tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3541424098637282033.post2597000261176075050..comments2024-02-25T14:40:36.163-05:00Comments on INFINITY NOW: Five reasons to deny Jesus’ resurrection from the deadbertgaryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06609030623500152116noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3541424098637282033.post-88531824052320111372015-05-02T02:18:07.101-04:002015-05-02T02:18:07.101-04:00The only author in the Bible who mentions anything...The only author in the Bible who mentions anything about guards being at the tomb, Matthew, says that the guards were not posted until the next day after Jesus body had been placed in the tomb, and, even though Joseph of Arimethea had rolled a great stone in front of the tomb, he had not sealed it. So, the tomb of Jesus was left unguarded and unsealed the entire first night, in the darkness, and probably part of the next day. That would provide ample time and ample opportunity for someone to have moved or stolen the body.<br /><br />So even if the biblical account of the “guards at the tomb” story is correct, the fact that there is a time period when the tomb was left unguarded, blows a hole in the Christian claim that a resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb and the disciples’ belief that Jesus had been resurrected. For instance, if grave robbers had taken the body, the Jews would say that the disciples took the body and the disciples would say that Jesus had fulfilled his prophecy and had risen from the dead. <br />Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3541424098637282033.post-84277046708019687072014-05-01T08:04:26.598-04:002014-05-01T08:04:26.598-04:00Anonymous, the only explanation for your comment i...Anonymous, the only explanation for your comment immediately above is that you posted it without reading what I wrote here. If you'd read it, you'd know that we agree. Oops.bertgaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06609030623500152116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3541424098637282033.post-25290087543790117392014-04-30T21:48:26.496-04:002014-04-30T21:48:26.496-04:00Sorry but i don't agree. The bible is true and...Sorry but i don't agree. The bible is true and the Resurrection did happen. There's so much proof that it did happen. God and Jesus are real.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3541424098637282033.post-88511499383829163162011-05-26T08:51:14.464-04:002011-05-26T08:51:14.464-04:00Well, remember I did research on arguments for and...Well, remember I did research on arguments for and against, so some of these are arguments that others have made, and I ran with the ball. I came up with 5 against that I felt were the strongest, and the strongest 10 for. A few are mine from scratch, and the rest are my re-wrestling with historical arguments for and against.<br /><br />I do beg off because A. There's not enough evidence to prove it beyond a doubt and B. there's an unavoidable subjectivity for me because I love the story.<br /><br />So given that I don't have enough evidence to prove it and my heart is invested, what do I do, turn off my brain? I can't do that. So the option I chose was to state as clearly and objectively as I can what the best arguments for and against the resurrection are and let the reader do with it what he will, like you.<br /><br />So having admitted a lack of incontrovertible evidence and having admitted a personal bias, what's the result? Did I stimulate clearer thinking on the subject? Did I engage the reader in the "debate"?<br /><br />The material that I analyzed is ancient, incomplete, and also biased--written by those who believed. Further, the material is written so as to invite ascent. It asks you to believe the report and doesn't apologized for its persuasiveness. To me, that both raises skepticism and invites ascent. I'm engaged, obviously, by both. And perhaps the story has exposed a certain lack of integration of my head and my heart that I'm addressing--ongoing.<br /><br />You are getting an advanced look at Heaven for Skeptics in these blogs. I will consider doing more than if you will email me. ---Bertbertgaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06609030623500152116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3541424098637282033.post-51710968601205624792011-05-25T23:20:31.493-04:002011-05-25T23:20:31.493-04:00But so far, (1) and (2) of the ten don't actua...But so far, (1) and (2) of the ten don't actually offer good reasons for believing in the resurrection do they? On the one hand, (1) through (10) are under the rubric of Arguments For.... but then again you beg off the very possibility of offering strong arguments (i.e. proofs) of the resurrection. Philo is confused. Should we continue with (3)? How does Philo get an advanced peek at "Heaven for Skeptics"? As you might imagine, I am interested.