My challenge to Brian Chilton's argument from the early New Testament "creeds"

Brian Chilton did a podcast on the "early NT creeds".  Since the sources of those creeds are obviously relevant to the question of how early they are, I issued the following challenge to him:




If that's too blurry, here's a paste of the text:

barry • 4 minutes agoHold on, this is waiting to be approved by BellatorChristi.So, let's grant that the apostles began preaching the resurrection of Jesus every bit as early as Acts 2 says they did. Now we've pushed the resurrection-creed back to 33. a.d., even further back than Habermas would dare date the 1st Corinthians 15:3-4 "creed". 

Are you willing to discuss the possible NT sources behind such "creed"?

•

Edit

•

Share ›

See here.

We'll have to see what Chilton thinks is more important:  uninterrupted preaching to the choir, or defending his specific presuppositions from skeptical attack.  Since he posts what he does for the purpose of "apologetics", I'm hoping its the latter.

If you simply teach apologetics without input from an actual skeptic, you create the risk that your Christian audience will go into the world, armed with your teachings, and get slaughtered by actual skeptics whose actual arguments go beyond what you were teaching in class.  Showing how you survived a challenge from an actual skeptic is far more likely to equip your readers to deploy apologetics in the real world successfully.

UPDATE:

A few minutes later, this was how Chilton justified refusal to take up my challenge:
------------------------------


barry • 2 hours ago
So, let's grant that the apostles began preaching the resurrection of Jesus every bit as early as Acts 2 says they did. Now we've pushed the resurrection-creed back to 33. a.d., even further back than Habermas would dare date the 1st Corinthians 15:3-4 "creed".

Are you willing to discuss the possible NT sources behind such "creed"?

•Edit•Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Brian Chilton Mod  barry • an hour ago
Barry, I've already discussed the sources behind such creeds. There's no reason to go back into this issue. I encourage you to listen to the podcast and to also reference other resources at https://bellatorchristi.com concerning the multiple eyewitness testimonies concerning the risen Jesus.

•Reply•Share ›

Avatar
barry  Brian Chilton • 3 minutes ago
Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by BellatorChristi.
I'll take that as a "no, I am not willing to discuss the possible NT sources behind such creed". Fair enough. While I'll be challenging your arguments at my own blog, it's clear that you have no intention of debating a skeptic at your own blog. Have a nice life. Should you ever desire to see arguments you haven't addressed before, you know how to contact me. barryjoneswhat@gmail.com
•Edit•Share ›

• • --------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps I should pat myself on the back.  This Brian Chilton is a legitimate Christian bible scholar, and yet he clearly doesn't think he could convincingly refute arguments that I'd make to him on each of his individual points.

Demolishing Triablogue: Grave Robbers? Steve Hays apparently forgot about the full-time skepticism of Jesus' mother and brothers

This is my reply to an article by Steve Hays entitled

Grave robbers!

One thing we can say with relative certainty (even though most people – including lots of scholars!) have never thought about this or realized it, is that no one came to think Jesus was raised from the dead because three days later they went to the tomb and found it was empty.   It is striking that Paul, our first author who talks about Jesus’ resurrection, never mentions the discovery of the empty tomb and does not use an empty tomb as some kind of “proof” that the body of Jesus had been raised.

Moreover, whenever the Gospels tell their later stories about the tomb, it never, ever leads anyone came to believe in the resurrection.  The reason is pretty obvious.  If you buried a friend who had recently died, and three days later you went back and found the body was no longer there, would your reaction be “Oh, he’s been exalted to heaven to sit at the right hand of God”?  Of course not.  Your reaction would be: “Grave robbers!”   Or, “Hey, I’m at the wrong tomb!”

https://ehrmanblog.org/an-easter-reflection-2018/

Depends on who my friend is. If my friend is God Incarnate, if my friend performed astounding miracles at will–including the ability to raise the dead–if my friend predicted his death and resurrection, if Isaiah predicted messiah's death and resurrection (Isa 53:7-12), then the first reaction, the most logical reaction, to the empty tomb shouldn't be “Grave robbers!” Or, “Hey, I’m at the wrong tomb!”

  What if the person doing miracles at-will and declaring himself God incarnate was your own brother?

Would you do what Jesus' mother, brother James and other members of his immediately family did  throughout his entire three year ministry, and draw the conclusion that Jesus was mentally unstable?

