This is my reply to a Triablogue article by Jason Engwer entitled:
It's common for people commenting on Easter issues, as well as issues in other contexts, to put one strand of early Christianity against another. They'll claim that a particular belief is found in one gospel, but not another. The Pauline letters have one view of a subject, but a contrary view is found in the gospels.
They are correct. Apostle Paul taught that righteousness doesn't come from the Law. Galatians 2:21. But Jesus not only taught that it does (the context for Matthew 5:17-20 is not "imputed righteousness" but v. 21 ff, which make
actual personal righteousness a requirement for salvation), but that anything he taught the original apostles
is also required of all future Gentiles, see Matthew 28:20, the part of the Great Commission most Christians miss. If that is true, then because Jesus ordered the apostles to obey the Pharisee's commands (Matthew 23:3), Matthew also thought the risen Christ required the same of Gentiles.
And that's how you prove Matthew was one of the Judaizers that Paul cursed in Galatians 1:8.
And so on. In the context of Easter, we'll be told that Paul had no concept of the empty tomb
Making me wonder what you do with skeptics like me, whose arguments against the empty tomb are far more powerful than that. 1st Corinthians 15 is too convoluted to bother with, and any idiot who believed what you think Paul believed, could have expressed himself more clearly on the point. Had Paul any concern for the historical Jesus, which he didn't, he could have appealed to the resurrection of Lazarus, and that would have made things as clear as Jesus wanted. Adding apostle Paul to your Christianity is like getting married to a mentally retarded criminal. You have to be sick in the head to do it.
or that some portions of early Christianity believed in a form of resurrection that didn't involve the transformation of the body that died, for example.
Ever read 2nd John 1:7? How could the 1st century gnostic Christians possibly believe in a bodily resurrected Christ, when they asserted that his pre-resurrection body was illusory? And there you go, a first century group of Christians who saw nothing particularly compelling with the "bodily resurrection" hypothesis. Hell, even Paul's churches included people who denied resurrection outright (1st Cor. 15:12).
One of the points that ought to be made in these contexts is that the alleged differing strands of early Christianity often express agreement with one another. On the resurrection, Paul refers to how he and the rest of the apostles were in agreement (1 Corinthians 15:11).
FAIL. That is only Paul alleging that the other apostles experienced things similar to himself. A quick analysis will reveal serious problems justifying skepticism toward Paul's testimony here:
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1 Cor. 15:3-8 NAU)
Paul's list was intended to convey the notion of chronological progression, therefore the appearance to Cephas was first. But assuming the gospel of Mark really is the written form of Peter's preaching as some church fathers alleged, sure is strange that Peter (assuming he is the same as Cephas) didn't mention his own experience of the risen Christ (didn't the apostles value eyewitness testimony as much as Triablogue does? If the apostles didn't find it necessary to write 6,000 articles addressing every possible trifle against theiir faith, Triablogue will have to admit there is a serious probability that it's sin of word-wrangling truly does signify a lack of sanctification. A true Christian cares more about walking in the light, and less about "my arguments are still powerful whether I live in sin or not").
It's more strange if Peter did give his testimony and Mark somehow didn't think that part sufficiently important to justify mentioning despite the fact that Peter was the source, and th
e resurrection of Jesus the capstone of the gospel. Your conjured up possible scenarios (Maybe mark forgot, maybe this, maybe that) will never be powerful enough to render my skepticism at this point unreasonable. Even stranger, even assuming Mark's long ending is canonical, there is no appearance to Peter there either. We are fully justified to say the gospels don't mention any appearance to Peter before an appearance to the 12, because the gospel authors did not know of any such appearances,
not because they were knowingly suppressing relevant testimony. They already had a hard case to prove, they would likely regard ALL resurrection testimony, which they viewed as reliable, to be indispensable. So skepticism toward Paul's resurrection summary is justified. Contrary to popular belief, skepticism doesn't need to be founded on absolutes anymore than Christian faith does.
