I posted the following comment in reply to Gary Habermas' video summarizing his "minimal facts" argument (See video here). The comments are preserved here since there is a chance that comment will be deleted from the YouTube channel:
-----------------------------
If Habermas were being prosecuted for murder on the basis of documents authored within the last couple of years that contain the same types of ambiguities of authorship and unknown levels of hearsay present in the gospels and Paul's 1st Cor. 15 "creed", he would be screaming for the charges to be dropped for lack of evidence.
in Galatians 1:1, 11-12, Paul specifies that when he received the gospel, it was by telepathic communication from god, and he specifies this did not involve input from any other human being. So since Paul doesn't qualify the sense of "what I received" in 1st Cor. 15:3, it is perfectly reasonable to interpret 1st Cor. 15:3 in the light of Paul's more specific comments in Galtians, and thereore interpret his phrase in Corinthians to mean "For I passed on you to that which I received apart from any human being..." If that is reasonable, then this "creed" has nothing to do with other human beings, and loses its historical value accordingly.
Since most Christian scholars deny the authenticity of Mark's long ending, the skeptic is reasonable to conclude that authentic Mark stops at 16:8, and therefore the author did not see any apologetic value in telling the reader that the risen Christ actually appeared to anybody. The mere fact that Mark has Jesus sometimes predict his resurrection appearances, doesn't count as resurrection appearances.
Since most Christian scholars say Mark was the earliest gospel, the skeptic is reasonable to conclude that the earliest form of the gospel did not allege that the risen Christ was actually seen by anybody.
Matthew with his being the longest gospel of the canonnical 4 was extremely interested in recording reams of data on what Jesus said and did, obviously. So a skeptic would be reasonable to conclude that the reason this Matthew provides for the reader no words from the resurrected Christ beyond 15-second speech from the risen Christ (28:18-20), Matthew wasn't "compressing" anything, Matthew wished to give the impression this is ALL the risen Christ said. But Acts 1:3 necessarily implies, by saying Jesus appeared to the apostles over a period of 40 days speaking things concerning the kingdom of god, that Jesus had more to say to the apostles than merely a 15 second speech. And since this was allegedly "things concerning the kingdom of God", a theme Matthew is obviously interested in, it is highly unlikely Matthew is merely "choosing to exclude" from his gospel speeches that the risen Christ made. If the risen Christ taught "things concerning the kingdom of God", a person interested in that specific topic, like Matthew, would more than likely, in light of his willingness to quote Jesus extensively elsewhere, gave the reader those speeches, had he thought Jesus spoke such things. So the skeptic is quite reasonable, even if not infallibly so, to conclude that the later version we get in Acts 1:3 is an embellishment.
Matthew's brevity suggests his account is earlier, and therefore, the story from Luke's later account that has Jesus say more than what could be said in a 15 second "Great Commission", is the embellished account.
Generously assuming obviously false presuppositions of apostolic authorship of the gospels, there are only 3 resurrection accounts in the bible that come down to us today in first-hand form; Matthew, John and Paul. Every other biblical resurrection testimony is either hearsay or vision. You won't find too many legitimately credentialed historians who will say you are under some type of intellectual compulsion to give a shit about ancient hearsay. I'd go further and say Christianity's need to tromp through ancient histority and implicate the rules of historiography, might be a fun mind game, but does not place an intellectual compulsion on anybody to believe or provide a naturalistic explanation. Juries today often deliberate for weeks after being given evidence in Court of a crime that occurred within the last year. What fool is going to say that 2,000 year old evidence of questionable authorship and origin is "clear"?
Conservative Trinitarian evangelical scholars often admit that Matthew and Luke "toned down" the text that they copied from Mark. The only reasonable interpretation of such viewpoint is that Matthew and Luke did not believe Mark's gospel was inerrant. While the inerrantists who adopt markan priority might deny this interpretation, that's exactly where their logic leads. If the math professor says 2+2=5, i don't humbly ask him to explain himself, I call him a fool and presume my own knowledge to justify giving a definitive adjudication.
If Habermas were on trial for murder, and the only witness against him was some guy who claimed he was physical flying into the sky solely by divine power when he looked down and saw Habermas pull the trigger, Habermas would not be asking the Court for a jury instruction telling them they can consider the viability of supernatural explanations, he would be screaming his head off that such a witness is entirely lacking in credibility, and the murder charge should be dropped for lack of evidence. While that makes good common sense, Paul himself, 14 years after the fact, still didn't know whether his flying into the sky was physical or spiritual. See 2nd Corinthians 12:1-4. Yet Habermas wants people to think Paul should be taken seriously (!?). Yeah, maybe I'll also take Gnosticism seriously!
