convinced most all scholars that the early disciples were convinced in what they saw. This sort of demonstrates we are dealing with more than simply "stories".

"If we have a story about a duck, there must really be a duck!"

No! Rather, if you have a story about a duck, and if in this story there is real solid evidence that it is a duck, then it is perfectly legitimate to hold the position that we are dealing with a duck. I cannot stress enough the fact that what you are calling stories the scholars are convinced there are certain things we can know. Now, we may not be able to know a resurrection occurred, but we can know we have enough evidence for one to hold such a position. The point is you are giving us nothing which would demonstrate there is not good evidence and reasons to believe the resurrection. Again, I am not insisting there would be no reason to doubt. I am simply arguing there are indeed very good reasons to believe, and I have no problem at all with those who doubt, or do not believe at all. The problem comes in when there are those who act as if it is as "plain as the nose on your face".

Because we have a number of stories about experiences of the risen Christ, but those stories conflict with each other and the earliest we have seems to be one of spiritual bodies and visions. Since we see different relationships to objective reality even between the stories we have, there's no reasonable way to claim that the experiences of the earliest disciples were at any particular point along a continuum from imaginary to concrete. In short, that's what "not necessarily" means.

Let's look at what you had to say again,

They're convinced that the early disciples truly believed they had encountered the risen Christ in some way, but not necessarily in any objective and physical sense.

My point is, if the scholars opposed would leave the word "necessarily" out of the sentence they certainly would. In that way the sentence would read,

"They're convinced that the early disciples truly believed they had encountered the risen Christ in some way, but not in any objective and physical sense".

The word "necessarily" makes a tremendous difference. However, no matter where the scholars land on this, we are still left with powerful evidence these folks were completely convinced in what they saw, from what you refer to as "stories". This sort of thing demands some sort of explanation, and while your mind may be satisfied with an easy explanation, with no facts and evidence to support such an easy explanation, other than, "other folks have believed things like this", this sort of easy explanation does not satisfy the minds of those who actually think through all that would have to be involved in order for this to be the case.

As I've told you before and will probably tell you again, "possible" and "probable" are not the same thing. Santa Claus and leprechauns are possible.

As I have told you before and will probably have to tell you again, "probable" has nothing whatsoever to do with it. In other words, the probabilities simply tell us what is the more likely, but the more likely does not in any way get us to the truth. Let's just use your Santa Claus example. Santa Claus in the sense that very young children understand it, is not probable at all, because Santa Claus in the way in which these kids understand it is impossible. In the same way, there are no probabilities of a resurrection after 3 days of death, because such a resurrection is impossible. With this being the case, the folks who were reporting the resurrection of Jesus were not attempting to argue that a resurrection is probable or even possible. Rather, they were proclaiming the improbable, and the impossible has occurred.

Next, with what you say above, combined with some of the other things you say, you are coming really close to intellectual suicide, because I can assure you that no serious scholar would ever make any sort of comparison between Santa, and the facts and evidence we have concerning the resurrection. This only occurs when we have those who become overwhelmed with the facts and evidence they would rather not have to deal with.

People can and do examine the facts and evidence and come to the conclusion that Santa Claus is real. That many of them are four years old makes the statement no less true.

Here is another example, and I cannot imagine how one could fix their fingers to type such a thing. No one, and I mean no one at all, including you, believe the facts and evidence concerning Santa is on equal footing with the facts and evidence concerning the resurrection. If you believe that it is (and you do not) then you have already committed intellectual suicide. If you know there is no comparison whatsoever (and there is not) then making these sort of comparisons takes away any credibility. I enjoy our exchanges because it is beneficial for me, but I am not going to waste time if this is not going to be a serious discussion. There are no scholars who dedicate their lives to the study of Santa. There are many who dedicate their life to the study of the facts and evidence concerning the resurrection, and most of them have become convinced by the evidence we have, that those who were proclaiming Jesus was raised from the dead, truly believed this to be the case.

If you think that's true, I suggest you read How Jesus Became God.

I tell you what, I promise I will do that. I'll get my wife to order it, if you can share with us any alternative explanation of the resurrection, in which Ehrman takes a stand. I mean, there is a tremendous difference between offering an alternative explanation, as opposed to taking a stand. I'm just telling you, Ehrman understands that any other explanation is not going to explain the facts and evidence we have. Moreover, there are no facts and evidence to support these other explanations.