From Mark 3

 20 And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal.
 21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, "He has lost His senses."
 22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons."
 23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan?
 24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
 25 "If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.
 26 "If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished!
 27 "But no one can enter the strong man's house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.
 28 "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;
 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin "--
 30 because they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit."
 31 Then His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him.
 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You."
 33 Answering them, He said, "Who are My mother and My brothers?"
 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers!
 35 "For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother."
 (Mk. 3:20-35 NAU)

  In the parallel from Matthew 13, Jesus specifies that his enemies includes those living in his own house (i.e., family)

 54 He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?
 55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
 56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household."
 58 And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief. (Matt. 13:54-58 NAU)

From John 7:

 1 After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him.
 2 Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near.
 3 Therefore His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing.
 4 "For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world."
 5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him.
 6 So Jesus said to them, "My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune.
 7 "The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.
 (Jn. 7:1-7 NAU)

Something tells me you'd rather not delve too far into the historically plausible reasons Jesus' immediate family might have had for not finding him the least bit credible throughout his three year ministry...you might discover that they are not likely to have become believers later as the liar who wrote the book of Acts says.

ANNOYED PINOY5/08/2018 10:35 AM☍

...no one came to think Jesus was raised from the dead because three days later they went to the tomb and found it was empty.
Yeah, because the disciples didn't believe Jesus was resurrected because of an empty tomb, but because they SAW and INTERACTED with the risen Lord.

But you aren't answering the argument.  How can today's Christians claim consistency with the apostolic method of preaching, when the apostolic method of preaching nowhere expresses or implies that anybody ever came to faith in Jesus because they were unable to naturalistically account for the empty tomb?

If you want to claim consistency with the apostolic method of truth-proving, show me Jesus, or fuck you.

It is striking that Paul, our first author who talks about Jesus’ resurrection, never mentions the discovery of the empty tomb and does not use an empty tomb as some kind of “proof” that the body of Jesus had been raised.
Because he and the other disciples had better proof than a merely empty tomb. Namely, encounters with the risen Christ.

Things modern Christianity doesn't have, apparently.  No apostolicity for you.

Also, given Paul's purposes of writing, there were no necessary reasons to bring up the tombs being empty. That's already assumed in his Jewish use of the concept of resurrection.

Still doesn't answer the point about why the NT never indicates anybody ever came to faith because of an empty tomb.  If you want to convert people the way the apostles did, stop talking about the empty tomb. 

Moreover, whenever the Gospels tell their later stories about the tomb, it never, ever leads anyone came to believe in the resurrection.
Again, it's because they encountered the resurrected Jesus.

Again, encounters that you don't have to offer today, you lose.

In the same way that a better proof that a baby has just been born is to actually see the baby, instead of focusing on the exhausted mother who had given it birth.

Exactly.  So stop talking about the exhausted mother and show us the baby.  Otherwise, don't expect us to keep listening as you go off into stupid shit like "he's invisible now". God clearly isn't doing his best to convince unbelievers to convert.

Dear Mr. Chaffey: John 7:5 justifies calling Jesus a fake

Chaffey in "Defense of Easter" at 30, cites James to help answer the question in his chapter 3 title:  "Did Jesus appear to any skeptics?"

"For whatever reason, James did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah prior to the Resurrection.  In fact, none of his brothers believed in HIm early on (John 7:5).  On one occasion they even tried to prevent Him from speaking, thinking He was out of His mind (Mark 3:20-21, NET).  However, just several weeks after the Crucifixion they were counted among his followers"

In context, John 7:5 appears to be implying that Jesus' brothers did not merely fail to believe in him as messiah, their disbelief motivated them to mock Jesus for making such a claim:

 1 After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him.
 2 Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near.
 3 Therefore His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing.
 4 "For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world."
 5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him.
 6 So Jesus said to them, "My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune.
 7 "The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.
 8 "Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come."
 9 Having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee. (Jn. 7:1-9 NAU)

Notice, Jesus' brothers tell him to go do his works in Judea where his disciples are, despite Jesus' brothers not believing in him (notice also the brothers admit Jesus has disciples or followers elsewhere, yet still don't believe him).

 How could they be telling Jesus go do his miracles in Judea, if they didn't believe his claims were true?  There's a plausible explanation:  They had the same attitude toward Jesus that today's skeptics have toward the many fake miracle workers in Christianity today, i.e., "go to the local children's hospital and cure all the diseases and cancers! (i.e., "show yourself to the world", "do something that will permit the world to examine your claims").  When alleged miracle-workers are addressed like this by skeptics, it is clear the skeptics are talking with a bit of mockery, and do think there is the slightest possibility that the advice will be taken, or that the miracle-working claim is true.