Skeptics are also reasonable to simply ignore Christianity even if they believe it true, since the case for eternal conscious torment (the fundamentalist interpretation of biblical "hell") is exceptionally weak, and therefore, skeptics have no reason to expect that God's wrath against them will involve any more danger to them than the permanent extinction of consciousness that they already expect at physical death. This is especially supportive of apathy toward Christianity when we remember that god gets extremely pissed off at people who join the wrong form of Christianity (Galatians 1:8-9). If the skeptic is already in some type of "trouble" with god, might make more sense to play it safe and not make a "decision for Christ" that could very well cause that skeptic to suffer the divine curse even more.
Let's just say Haberas's "minimal facts" are closer to laughable than convincing, for skeptics like me who actually know what we are talking about.
Find your freedom from the shackles of religious "grace" at my blog, where I steamroll Christian apologetics arguments like a brick through a plate glass window. https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/
If Habermas were being prosecuted for murder on the basis of documents authored within the last couple of years that contain the same types of ambiguities of authorship and unknown levels of hearsay present in the gospels and Paul's 1st Cor. 15 "creed", he would be screaming for the charges to be dropped for lack of evidence.
in Galatians 1:1, 11-12, Paul specifies that when he received the gospel, it was by telepathic communication from god, and he specifies this did not involve input from any other human being. So since Paul doesn't qualify the sense of "what I received" in 1st Cor. 15:3, it is perfectly reasonable to interpret 1st Cor. 15:3 in the light of Paul's more specific comments in Galtians, and thereore interpret his phrase in Corinthians to mean "For I passed on you to that which I received apart from any human being..." If that is reasonable, then this "creed" has nothing to do with other human beings, and loses its historical value accordingly.
Since most Christian scholars deny the authenticity of Mark's long ending, the skeptic is reasonable to conclude that authentic Mark stops at 16:8, and therefore the author did not see any apologetic value in telling the reader that the risen Christ actually appeared to anybody. The mere fact that Mark has Jesus sometimes predict his resurrection appearances, doesn't count as resurrection appearances.
Since most Christian scholars say Mark was the earliest gospel, the skeptic is reasonable to conclude that the earliest form of the gospel did not allege that the risen Christ was actually seen by anybody.
Matthew with his being the longest gospel of the canonnical 4 was extremely interested in recording reams of data on what Jesus said and did, obviously. So a skeptic would be reasonable to conclude that the reason this Matthew provides for the reader no words from the resurrected Christ beyond 15-second speech from the risen Christ (28:18-20), Matthew wasn't "compressing" anything, Matthew wished to give the impression this is ALL the risen Christ said. But Acts 1:3 necessarily implies, by saying Jesus appeared to the apostles over a period of 40 days speaking things concerning the kingdom of god, that Jesus had more to say to the apostles than merely a 15 second speech. And since this was allegedly "things concerning the kingdom of God", a theme Matthew is obviously interested in, it is highly unlikely Matthew is merely "choosing to exclude" from his gospel speeches that the risen Christ made. If the risen Christ taught "things concerning the kingdom of God", a person interested in that specific topic, like Matthew, would more than likely, in light of his willingness to quote Jesus extensively elsewhere, gave the reader those speeches, had he thought Jesus spoke such things. So the skeptic is quite reasonable, even if not infallibly so, to conclude that the later version we get in Acts 1:3 is an embellishment.
Matthew's brevity suggests his account is earlier, and therefore, the story from Luke's later account that has Jesus say more than what could be said in a 15 second "Great Commission", is the embellished account.
Generously assuming obviously false presuppositions of apostolic authorship of the gospels, there are only 3 resurrection accounts in the bible that come down to us today in first-hand form; Matthew, John and Paul. Every other biblical resurrection testimony is either hearsay or vision. You won't find too many legitimately credentialed historians who will say you are under some type of intellectual compulsion to give a shit about ancient hearsay. I'd go further and say Christianity's need to tromp through ancient histority and implicate the rules of historiography, might be a fun mind game, but does not place an intellectual compulsion on anybody to believe or provide a naturalistic explanation. Juries today often deliberate for weeks after being given evidence in Court of a crime that occurred within the last year. What fool is going to say that 2,000 year old evidence of questionable authorship and origin is "clear"?
