Did the Resurrection Really Happen? w/ Dr. Mike Licona

[@justincolannino6544]

Incredibly relevant comment: proof that all men look better bearded. OK, carry on Matt!

[@counteringchristianity]

The resurrection narratives grow in the telling which may indicate a legend that grew over time. Pay attention to how "experiencing" the Risen Jesus evolves in chronological order. Scholarly consensus dating places the documents as follows: Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:5-8) and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation *from heaven* - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 nor does he mention an intervening ascension between the appearances. This shows that early Christians accepted claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as "Resurrection appearances." Paul nowhere gives any evidence of the Risen Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way which means you have to necessarily read in the *assumption* that the appearances were physical, from a later source that Paul nowhere corroborates. What Paul says in Phillipians 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 is consistent with the belief that Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection leaving no room for any physical earthly appearances. If this was the earliest belief then it follows that *all* of the "appearances" were believed to have been of the Exalted Christ in heaven and not physical earthly interactions with a revived corpse. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't. Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned. Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. Predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one. Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable. Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, has some women grab Jesus' feet, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. Matthew's order of appearances: Two women, eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place near the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee. Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew's depiction and Mark's prediction. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the disciples. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Acts adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days. Luke omits any appearance to the women. Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem. John 90-110 CE - Jesus can now walk through walls and has the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus gets poked. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development. John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene, eleven disciples, the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip. As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! So upon critically examining the evidence we can see the clear linear development that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and evolved to the ever-changing physical encounters in the gospels (which are not firsthand reports). If apologists want to claim this data is consistent with reliable eyewitness testimony then they need to provide other examples about the same event from history that grow in fantastic detail like the gospels do, yet are still regarded to be reliable historical documents. I maintain that this cannot be done. If attempted, they will immediately realize any other historical documents that grow like the gospels do will be legends. www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/6hj39c/the_resurrection_is_a_legend_that_grew_over_time/

[@fakename3208]

This is a good post, but in the Reddit post you linked there is another article linked that builds a better case for the resurrection

[@counteringchristianity]

@@fakename3208 If you're talking about Craig's article, I explain how he doesn't address a lot of the problems. Moreover, he specifically doesn't address how the story seems to evolve over time per my comparative analysis above which impugns the reliability of the sources altogether. Craig states: _"But second, in placing himself in the list, Paul is not trying to put the appearances to the others on a plane with his own; rather he is trying to level up his own experience to the objectivity and reality of the others."_ But since Craig is supposed to only be investigating the _information provided by Paul_ per the argument, then where exactly from Paul's letters is he getting the idea that the appearances to the others were "objective and real"? As already demonstrated, the word for "appeared" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and Paul's description of a "revelation" in Gal. 1:12-16 are insufficient to establish the conclusion that the appearances were "objective and real." So this article is fatally flawed. Craig is simply reading in his own belief that the appearances to the others were objective when he's not supported that belief with any evidence from Paul's letters.

[@fakename3208]

@@counteringchristianity yea I don’t have as much historical knowledge of scripture to stand in this ring with you. I have to ask though, what is your motivation for “countering Christianity”? I am a former atheist and the more I look into the philosophy and rationale behind the teachings…the more it makes a lot of sense. I’m here watching this video because the truth of the resurrection as an actual event is the difference between Christianity being either the best self-help program mankind has ever came up with or…something so far beyond something such a trivial sounding thing such as “self-help” that I struggle to put it into words. I notice a lot of Atheists maybe don’t understand how important this is and don’t really have any solutions for “where to go from here” should Christianity be proven false or entirely metaphorical.

[@counteringchristianity]

@@fakename3208 The name was a response to Capturing Christianity on KZbin and Facebook. They have blocked me from commenting though which I think is dishonest censorship.

[@EntinludeX]

No. Of course not. Don't be childish. Dead is dead is dead.

[@rtwfreak2012]

What an intellectually sound way of engaging the arguments presented in this video! Bravo, i am humbled by your wisdom.

[@EntinludeX]

@@rtwfreak2012 oh, I'm sorry was defending the, uh,... 🧟‍♀️"undeceased"🧟‍♂️ supposed to be some kind of pretense of 🤯wisdom🧠? Did ⚰️mortality⚰️ simply go out the windows one day when I wasn't looking?

[@bencorwin]

Or maybe it's just relative. Jesus rising from the dead is crazy compared to what? The big bang? I don't think so. kzbin.info/www/bejne/m4K5nmuIpNCieKM

[@gavasiarobinssson5108]

@@EntinludeX resurrected is resurrected is resurrected is redurrected. There. I won.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@bencorwin Yes, the Big Bang is a scientific fact. That people who are dead stay dead is also a scientific fact. But somehow 2k year old hearsay written down by extremely biased anonymous authors makes a ressurection story more plausible.😂