Notice also:  the brothers tell Jesus to do this and thus "show Yourself to the world", again, they seem to be taunting him..."if your miracle claims are true, do them in a manner that increases the likelihood that your critics can see your works too, do them out in the open!"

It is clear from this context that v. 5 is a significant summary statement that the unbelief of Jesus' brothers was not simply a lack of belief, but a highly confident attitude that Jesus' claims were more than likely false.
They taunted Jesus at this point in their lives the way conservative Christians and skeptics taunt prosperity gospel preachers who claim ability to do miracles:  If that's really true about you, do your miracle in a non-controlled context!

The purpose of Christians and skeptics taunting that way is:  if you follow our advice, your claims of ability to do miracles will be put to the acid test.  If you can really do miracles, then why would you fear doing them in a context specifically created to guard against trickery and fraud as much as possible?

 13 And He went up on the mountain and summoned those whom He Himself wanted, and they came to Him.
 14 And He appointed twelve, so that they would be with Him and that He could send them out to preach,
 15 and to have authority to cast out the demons.
 16 And He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter),
 17 and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, "Sons of Thunder ");
 18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot;
 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him.
 20 And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal.
 21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, "He has lost His senses."
 22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons."
 23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan?
 24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
....31 Then His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him.
 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You." (Mk. 3:13-32 NAU)

If we assume all that inerrantists must assume Jesus' family had experienced up to this point, then the negative view of Jesus held by his mother and brothers becomes more incredible than a miracle:

Jesus' mother had experienced angelic visions explaining she would conceive Jesus solely by the Holy Spirit.
Luke 1:26 ff.  Some would argue this was a literal meeting since "vision" is not implied in the text, rather v. 26 speaks about Gabriel going to Mary physically.

Jesus' step father Joseph had a similar vision.  Matthew 1:19 ff.

For inerrantists who say belief in Jesus' virgin birth is essential to salvation, this implies Mary and Joseph and Jesus would have revealed to others right at the beginning of his ministry the miracle of his birth.

The fact that Mark in 1:10 can write about Jesus at baptism seeing heaven opened and the spirit descending on him like a dove, makes it likely this was something made known to Jesus' immediate family and followers early on.

Jesus was apparently gone for 40 days in the desert being tempted by the devil and having angels minister to him (Mark 1:13), so it is reasonable to assume he would inform his family upon return how he managed to stay alive that long.

 Jesus must have been doing things convincingly showing he was messiah early on, as when he calls Andrew and Peter, they drop everything and follow him, Mark 1:18, so do the others (v. 20).

Jesus created a stir in the synagogues, and in such collectivist society, surely word of such rabbinical dazzling traveled fast, his mother would certainly have heard of it.  Mark 1:21-22

Jesus healing a demoniac, v. 27, creating such a debate about his powers that the news of him spread early and fast throughout Galilee (v. 28).

He heals Peter's mother-in-Law (v. 31)

He heals many more people (v. 32 ff)

He continued to cast out demons throughout Galilee (v. 39)

He heals a leper, and despite warning to keep it quiet, news of it spread so much that Jesus could not even enter a city without causing dangerous overcrowding by those following him around (v. 45)

When he returns to Capernaum several days later, large crowds gather at his door so much that the only way Jesus can heal a paralytic is by removing a section of the house roof and lowering him down into the house (2:1-4)

Jesus healed the paralytic to the amazement of these large pressing crowds (v. 12)

Jesus then is found reclining in the house of a tax-collector, Mark saying there were many such people following Jesus (2:15)

Jesus heals a man's withered hand to the knowledge of the Pharisees (Mark 3:1-6)

Jesus healed innumerable people as large crowds followed him in Galilee, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond Jordan and in the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon7 Jesus withdrew to the sea with His disciples; and a great multitude from Galilee followed; and also from Judea (Mk. 3:7-10)

All of these events are presented by Mark as taking place before the point where his mother and brothers are said to think Jesus has lost his senses in 3:21.

But if the gospel of Mark is telling the historical truth (i.e., that all of Jesus' alleged miracles done before 3:21 were genuinely supernatural and literal facts of history), how likely is it that despite the crowds believing in him, Jesus' own family thinks he is capable of losing his senses?