Conservative Trinitarian evangelical scholars often admit that Matthew and Luke "toned down" the text that they copied from Mark. The only reasonable interpretation of such viewpoint is that Matthew and Luke did not believe Mark's gospel was inerrant. While the inerrantists who adopt markan priority might deny this interpretation, that's exactly where their logic leads. If the math professor says 2+2=5, i don't humbly ask him to explain himself, I call him a fool and presume my own knowledge to justify giving a definitive adjudication.
If Habermas were on trial for murder, and the only witness against him was some guy who claimed he was physical flying into the sky solely by divine power when he looked down and saw Habermas pull the trigger, Habermas would not be asking the Court for a jury instruction telling them they can consider the viability of supernatural explanations, he would be screaming his head off that such a witness is entirely lacking in credibility, and the murder charge should be dropped for lack of evidence. While that makes good common sense, Paul himself, 14 years after the fact, still didn't know whether his flying into the sky was physical or spiritual. See 2nd Corinthians 12:1-4. Yet Habermas wants people to think Paul should be taken seriously (!?). Yeah, maybe I'll also take Gnosticism seriously!
Skeptics are also reasonable to simply ignore Christianity even if they believe it true, since the case for eternal conscious torment (the fundamentalist interpretation of biblical "hell") is exceptionally weak, and therefore, skeptics have no reason to expect that God's wrath against them will involve any more danger to them than the permanent extinction of consciousness that they already expect at physical death. This is especially supportive of apathy toward Christianity when we remember that god gets extremely pissed off at people who join the wrong form of Christianity (Galatians 1:8-9). If the skeptic is already in some type of "trouble" with god, might make more sense to play it safe and not make a "decision for Christ" that could very well cause that skeptic to suffer the divine curse even more.
Let's just say Haberas's "minimal facts" are closer to laughable than convincing, for skeptics like me who actually know what we are talking about.
Find your freedom from the shackles of religious "grace" at my blog, where I steamroll Christian apologetics arguments like a brick through a plate glass window. https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/
i never understand the claim that the jews would have brought out jesus' dead body and exposed the disciples. this argument assumes that they HAD the power AND were willing, but where is the evidence? They just confirmed to the masses that jesus was no messiah , he was easily caught and dispatched. why now try to bring out dead body and expose it?
ReplyDeleteI would ask what historical evidence there is that Jesus' enemies would give even two shits about him after he was dead. There's none, so there's no reason to think they'd keep watch at the cemetery and care where exactly Jesus was buried, so they likely didn't showcase the corpse because they didn't know where the body was.
ReplyDeleteWhat fool would rob a grave of the corpse merely because some of his idiot followers claim the grave became empty by resurrection?
I also observe that there isn't any NT evidence that the "Jews" even knew where Jesus was buried. Allegedly the Romans gave permission to Joseph of Arimathea to take the body, but there are no statements that anybody outside Joe, his "guard", and some disciples knew where he was buried or which specific tomb he was placed in at the cemetery. That does not equate to so many people knowing where Jesus was buried as to justify expecting "the Jews" to dig up the body to refute the resurrection claim.
The fact that the "Jews" were mostly in favor of killing Jesus (Mathew 27:25) might suggest either that they became so satisfied with his death that they would not likely continue having enough interest in him to learn where his corpse went, or
they hated Jesus so much they also felt his corpse should be disposed of, so that if Joe buried the body, numerous people hateful of Jesus would have known the location of the corpse...which then raises the probability that his enemies might have moved the body, perhaps even to wheel the corpse around to disprove the resurrection. Christians are simply arguing from a rather nebulous silence when they ask "why didn't the Jews produce the corpse?" For all they know, they did, and like most other events in the 1st century, it wasn't recorded.
And like so many other Christian events in the 1st century, Acts whitewashes whatever Luke wants in order to make Paul look as credible as possible.
Either way, the 1st Corinthians 15:3-4 "creed" has no historical basis, as Paul says he "received" that gospel, and in Galatians 1:1, 11-12, he specifies that this did not involve input from anybody else.
So what Paul "recieved" and "passed on" to the Corinthians was a gospel he obtained solely by divine telepathy. Hence, it cannot possibly function as historical "evidence", except in the pointless sense that Paul made such a claim.
The historical fact that James the Lord's brother was held in the highest esteem by the non-Christian Jews, along with the non-existent evidence that he ever actually "converted" to Christainity, along with the strong evidence that he committed the unpardonable sin (Mark 3:21) strongly suggests that James did not ever confront the Jews with Jesus' gospel, nor preach that god raised him from the dead.
That is, a major player in earliest Christianity likely had no motive to preach the resurrection.