Again, I want to stress that I am not insisting here, that the resurrection took place. I am also not insisting there would be no reasons for doubt, and I have no problem with those who doubt, or do not believe. I am insisting there are reasons to believe. I am also insisting that those who are convinced there are easy answers are living in a dream world.

And your argument has hinged on the resurrection being physical with an empty tomb and people seeing the risen Jesus in a conventional sense with their eyes.

You are incorrect. In fact, I have not argued for any sort of resurrection at all. Rather, I am arguing that there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the resurrection. I have not insisted there was an empty tomb. What I am insisting is the claims would make no sense without an empty tomb. I am not insisting "people seeing the risen Jesus in a conventional sense with their eyes". I am insisting that the evidence demands that the early followers were convinced in what they saw.

If we can't establish that, your current argument fails.

Since I have demonstrated this is not what I am arguing, my argument stands.

People told fanciful stories about Jesus, some of which included resurrections. A few of those stories were written down,

Right! And these "fanciful stories about Jesus" a few people wrote down, has convinced even those scholars opposed, that the early followers were convinced in what they reported. I'm sorry, but the above does not come anywhere close to explaining the facts and evidence we have. GOOD GRIEF!

Nothing suggests this is true, but let's assume that there were people that "ensured this to be the case." When they found the concrete evidence lacking, they decided not to become a Christian. I'm sure that there were still enough credulous folks left to fill the ranks.

Maybe "there were still enough credulous folks left to fill the ranks", but I cannot imagine how such a thing could have one of the most, if not the most, impacts upon world history, and appealing to a religion is not going to cut it. I mean, think about it? What we have contained in the NT, is simply the by-product of folks living out their lives, with no concern, nor any idea, that what they were writing would be read by anyone other than the intended audience at the time, and they certainly had no idea about a Bible, in which what they record would be contained in a book which is beyond doubt the best seller of all times. In other words, these folks had no intention to write to anyone other than the intended audience at the time. What religion compares to this?

We have really not got into the facts and evidence yet but allow me to give you just a bit. It is recorded in Acts, that the early Christians were selling their land in order to supply for the needs of those Christians who remained in Jerusalem instead of going back home. Why in the world would they sell their land? I mean, the land would be a perfect resource to give to those in need in order for them to work the land as a way to supply their own needs. Rather, these folks sell their land and give all of the proceeds to the Apostles. Now, they not only do not have the land to supply their own needs, but they also do not even have the money. What could be the reason for this? Could it be, these early Christians believed Jesus when he predicted the destruction of Jerusalem in their lifetime, and they understood the land would be worthless to them anyway? Could be, since the evidence suggests the Christians fled Jerusalem before the destruction. Again, I am not insisting this is proof in any way, but the facts and evidence continues to mount, and we have not even got started good. I promise, I could continue to type.

No.

Oh? So, you are not insisting that I do not have reasons to believe as I do? If this is the case, then we have no debate, because I am not insisting in any way that you do not have reasons to hold to your position. This would mean, we can have a discussion concerning what it is we believe, and why we believe as we do concerning the resurrection.

I'm insisting that you're confusing fact, speculation, and conjecture in ways that make nonsense of the word "evidence."

Okay? So, the scholars who are convinced by the facts and evidence the early followers were convinced in what they report are "confusing fact, speculation, and conjecture in ways that make nonsense of the word "evidence"? I attempt to be extremely careful not to state something to be a fact, which I cannot demonstrate to be a fact. I can tell you that I may not always be successful, but we have been through this before, and I have demonstrated that nothing you point out would be something which could not be demonstrated to be fact.

Even if you happen to be right, your argument is still bad.

I will have to admit that I am not very skilled in debate, especially when it involves typing. What I can say is, you really seem to have no argument at all. I can assure you that you have not in any way demonstrated I would have no reason to hold to the position I have, which would be, there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the resurrection accounts.

Pick a standard to which we can both adhere.

As I said, it really does not matter. My whole point is, all I need is what has been attributed to Luke, along with the letters of Paul, and I can give reasons to believe the resurrection.