Writing for the inerrantist-driven New American Commentary, inerrantist J.A. Brooks admits that the "his own" of 3:21 refers to Jesus' mother and brothers, and that they believed he had gone insane:

3:21 In the Greek text the subject of the first two clauses is literally “those with him.” The KJV and RSV (1st ed.) interpret this to mean “his friends,” the NASB and NKJV “his own people,” and the RSV (2nd ed.), NRSV, NEB, REB, and NIV “his family.” In view of vv. 31–32 the last of these is certainly correct. The idea that Jesus’ family opposed him troubled some ancient copyists who changed the text to read, “When the scribes and the rest heard.” The concern of Jesus’ family was not likely limited to his physical needs (v. 20); they probably were more concerned about the family’s reputation because in their estimation Jesus was acting in a fanatical and even insane way. The same verb is used in Acts 26:24 and 2 Cor 5:13 and means literally to stand outside of oneself. The verb translated “to take charge” means to arrest in 6:17; 12:12; 14:1, etc. Evidently they intended to seize Jesus and force him to return to Nazareth with them.

Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic e.). Logos Library System; 

The New American Commentary (Page 73). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

It is interesting that the notion that Jesus' family thought him insane, troubled some ancient copyists sufficiently that they arbitrarily corrupted the text.  Apparently, Jesus' family thinking him insane was not easily harnonized with other Christian doctrine.

21 “His people” renders an ambiguous Greek construction (οἱ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ) which generally means “envoys” or “adherents” but on occasion can mean “relatives” (e.g., LXX Prov 31:21; Taylor, 236). Wansbrough (NTS 18 [1971–72] 234–35; similarly Wenham, NTS 21 [1974–75] 296–97) has recently argued for “adherents,” meaning the Twelve, to be the more natural reading. Accordingly, Jesus’ disciples go outside to control the excited crowd. This reading, however, fails to take several factors into consideration, not least of which being the evangelist’s “sandwich” structure of 3:20–21 and 3:31–35 around 3:22–30. Mark 3:31 makes clear that Jesus’ “family” is the subject of 3:21.

e.g. exempli gratia, for example

LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT

NTS New Testament Studies

Guelich, R. A. (2002). Vol. 34A: Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 1-8:26. 

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 172). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Jesus’ family in Nazareth has been informed about his exhaustion from dealing with the crowds, and they are concerned about his well-being and distressed that people are pressing upon him so that he is not even able to eat (3:20–21). This alone would not account for their urgency, however, in deciding to travel thirty miles to take charge of him and declaring that he is “out of his mind.” Jesus is behaving oddly according to their expectations and is not only doing but saying strange things. They consider him on the verge of a mental breakdown and are ready to take him back to Nazareth for rest and recuperation. Well-intentioned, their concern arises from a misunderstanding (similar to that of the scribes) of his mission.

Elwell, W. A. (1996, c1989). Vol. 3: Evangelical commentary on the Bible. 

Baker reference library (Mk 3:13). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.

Or, they did not view him as any more significant than Benny Hinn is viewed by his own family members.  Yes, he makes a big show, and yes he has a lot of followers claiming he can heal, but at the end of the day, he's nothing but a charismatic religious fanatic.

If Jesus' own family didn't believe him to be God up to this point, this strongly boosts the liberal position that Jesus's godhood is a fiction added by later writers to the gospel material.

It's rather easy to see why Chaffey did not spend any time whatsoever on the question of how Jesus' own family could disbelieve his claims early in his ministry.  You cannot get into the biblical data without being forced to conclude that they were either correct to reject his claims, or they were unbelievably thick-headed.

Dear Mr. Chaffey, it was not "multiple" eyewitnesses, it was THREE

Chaffey in "In Defense of Easter" at 25:

"Multiple reliable eyewitnesses testified that Jesus was alive after being dead and buried,.  Some of those eyewitness accounts have been preserved for us in the bible, and because this is the inspired inerrant word of God, Scripture is actually another infallible proof of Christ's resurrection."

 First, the only testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus in the NT that come down to us today in first-hand or "eyewitness" form are Matthew, John and Paul, and that requires generously granting traditional apostolic authorship for those two gospels, despite an avalanche of scholarship, including many Christian scholars, saying Matthew and John are anonymous.  Some would argue that apologists do not mean "three" when they say "multiple", especially if the apologist says "multiple" after reciting at least 6 different sources (Chaffey at 22-24).  Chaffey is simplistically smooshing NT hearsay and first-hand testimony together as if the distinction between the two weren't sufficiently serious to take into account.  On the contrary, no historian or Court of law will support the premise that hearsay and first-hand reports deserve equal treatment. Courts have not generally made hearsay inadmissible over the course of 200 years of jurisprudence merely because they work for the devil.  If you were on trial for murder and knew you were innocent, and the only witness against you on the stand was a person who admitted they didn't see you pull the trigger, they only know this because their best friend, a really honest person, told them so...you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs that this is hearsay and inadmissible. 