The appearance to 500 brothers at one time is recorded nowhere else in the NT, and worse, there can be no intellectual constraint on the skeptic to admit that testimony, since you don't know whether Paul says such a thing based on his own personal knowledge, or if he is conveying hearsay, or if he simply made it up in the typical fashion of Semitic exaggeration, which Flannagan and Copan tell us was the case with the "kill'em all" passages in the OT.
There is no appearance to 'James' in any of the gospels, except of course the Gospel to the Hebrews...wanna go there? I didn't think so. Like the atheist who has already decided that miracles are impossible, YOU have already decided that the Gospel to the Hebrews is not worthy of being taken seriously, since you aren't stupid enough to open epistemological doors you'll never close again. Welcome to the club of smug presuppositionalism. Maybe God wants you to do something else in life beside spend his money resurrecting demon inspired events for posterity, you fuckin fool.
Paul's using the same word for "appear" (Greek: horao) for all the listed appearances including to himself was dishonest, since the most explicit NT stories about Jesus appearing to Paul, neither express nor imply that he was an "eyewitness" in the sense that the gospels portray the Christ-appearances to the other apostles. Go ahead, read Acts 9, Acts 22 and Acts 26. Let me know when you find anything saying Paul saw anything more than a "light from heaven". I also answered Steve Hays' trifles about the historicity of Paul's Damascus road experience,
here. Paul was NOT an "eyewitness" of the risen Christ. And it wouldn't matter if he was, the apostolic test for apostleship is not "did you see the risen Christ?" but "were you present among Jesus' followers from the beginning of his earthly ministry"? (Acts 1:21). You'll excuse me if I reject Paul's criteria of apostleship in favor of Peter's. Feel free to join J. Vernon McGee in accusing Peter and the church in Acts 1 of defying the will of God, but don't say so publicly, you're liable to get steamrolled with details in Acts 1 you've shut your eyes to.
On the other hand, a theory that Paul wasn't being dishonest in 1st Cor. 15 would require that the manner in which Paul experienced Jesus on the road to Damascus is the way Paul thought the apostles experienced Jesus, which is bad news for you, given the nonsensical "Jesus-was-there-but-didn't-allow-anybody-to-see-him-except-Paul" absurdity, the likes of which would get any case based on similar nonsense tossed out of court, the the Plaintiff sued for filing a frivolous claim. The reasonableness of the skeptical alternatives is not going to disappear merely because you can trifle about this or that.
To cite another example, see here regarding the likely reference to Luke's gospel as scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18.
Don't forget to tell them that some inerrantist Christian scholars deny the connection:
It is not likely that Paul was quoting the Gospel of Luke, a document whose date of writing is uncertain. Paul may have been referring to a collection of Jesus’ sayings, some of which appear in Luke’s Gospel.
Lea, T. D., & Griffin, H. P. (2001, c1992). Vol. 34: 1, 2 Timothy, Titus (electronic ed.). The New American Commentary (Page 156). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
But I'm sure that Jason Engwer will still "expect" spiritually dead skeptics to successfully navigate the disputes that conservative inerrantist Christian scholars have with each other. To think anything else is to give them excuse to deny God, and Romans 1:20 must be upheld to the death, amen?
Paul's letters are referred to as scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16.
You say nothing here that might intellectually obligate a non-Christian to agree.
An example cited less often, but which has a lot of significance, is the early patristic attestation of how highly John viewed the Synoptic gospels.
Matthew made Jesus into a Judaizer (23:3, 28:20), yet John's gospel nowhere expresses or implies that Gentiles must obey the Pharisees. Perhaps somebody can have high regard for an author, without agreeing with everything that author said? Just like Jason Engwer has high regard for Steve Hays, while thinking Hays' Calvinism is an absurd misinterpretation of scripture (or did you become a Calvinist since 2015?)
See here concerning what Papias tells us about John's view of the gospel of Mark.
And just forget about Papias' credibility problems. You are here to live through your blog, not "convince" anybody of anything. Also forget about the fact that you cannot demonstrate that any modern person is under the least bit of intellectual or moral obligation to give two shits about ancient hearsay. So when we refuse to consider it, we aren't breaking any rules of intellectual or moral integrity.