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3541424098637282033.post-3238879479462279202011-05-25T20:37:30.446-04:002011-05-25T20:37:30.446-04:00Yeah, it's definitely a logical fallacy. You d...Yeah, it's definitely a logical fallacy. You demonstrate that well. I like logic and use it, obviously, but my point wasn't to prove the resurrection by formal logical argument. That's impossible, as I see it. <br /><br />I was looking for a possible explanation for why Jesus only appeared to believers (with 2 noted exceptions). The explanation I offered proves nothing, as you seem to agree.<br /><br />I still think its a good point or observation, however, that the Jesus of scripture wasn't interested in proofs---focusing on ostentatious proofs of power or dazzling proofs of logic---and he was that way in the gospel stories both before and after his resurrection. <br /><br />His consistent humility before and after the resurrection doesn't prove he was raised logically, but it is an interesting observation that might explain why he didn't pop in on Pilate and say "Tah-Dah!" ---should anyone who is thinking about these things be looking for a possible explanation for the lack of ostentatious "Tah-Dahs."<br /><br />Please remember I wrote at the beginning of the "Ten Arguments Supporting . . ." article:<br /><br />"What I want to do is explore the evidence, keeping in mind two things: One, it is not likely that I will prove anything once-and-for-all to myself or anyone else by this effort. And two, I believe deeply that my investigation of the resurrection of Jesus will have some benefit to somebody, if only me."bertgaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06609030623500152116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3541424098637282033.post-6460577713734613862011-05-25T19:59:45.967-04:002011-05-25T19:59:45.967-04:00(2) is supposed to offer a reason for believing in...(2) is supposed to offer a reason for believing in the resurrection but it actually starts off in quite the opposite direction; as a critique of an argument against belief in the resurrection. The skeptical argument runs:<br /><br />(1) If Jesus was resurrected, then (chances are) He would have made his resurrection known to non-believers.<br />(2) But Jesus didn’t make his resurrection known to non-believers.<br />(3) Hence, it is unlikely that Jesus was resurrected.<br /><br />Quite justifiably you claim (1) is false. What is more likely to be true is: <br />(1)’ If Jesus was resurrected and continued to act in character then He would not have made His resurrection known to non-believers.<br /><br />Hence, the skeptical argument is defeated. But your positive argument for the resurrection runs as follows:<br /><br />(1)’ If Jesus was resurrected and continued to act in character then He would not have made His resurrection known to non-believers.<br />(2)’ Jesus did not make His resurrection known to non-believers.<br />(3)’ Hence, Jesus was resurrected and continued to act in character.<br /><br />But this argument is nothing more than an instance of the fallacy of affirming the consequent:<br /><br />(1) If A then B<br />(2) B<br />(3) Therefore, A.<br /><br />Not to mention the fact that said information is second hand.<br /><br />PhiloAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3541424098637282033.post-80446764628600638402011-05-25T17:45:06.417-04:002011-05-25T17:45:06.417-04:00Philo never claimed that second hand information o...Philo never claimed that second hand information ought to be rejected simply by virtue of the fact that it is second hand. The claim was that second hand information concerning miracles ought to be rejected because it contradicts the world as we understand it. Hence, I can reasonable believe news reports concerning the President's whereabouts, but I ought not believe news reports concerning supposed miracles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3541424098637282033.post-52494663250513982722011-05-25T14:33:41.920-04:002011-05-25T14:33:41.920-04:00Yes, Anon, the resurrection of Jesus is secondhand...Yes, Anon, the resurrection of Jesus is secondhand information for the reader of the Bible. <br /><br />I just read on cnn.com that US President Obama addressed the British Parliament today in London. That's secondhand information too, isn't it? Unless I trust that secondhand report, I must reject that it happened. How do I even know London exists, assuming I've never been there? How do I know that Obama is really the president, unless I attended the inauguration personally?