Second, Chaffey's appeal to biblical inerrancy to justify saying the bible is another infallible proof of Christ's resurrection, makes clear that despite his claimed purpose to equip Christians to answer skeptical challenges, what he is really doing is providing Christians with reasons to believe their faith rests on reliable historical sources.  How is this any different than the Mormon Sunday School teacher who assures her class that skeptics of Mormonism are wrong, because the Book of Mormon is the word of God?  That preaches nice, but does that really give Mormons anything to shoot back at skeptics?

Third, Chaffey's need to premise his argument on the Christian reader's existing faith is confirmed by his next argument, that skeptics deny these infallible proofs because the bible says they have hardened their hearts to the truth (Chaffey at 25-26).  That is hardly a rebuttal to a skeptical argument, that is nothing but preaching to the choir. 

Fourth, Chaffey at 25-26 cites to Abraham's statement in Luke 16:31 to support his belief that it is sinful hardening of the heart that explains unbelievers' disbelief in the resurrection of Jesus. Chaffey uses a poor excuse given by atheist Michael Martin as a proof that Abe was correct:  thsoe who disbelieve Moses and the prophets will say and do anything, no matter how empty of intellectual merit, to avoid admitting Jesus rose from the dead.

This is a deductive fallacy, as Michael Martin does not represent other skeptics, and certainly not myself.  I deny Martin's absurd premise that a person could rise from the dead apart from any natural or supernatural cause. Under atheism, this universe is governed by nothing but natural causes.  If Martin was implicitly relying on the notion that quantum physics tells us virtual particles can be created from nothing (i.e., it is possible for events to happen without cause), then he is still wrong.  There are multiple schools of quantum theory, and it is only the Copenhagen school that asserts this magical nonsense.  The only reason somebody thinks quantum physics opens the door to supernatural possibilities is because they are not aware of the other competing schools of quantum physics that preach a deterministic universe.

  Sheldon Goldstein, a professor of mathematics, physics and philosophy at Rutgers University and a supporter of pilot-wave theory, blames the “preposterous” neglect of the theory on “decades of indoctrination.” At this stage, Goldstein and several others noted, researchers risk their careers by questioning quantum orthodoxy.

All Chaffey has done is prove, at best, that Michael Martin's unbelief arises from a hardened heart.  I might even agree since causeless events violate common sense and empiricism no less than resurrection does.

Skeptics could, equally uselessly, boast that the only reason Christians cling to their faith is because they are weak-minded and need a crutch to avoid feeling lost and purposeless in a naturalistic universe.

I suggest greater good could be done if we avoid trying to read each other's mind and simply stick to academic argument.

The final confirmation that I've gotten Chaffey right saying he is preaching to the choir is page 27, which indicates the prior sections of the chapter were written so that Christians could have utmost confidence in the resurrection of Jesus.   In this last section, he is simply quoting the bible and blindly assuming the truth of whatever it says.

My Challenge to Tim Chaffey and his "In Defense of Easter: Answering Critical Challenge to the Resurrection of Jesus"

In my studies on the resurrection of Jesus, I recently acquired "In Defense of Easter:  Answering Critical Challenges to the Resurrection of Jesus" (2nd printing, 2016) by Tim Chaffey.  I could not find any publisher information in the book beyond "Copyright © 2014 Tim Chaffey", so apparently this is a self-published effort.

Curiously, his chapter 5 is entitled "What Do Historians Say About the Evidences of the Resurrection?" and yet the only historians he references or cites in that chapter are Habermas and Licona, who are not mere "historians" but two Christian apologists that are the most outspoken on Jesus' resurrection being a provable fact of history.

That Chaffey was writing primarily for Christian edification and less to convince skeptics, is clear from what he says in chapter 5:

"The bible is the Word of God, so it is accurate in all it affirms.  Since it tells us Jesus rose from the dead, we can have completely confidence that he did...The critics and skeptics simply have an anti-supernatual bias, or more accurately, an anti-biblical bias.  Thus, they have developed absurd positions in effort to explain away the only reasonable conclusion that can be derived from those facts."

Mr. Chaffey has authored other books, has advanced degrees in Theology, Apologetics and Church History, and this Easter book come with Gary Habermas' endorsement on the back cover and on the second page.

Half of the second page of the book is taken up by accolades from Answers in Genesis scholar Terry Mortenson, who holds an MDiv and a PhD in the history of geology.