It sucks to be you because you are doing more to promote the gospel than even your own god! Don't tell me God works through you, or I will ask why you don't profess to write inerrantly. Where does the bible say God's inspiration would affect people of the future to a lesser degree than it did the biblical authors?
(And for more about Papias and his relationship with the apostle John, see here.) Clement of Alexandria cited some elders who commented on John's view of the Synoptics. See here for more about that passage.
Wow, I never knew Triablogue put so much stock in ancient hearsay at third-hand. Jesus' resurrection is as obvious as the existence of trees. I faint from fear of your god. Can I borrow some dust and ashes? Or are you a dispensationalist?
Notice, too, that much of what I'm saying here holds up even if the traditional authorship attributions of the New Testament documents are rejected. I explain some of the reasons why in my article on 1 Timothy 5:18 linked above, and those principles apply to other documents as well, not just 1 Timothy.
How much would Christianity suffer if it could be proven that the modern person is not under the least bit of intellectual compulsion to give two fucks what the 4 gospels say? Sounds like a reasonable argument for rejecting traditional gospel authorship, which I can easily make and have made numerous times before, disposes of 4 of those resurrection witnesses, in a circumstance where you don't have very many witnesses anyway, and therefore the loss of 4 witnesses could not possibly be trivilaized, unless you are a Pentecostal Calvinist like Steve Hays, who thinks his personal experience of Christ counts for beans in such a debate.
Similarly, even if you think the elder Papias referred to was somebody other than the apostle John, the fact would remain that Papias was highly influenced by the Johannine documents (as I argue in my material linked above), and he held a high view of the Synoptics.
He also held a high view of talking grapes. Let's just say I don't exactly lose sleep at night wondering whether Papias should still be believed or not despite his credibility problems. I've rejected him and you haven't given me the slightest reason to worry I might have been wrong. The difference between you and I is that I'm always open to dialogue and debate; YOU are just a chickenshit cocksucker who carefully avoids explaining why he won't put up or shut up.
For example, I asked you for all the evidence you had on the Enfield Poltergiest that you think God wants you to endless blog about, perhaphs thinking in doing so you are mirroring the apostles. I'm still waiting. Perhaps you have a new theory? Maybe atheists who want to evaluate the same evidence you do, are not "worthy" to be given access?
You can tell from my debates here that when I'm involved in formal debate, I use nicer language, so don't hide behind the pretext of "foul language". I'll talk nicer if that's what you demand, you posterboy for masculinity, you. And if you demand I talk nicer, I'd love to hear you comment on whether James Patrick Holding's use of foul insulting language and slurs for the last 20 years can intellectually justify a person to be suspicious that his claim to salvation is complete bullshit.
Any fool can post endless blog entries about Christian theology, but direct debate is where you find out whether their blog posts are substantive, or just organized noise.
Furthermore, saying that the elder Papias refers to wasn't the apostle John doesn't change the fact that he was some sort of prominent early church leader who didn't write the gospel of Mark and seems to have operated largely outside of the circles that gospel's author is usually associated with, yet he held a high view of that gospel.
An anonymous person held a high view of an anonymous gospel. Don't make me put my beer down, turn off the stereo and start trembling in fear before your empty sky.
Rejecting something like Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy or the identification of Papias' elder as the apostle John would weaken my argument, but the argument would still carry some weight.
But you'll never establish that there is the least bit of intellectual or moral obligation upon any modern person to so much as CARE what the gospels say in the first place. I can make a reasonable biblical case that Jesus' warnings about eternal conscious torment contradict the Old Testament, so that there's about as much danger in rejecting the gospel as there is in deleting spam email.
Times are changing, you won't be scaring anybody into heaven if I can help it. Now tell yourself the Holy Spirit allowed me to post this rebuttal piece because he wants you to think of new creative ways to convince yourself that you can stand up to my debate challenges without needing to actually debate.
