One Christian Thought

 "The death of a martyr can indeed cause admiration and emulation, but it never has had a religious meaning in itself--least of all in Judaism which puts such a positive value on life and has never glorified suffering or death." (1) That came from Pinchas Lapide, the expert Jewish scholar who came to believe in the resurrection (although not Christianity). I think there is a small yet considerable chink in my resurrection argument, and that is if even the Disciples had interpreted Jesus as the Christ before His death. If not, then there seems to be, to say the least, a lot more room for feeling guilty about betraying Him and hallucinating. I mentioned in the post responding to the Disciples hallucinating that Ehrman didn't think Jesus saw Himself as the highest person coming from God. He prophesied the Son of Man, but didn't consider Himself to be as much.  That is why I used the example I did, Matthew 19:28. Ehrman expands on it: "And who would rule over them? ...

You can see the suggested reading plan here . I remember someone (I think America's leading skeptic Michael Shermer) saying (I paraphrase), "You come across people who say, 'Well, I don't really believe in that stuff of the Bible [other miracles], I only believe the main story [the resurrection].' But that's the stupidest part!" Is it really? If it's so stupid, why is the evidence so robust even a majority of skeptical scholars have accepted claims in favor of His coming back to life? I wrote in my post on the possibility of miracles that someone reasonably could believe in Jesus solely because of proof of His resurrection, and then learn about more evidence. The resurrection could prove the Bible inside out, not have to be worked toward by answering other objections. Bart Ehrman included that people in cultures that accept a certain belief (like people surviving death), and feeling guilty, can definitely lead to guilt-induced hallucinations. But he h...

I've mentioned multiple times in this blog that I know no Jew was expecting the Messiah to be crucified, and He would never have been invented this way, because famous agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman reported as much. Yet I thought of a couple arguments against this. One is perhaps Ehrman was overstating the facts in Did Jesus Exist? , because he was responding to mythicists whom he disagrees with. The first answer is he had written about that long before his 2012 book on the subject(1), and the others go along with the next argument. Then is the challenge that Ehrman is one of Christianity's biggest critics, who claims the Old Testament doesn't prophecy Jesus. Yet if they were expecting a crucified Savior, why would that be? His chapter "Two Key Data for the Historicity of Jesus" isn't solely Ehrman's conclusion on this subject, though. (By the way, the other powerful proof is Paul knowing James His brother and Peter his close friend. Hard to i...

The argument for Mark's story being accurate is here . Bart Ehrman has mentioned (as other skeptical scholars have argued) that the empty tomb was invented because it has to be. Since Jesus became to be interpreted as being physically resurrected, He would of course leave an empty tomb behind. This is why there is growing legend with Mark first only having that, and then Matthew, Luke, and John have Jesus being touched and maybe eating. However, if the empty tomb was invented to emphasize a physical body, certainly a legend writer would have included more details (like being touched). As a growing legend it doesn't make sense to leave out because it's just something they'd think of anyway. Being able to be touched is an important part of having a physical body, and makes it more explicit.  Moreover, even if that did make sense, there still is a lack of embellishment in how Jesus's empty grave was found.  I mentioned in the original post it could be argued that if Ma...

Here I'm going to focus on some points made in Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? , one of the great debates that was vital in my big blog project on the resurrection. Michael Goulder's chapter "The Explanatory Power of Conversion-Visions" has some considerably strong material. Peter liable to a hallucination? Evidence ("evidence") that Peter could definitely hallucinate was the transfiguration, and the vision when God told him to eat all sorts of meat(1).  These notions are definitely the easiest to dispel. The transfiguration would be argued by skeptics to not at all be based in reality (it doesn't go back to an eyewitness, it looks like a legendary invention and maybe must be because it is impossible). Someone could argue that Peter disrespecting God would is a factual something (Mark 9:5-6), but, as I have referred to twice before in recent posts, Bart Ehrman would point out Christians definitely might be willing to invent him this way, and le...