Mortenson says:

“Tim Chaffey has done his homework for this book. He has paid careful attention to the details of all the relevant biblical texts regarding the Resurrection of lesus, and he is thoroughly informed on the multitude of arguments and objections raised by skeptics who have attempted to explain away the empty tomb. His tone is respectful but clear and firm as he dismantles the fallacious reasoning of the enemies of the gospel. Unlike many books on the subject, Tim draws out the connection between the Resurrection and the literal history in Genesis 1-11. I also really appreciated the way he ended the book by sharing how the reality of the Resurrection of Jesus impacted his own life in a time of great testing and by his separate challenge to both his Christian and non-Christian readers. Every Christian will profit by reading this excellent defense of the Resurrection and the gospel. Nonbelievers will be challenged to carefully consider the Messiah Jesus who died for their sins and rose from the dead to restore them to a right relationship with their Creator, if they will simply turn from their sin and trust in Him as Lord and Savior. I heartily recommend this book!” —Terry Mortenson, Ph.D., Coventry University (UK); Speaker and Researcher; Answers in Genesis

Since Mr. Chaffey holds advanced degrees in all the fields highly relevant to the questions that skeptics would naturally ask in debates about gospel sources and historicity, I posted yesterday (August 24, 2017), the following challenge over at Mr. Chaffey's blog.  I will assume that the reason my post remains invisible as of today (August 25) is because Mr. Chaffey has not had time to review it for approval:

Mr. Chaffey,

I obtained your book "In Defense of Easter" (2014).

The back cover of your book says one of the purposes in writing it was to help Christians "to answer today's skeptical challenges."

I am a skeptic with several challenges to the resurrection of Jesus that I believe were not disturbed by anything in your book, and I also have challenges to your arguments in that book.

I would like to discuss your book with you, at any time, date and internet location most convenient to you.

Here's a short list of the issues I'm prepared to discuss, or propositions I'm willing to defend.  Most are especially powerful precisely because they represent specific skeptical attacks that you didn't deal with in your book:

1 - There are only 3 eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection in the NT, at best, all the rest are hearsay.  And that's generously granting assumptions of apostolic gospel authorship that I am otherwise prepared to attack on the merits.

2 - Apostle Paul's gospel contradicts the one Jesus preached.

3 - The actions of the 11 apostles after allegedly experiencing the risen Christ indicate what they actually experienced, if anything, was something less than the "amazing transformation" lauded so loudly by apologists.

4 - Because Matthew is in all likelihood not responsible for the content in canonical Greek Matthew, he and his gospel are disqualified as  witnesses.

5 - Because John was willing to falsely characterize divine words he got by vision, as if they were things the historical Jesus really said and did, John and his gospel are disqualified as witnesses.

6 – John’s intent to write a "spiritual" gospel as opposed to imitating the Synoptics which he knew had already disclosed the “external facts”, argues that “spiritual” here implies something different than mere writing down of eyewitness testimony.  The historical evidence that is accepted by even fundamentalists makes clear that John’s source for gospel material included visions and not just memory.

7 - The NT admission that most of Paul's converts apostatized from him for the Judaizer gospel, warrants skeptics to be a bit more hesitant than Christians before classifying Paul as a truth-robot.  The NT evidence against Paul's integrity is many, varied and strong.

8 - Papias asserted Mark "omitted nothing" of what he heard Peter preach.  Because Bauckham is wrong when saying Papias here was using mere literary convention, Papias meant that phrase literally...in which case Mark's silence on the virgin birth is not due to his "omission" of it, the virgin birth doesn't appear in his gospel because there was never a virgin birth story available for him to omit in the first place...a strong attack on Matthew's and Luke's credibility.

9 - Paul's belief that Mark's abandonment of ministry justifies excluding him from further ministry work (Acts 15) will always remain a justifiable reason (assuming Acts’ historicity here) to say Mark wasn't too impressed with gospel claims, even assuming he later fixed his disagreements with Paul and wrote the gospel now bearing his name.

10 - Mark's strong apathy toward writing down Peter's preaching supports the above premise that he was less than impressed with the gospel, and likely only joined himself to the group for superficial reasons.  Not a good day for fundamentalists who think Mark was inspired by God to write his gospel.

11 - Peter's explicit refusal to endorse Mark's gospel writing, militates, for obvious reasons, against the idea that Peter approved of it.

12 - stories of women becoming pregnant by a god in a way not disturbing her virginity, are securely dated hundreds of years before the 1st century.  The copycat Savior hypothesis is virtually unassailable, once the admittedly false skeptical exaggerations of the evidence are excluded, and rationally warrants skepticism toward Matthew's and Luke's honesty.