<br /><br />If secondhand information must be rejected out of hand, then I must reject any news, any message, any history, any data, any study that I didn't experience firsthand: Man did not walk on the moon and I can't believe anything you say, ever.<br /><br />Obviously we trust secondhand information all the time. Paul's claim (in the Bible to have seen a resurrected man) cannot be ruled out solely on the grounds that it is secondhand information for the reader of the Bible. Today's newspaper is nothing BUT secondhand information for the reader of the paper.<br /><br />I'm inclined, at this juncture in spacetime, to believe Paul. I also believe Obama was in London today, and that Armstrong walked on the moon in 1969. :)bertgaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06609030623500152116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3541424098637282033.post-22154414385298889102011-05-25T12:45:56.030-04:002011-05-25T12:45:56.030-04:00Has Philo been cut off from discussion?Has Philo been cut off from discussion?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3541424098637282033.post-25329381669932575552011-05-24T19:54:52.944-04:002011-05-24T19:54:52.944-04:00The supposed resurrection of Jesus is second hand ...The supposed resurrection of Jesus is second hand for any reader of the Bible, even if Paul had a first hand experience; Reports from eyewitnesses are second hand for the receivers of the reports. As such, it is simply unreasonable for anyone to accept the report of a miraculous event at face value. Suppose I tell you that I saw a small puddle "reverse" into an ice cube (on a hot summer's day). Would you believe it? I would hope not. <br /><br />Philo (aka Anonymous)<br /><br />P.S. I have yet to say anything about (2), (3), or beyond.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3541424098637282033.post-83603290543778947752011-05-24T19:25:25.374-04:002011-05-24T19:25:25.374-04:00It's probably true that the gospels are "...It's probably true that the gospels are "second hand," if you mean by "second hand" that the authors used oral and written sources including interviews with eyewitnesses. However, the Apostle Paul's claims are first hand.<br /><br />You like #3, it seems. Yeah, I get that. The argument goes: If miracles can't happen, then the resurrection didn't happen. It's kind of funny, but Paul's argument for the resurrection sounds similar. <br /><br />He wrote to some new Christian believers in Greece that if Jesus really rose, then so will we. But if he didn't really rise, then neither will we, then our faith is in vain, and then we are to be most pitied of all people.<br /><br />Why would Paul have bet all his chips on Jesus' resurrection? He must have been pretty sure. The only way he could have been that sure--that I can think of--is that he knew it was true with his own eyes and ears, as he claimed.<br /><br />So if "we" reject the possibility of miracles, and if "we" therefore discount the resurrection of Jesus, then Paul was mistaken or lying, or the letters written in his name are fabrications by someone else. <br /><br />I don't get the sense from studying his epistles that Paul is either delusional or a liar, or that the letters are an anonymous work of fiction. I find his firsthand testimony hard to dismiss.<br /><br />I don't know, Anonymous. "We" empirical types may be too quick to dismiss what seems miraculous (i.e. the resurrection of a man from the dead), but quick to swear by Dark Energy, something that "we" have no idea what it is, can't see, can't study, can't measure, can't prove. Scientists can only measure Dark Energy's presumed effect on ordinary matter, and they have to infer its existence based entirely on its presumed effect. Sounds pretty "second hand" to me. :) <br /><br />Appreciate your honesty, man.bertgaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06609030623500152116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3541424098637282033.post-36959416340353943862011-05-24T17:35:11.251-04:002011-05-24T17:35:11.251-04:00In reply to (1): What we really have are second ha...In reply to (1): What we really have are second hand accounts of claims of a miracle -Jesus returning after death. And since our experiences tell us that miracles (violations of the laws of nature) don't happen we should reject claims to the contrary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3541424098637282033.post-51022868860510084472011-05-16T19:35:36.992-04:002011-05-16T19:35:36.992-04:00You almost make me believe.You almost make me believe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3541424098637282033.post-35439475159954886242011-04-23T21:48:00.312-04:002011-04-23T21:48:00.312-04:00Thanks, I enjoyed that and saved itThanks, I enjoyed that and saved itAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com