 Because my latest blog project spans well over 10 posts, with virtually all being quite long, I wish to try to remedy that. I will be updating my little three-page argument on the resurrection (still keeping it short of course) with some reflection on this argument.  The Introduction is just that. It can be ignored as long as you realize here that I'm using a list of facts so well-evidenced that many, even a majority, of skeptical scholars believe in them. Fact #1 , the Disciples falling away, is a vital point, but the argument could be overlooked if someone could accept the fact otherwise.  Fact #2 , Jesus's crucifixion, is of course necessary, but the main point that a crucified Messiah looks like God didn't bless Jesus could be gathered later. Fact #3, parts 1 and 2 , can be ignored totally, because the evidence for the empty tomb will validate His burial. Fact #4 is the empty tomb and a vital fact. Part 1 is the most straightforward to understand, I think. Perhaps...

Now would be appropriate to turn once again to the "parallels" Ehrman gave to the foundation of Christianity. I think specifically of when he said Muslims saw Mary sometimes -- people "who were not Christians, obviously." (1) Ehrman says a Christian claim that "mass hallucinations do not happen" is false. "...most people at the end of the day believe that mass hallucinations are not only possible, but that they really can happen," (2) illustrated by non-Catholic views towards reports of seeing Mary.   I find it satisfying that Craig once said "collective hallucinations do rarely occur," but it is "the diversity of all these different sorts of appearances that taxes the explanatory strength of the Hallucination Hypothesis." (3) Gary Habermas commonly cites Gary R. Collins, who gained a doctorate in psychology from Purdue University, and is an excellent scholar of psychology. He reported: "Hallucinations are individual occu...

Here is a very long quote from How Jesus Became God . I want to share it with you to show something of a summary of how skeptical scholars, specifically here Bart Ehrman, can view Christian arguments pointed at the resurrection.  "...more than anyone else, thinkers among [dedicated Christian] groups are committed to 'objective truth'... But the reality is that modern Christian apologists stress the importance of objectivity and champion it more than anyone--much more than most other educated people in our world. University intellectuals almost never speak of 'objectivity' any more, unless they happen to live on the margins of intellectual life. "...This is a standard weapon in the apologetic arsenal: you can look at all the evidence for the resurrection, objectively, and conclude, on the basis of overwhelming proof, that God really did raise Jesus from the dead. No other explanation can account for the objectively established historical data--for example, that...

James, despite being a blood brother to the Lord, is proven historically to have disbelieved and scorned Him. He is acknowledged in Mark 6:3 as having been the brother of Jesus, and in 3:21 it is reported that His family thought "He is out of His mind." Later, in verses 31-35, Jesus appears to have to disown the authority of His "mother and brothers." I don't know if Luke and Matthew report their unbelief, but they both are aware that Jesus had brothers (Matthew 13:55; Luke 8:20). However, John does explicitly bring up their lack of faith. This is important, because the story he tells, and the fact that John is strikingly different than Mark and the other synoptics (that's why his Gospel isn't one), shows this is independent attestation. Furthermore, in John 7:1-10, it is striking that James and his other brothers were implicitly claiming Jesus should go and get Himself killed!  And of course Jesus's own family not believing in Him is highly embarras...

  Paul Often times when I read about someone trying to explain away what happened to Paul, they include a guilt complex. Paul was a severe persecutor of the church, and eventually he felt bad for being so nasty to people.  But this idea can annoy me because there is "absolutely no hint  in the epistles" that Paul felt guilty(1). While he does talk about persecuting the church (see fact #7), he never says anything of the sort, like maybe God started to vindicate him of his sin before Jesus truly turned Paul's life around. However, Gerd Ludemann apparently once argued that such is not true, because Romans 7:7-25 could be on the pre-conversion Paul. Two responses, one by Robert H. Gundry and the other by William Lane Craig, were quite thorough and scorching. (Although I suggest you read it for yourself, and see just how clear it is that Paul was speaking of his thoughts before converting.) "Paul's [re-Christian versus Christian experience is overwhelmingly rejected ...