13 - The failure of Jesus' own immediate family to believe his ministry-miracles were genuinely supernatural (the logical inference from John 7:5 and Mark 3:21-31) provides reasonable and rational warrant for skeptics to say the miracles Jesus allegedly did, were no more real than those done by Benny Hinn and other wildly popular con artists.

14 - The evidence for the specific contention that most of the apostles or earliest Christians died as martyrs (i.e., were forced to choose between death or committing blasphemy, and chose death) is furiously scanty and debatable, justifying skepticism toward this popular apologetic argument.

15 - the mass-hallucination hypothesis does not require the exact same mental images to have been shared by the original apostles.  Mass-hallucination need not require such impossibility any more than Pentecostals being slain in the spirit requires them to all move and talk in the exact same way before they can validly claim to have shared the same experience. 

16 - There are contradictions in the resurrection accounts that are not capable of reasonable harmonization.

I am also willing to discuss whatever apologetics argument you think is the most clear and compelling.

I will avoid publicly posting our exchanges, if you wish, but if I hear nothing from you by Friday August 25, (you need only send a quick email), I will post this message to my own blog and continue awaiting your response there.

Thank you,

Barry Jones.

barryjoneswhat@gmail.com

 That last part was said with the presumption that my post would post quickly as it normally does elsewhere.

The reason I made so many summary points to Chaffey was to preempt the possibility that he'd employ a popular but dishonest excuse many Christians employ so that they can feel better about running away from the challenges posted by informed skeptics, namely, the excuse that the challenging skeptic does not appear smart enough to make him or her a worthwhile discussion or debate participant.

It should be perfectly obvious from Mr. Chaffey's conservative Christian beliefs, that he would strongly disagree with all of my 16 asserted points.  If so, then we must assume Mr. Chaffey has good reasons to think those 16 points arise from provable misinterpretations of the relevant biblical and patristic sources.

If Mr. Chaffey is confident that the only person who could seriously argue my 16 points is somebody who has has sorely misunderstood the biblical and patristic sources, then he think refuting me on those points would be a piece of cake.

So let's take my first point: there are only 3 resurrection testimonies in the NT that come down to us today in first-hand form, the rest are hearsay.

 The only NT sources that at least potentially qualify as first-hand here are Matthew, John and Paul.  That's a far cry from the "many eyewitnesses" dogma fundamentalists trumpet from the rooftops today in their populist apologetic efforts.

If Mr. Chaffey can find additional testimonies to Jesus resurrection in the NT which come down to us today in first-hand form, I welcome him to get in contact with me and arrange for us to discuss the topic at times, dates and internet sites most convenient to him.

Gary Habermas disapproves of James Patrick Holding's filthy insults

When I sued James Patrick Holding for libel in 2015, I forced him, through the legal process of "discovery", to reveal private emails he had sent to friends and lawyers, and a few of those emails involved apologist Gary Habermas, who had publicly endorsed one of Holding's books in the past.

Thankfully, Habermas started needling Holding about whether the lawsuit made Holding think twice about using "strong comebacks" in the future:






Holding, thinking his private answer to Habermas would never see the light of day, exposed what in his mind were the real reasons for his alleged choice to back off of the filthy slanderous homosexual barbs that Habermas so graciously characterized as "strong comeback":




Several comments are warranted here:

1 - Holding nowhere expresses or implies that it was his getting sued for libel, that might be some of the reason he has backed off the "strong comeback" style.  In other words, when you sue Holding for libel, that does nothing to make him worry that his mouth is unacceptably out of control.

2 - Holding admits in recent times (2015) he wasn't engaging in strong comebacks anymore.  Well then what about all those filthy slanders he publicized for the last 20 years?  Who does Holding think is ultimately responsible for dissauding him in recent years to back off the "strong comebacks", himself or God?  If himself, then he is still obstinately refusing to see the light, since the bible requires Christians to disassociate themselves from any "Christian" (as distinct from an unbeliever) who engages in "reviling":

 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one. (1 Cor. 5:9-11 NAU)

  9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers (Greek: loidoros), nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NAU)

The Greek word for "reviler" is loidoros, and The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says it refers to those who verbally abuse others:

449 
λοιδορέω loidoreÃoÒ [to revile, abuse],
λοιδορία loidoriÃa [abuse],
λοίδορος loiÃdoros [reviler],
ἀντιλοιδορέω antiloidoreÃoÒ [to revile in return]
 This common word group has the secular sense of reproach, insult, calumny, and even blasphemy. In the LXX it carries the nuance of wrangling, angry remonstrance, or chiding as well as the more usual calumny. Philo has it for mockery or invective. In the NT the verb occurs four times and the noun and adjective twice each.
 1. loiÃdoros occurs in lists of vices in 1 Cor. 5:11 and 6:10. In Acts 23:4 Paul is asked why he reviles the high priest, and in his reply he recognizes a religious duty not to do so. In Mart. Pol. 9.3 the aged Polycarp cannot revile Christ; to do so would be blasphemy.
 2. Christians should try to avoid calumny (1 Tim. 5:14), but when exposed to it (cf. Mt. 5:11) they should follow Christ's example (1 Pet. 2:23; cf. Mt. 26:63; Jn. 18:23), repaying railing with blessing (1 Pet. 3:9). This is the apostolic way of 1 Cor. 4:12: “When reviled, we bless” (cf. Diog. 5.15). By this answer to calumny the reality of the new creation is manifested. [H. HANSE, IV, 293-94]

Holding cannot mitigate the harm to his reputation by saying these bible verses are only forbidding slander of other Christians, since Holding has reviled other Christians just as feverishly as he reviles atheists, as already documented here at this blog.

But if Holding avoids the disastrous first option and chooses the second (it is God who caused him to back off the "strong comebacks"), then he encounters another disaster:  Did God do that because God for his own mysterious reasons wants Holding to act in a different capacity, or because the NT really does condemn "Christians" who routinely vilify and slander others?  The theory that seems best supported by the biblical data is the latter, and Holding cannot call fellow Christians unreasonable to prefer that one, if he cannot show that some other theory better explains his alleged reduced desire to engage in strong comebacks.

3 - Notice that after saying he doesn't engage in strong comebacks too much anymore, he admits he spends more time at a place where he says strong comebacks are expected, Youtube.  Well, I guess the bible doesn't say Christians are guaranteed to be consistent within the space of two paragraphs.  In secular society we call this mental phenomena "cognitive dissonance".  How foolish that Holding acts upon his reduced desire to engage in strong comebacks, by gravitating more and more to the one place on the web where he says strong comebacks are expected!  Yeah, and because I began to diminish in my desire to use prostitutes, I started hanging out in brothels all the more. (!?)

4 - The world's smartest Christian apologist "doesn't know" ('dunno') whether it's new interest in academic writing or simple aging, that explains his backing off the strong comebacks?  I don't know about you, but this is the fruit of atheism:  How could Holding, as a bible-believing Christian, allegedly knowledgable of all those bible verses that prohibit filithy talk and slander and reviling, who allegedly believes himself guided by the Holy Spirit,  not know why exactly he is backing away from the strong-comeback style?  Easy: he's not a bible-believing Christian, he is an atheist who is unable to perfectly mask that fact with all of his Jesus talk-crap.  You shall know a tree by its fruit.

5 - Perhaps worst of all, Holding does not cite to the clear NT prohibitions on slander as his reason for conforming to them a bit more, which means he is so hopeless, the bible is not even his motivation for those times when he does claim to be changing for the better:

  18 He who conceals hatred has lying lips, And he who spreads slander is a fool. (Prov. 10:18 NAU)

18 "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.
 19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.
 20 "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man." (Matt. 15:18-20 NAU)

 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.
 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Cor. 5:9-13 NAU)

 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NAU)

 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.
 32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. (Eph. 4:31-32 NAU)

 5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.
 6 For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience,
 7 and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them.
 8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.
 9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices,
 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him-- (Col. 3:5-10 NAU)

That the revile-prohibition also covers even allegedly "deserved" insults is clear from Paul's own conduct:

 1 Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, "Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day."
 2 The high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth.
 3 Then Paul said to him, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?"
 4 But the bystanders said, "Do you revile God's high priest?"
 5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT SPEAK EVIL OF A RULER OF YOUR PEOPLE.'" (Acts 23:1-5 NAU)

The first-century "bystanders" understood Paul's degrading insult to be "reviling".  But if Holding had been Paul, he would have said "the command not to speak evil of a ruler of thy people was only meant in the case of good rulers, not evil gospel-rejecting idiots like you, you moron.  We live in an honor/shame culture, so these types of commands are not absolute, you bigot."
 -----------------------


Moving along....the fact that Gary Habermas, who publicly endorsed one of Holding's books, said he was glad Holding was backing off of the filthy language hissing and spitting matches that characterized Holding for 20 years, indicates that Holding's trifles about riposte are perfect nonsense, even his own favorite scholars seem to think Holding's exaggerated way of doing it violates clear NT ethics that one doesn't need a Phd. in NT theology to properly interpret/apply.