Rather than having one mega post, here is part 2 of the post about juries, etc. Part one is here.
I have said that there are only stories that Paul existed as claimed. That includes his supposed conversion. I can also say that there are only stories that Simon Magus flew around since that also cannot be shown as true either. There are many stories that have no evidence supporting them. We have the claims that King Solomon used demons to build the Temple of Solomon. I ask our Christians: Is that a story or is it the truth? How can you tell? We have no evidence of such a temple so who knows how it was built, if it existed at all. This also applies to the supposed empty tomb. We have no tomb so we have no idea if anyone was in it, or if anyone disappeared from it.
Acts is a story, and again, we have nothing more than it to claim that someone named Luke traveled with someone named Paul who could do miracles. In this, SS assumes both men existed as described in the bible with no evidence of such a thing. If this is simply a story, then there was no information exchanged “first hand”. It is claimed that “Paul refers numerous times to his conversion experience numerous times in his letters”. No he does not. We have these two passages that mention a conversion but no details:
1 Galatians: 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.
1 Corinthians 15: 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
We have Acts where the story gets different details when it’s told. It is claimed that as long as we have accounts written by someone themselves, then their claims should be considered evidence of an occurrence. Hmmm, so when I claim that Daleks have landed in my backyard and are enjoying pina coladas, that should be taken as evidence that this really did happen? What? Someone doesn’t believe me when I’ve written this down myself? Darn, I guess “once again, sometimes nothing is good enough”. 
And yes, I do say that the appearance to the 500 is just a story. It comes from 1 Corinthians, written by Paul, some decades later than the supposed event. There is no evidence this is from some “ancient creed”, it is solely found in 1 Corinthians. But, to give SS the benefit of the doubt, I ask him to tell us what this ancient creed is that he has claimed was from just a few years after JC’s death and comes from the Jerusalem community of Christians. Now, one might say that well, Paul has no way to know a certain number, but the gospels did say that JC was wandering around doing so many things that the entire world could not fit all of the books needed to write them down in, so maybe its one of those vague claims, but that doesn’t appear to be what SS is claiming. The gospel of John doesn’t mention 500 people or anyone at all after JC chats with Thomas, though it does mention “ Many other signs in the presence of his disciples”. Were there 500 disciples? Luke doesn’t mention it either. Neither does Mark, new or old ending. Finally, Matthew and Acts are both also quiet on the subject.
I think I am fairly safe in knowing that SS is guessing about what these people thought, since he has presented no ability to read minds either now or in the past. Paul indeed says that ““Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.” SS, you claim that this should be “self-explanatory”. However, it isn’t, and I ask you to do so. I have noted, in my time debating with Christians, that a Christian will claim this hoping no one will question his assertion. It is akin to throwing shit at a wall and hoping some of it sticks. SS, tell me what is self-explanatory about Paul reminding his audience about the gospel he preached to them in regards to the claim of 500 witnesses. Since all of the gospels that are accepted by most Christians do not mention these 500 people at all, what does telling the audience to remember the gospels accomplish? I would also mention that Paul claims that Jesus was raised, and appeared to Peter before he appeared to the rest of the apostles (it’s no surprise that Paul doesn’t mention JC appearing to Mary at all). In John, this does not happen. In Luke, the two apostles on the road to Emmaus, claim that JC appeared to Peter but strangely this encounter is not written about in detail, we only have Peter wandering off wondering what happened but not meeting JC at all. Mark doesn’t mention this nor does Matthew. It seems that Paul is a bit confused.
I did indeed quote the bible to show that JC predicted his death repeatedly. SS claims that the phrase “but they did not understand what he was saying” accompanies “most” of the predictions. Let’s see if it does. (SS, here is one of the places where I find you willfully ignorant, when you should know this stuff but either don’t or don’t wish to check on your claims)
Matthew 20 – no mention of failure to understand here. (the link is to the whole chapter so you get the context) also no mention of failure to understand in Matthew 26.
Mark 10 – no mention of failure to understand here
Luke 18 – Ah, here we go! Now, funny how the others failed to mention this.
John 12 – and again we have that JC predicts his death and the crowd there didn’t understand. It does go on to mention the same claims by JC that those who he/God don’t want to understand will never understand (bummer about that free will again). Earlier this chapter does mention the apostles, claiming that they *do* understand what is going on: “16 His disciples did not understand these things at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written about Him and that they had done these things to Him.”
So we have 75 percent not mentioning any misunderstanding at all or the declaration that they do understand and one instance – 25% – where the apostles don’t understand. So, we have that it is not true that “most of the predictions” have “but they did not understand what he was saying” with them. I agree, one must ask why the apostles were cowering in fear if they understood as seems to be the case. Could they have doubted and that caused their fear? Yes, but that doesn’t mean that they misunderstood. Rather than “many” were skeptical, we are told that “some” doubted. Like many people who want others to believe them, some Christians find that they have to improve the claims of their bible, making them more than they are. I ask our Christians: Can you see how this could have been done again and again over the years to get what we have today and it not be true at all?
We see SS making baseless claims again when he claims that “myths of dying and rising gods never really took off in Palestine”. Well, one could make the argument that they certainly did, with the ideas being co-opted into the Jewish myths with Jesus. He also claims that “most” of the mystery religions began to “take off” after the destruction of the temple (I’m assuming he means the second one here). That is untrue, since we have Osiris quite a bit older and right there off the border of Palestine. SS is mistaken about the myth of Heracles, he claims Heracles “dies for good”. No, he is taken to heaven and made a full-fledged god. Just like someone else we know, eh? I know, the difference is that JC supposedly came back to earth in his wounded now alive body but that isn’t the story in all of the gospels. We have Mary not recognizing him at all, and we have different ideas of when he can be touched.
SS also asks why anyone would associate JC with “these people” assumedly the sacrificial gods. Well, because he claimed he was going to be one of them, if one believes the bible. In the Jewish prophecies, we have no claims of being killed and returning. The messiah will come and then reign, with all of the world’s leaders respecting him. Didn’t happen so much with JC. What’s the possible answer? That the idea of a returning god is co-opted into the story to explain an inconvenient death. I don’t think It’s not beyond humans to do this. We make up crazier stories.
I would ask SS how one could show a connection between the resurrection myths and Jesus. What would be possible ways to do this? Hmmm. Well, we have the cultures intermixing, either normally through trade and conquest, or if you believe the bible, through the supposed enslavement of the Israelites by one big culture all about resurrection, the Egyptians. We can see how religions infect each other with the modern examples of voodoo and Santeria. So we have an actual observed phenomenon versus an unsupported claim that the authors of the bible came up with the idea of resurrection on their own. Perhaps it is more important to ask: How can one show that the authors of the bible didn’t copy the myth?
Finally we’re approaching the end of this. SS does admit that the sincerity of believe does not make the belief true. He tries this: “It is highly unlikely the disciples would live a life of suffering and martyrdom if all they preached was a lie, they had absolutely nothing to gain from preaching it. This fact cuts the claim that the disciples deliberately made up the whole thing, for while people will die for what they believe is true, no-one will die for a known lie. This fact cuts the claim that the disciples deliberately made up the whole thing, for while people will die for what they believe is true, no-one will die for a known lie.” Earlier, SS claimed that the early Christians lived a dangerous life willingly because they sincerely believed in the stories and this was evidence that Jesus Christ, son of God existed. I have not said that the early Christians deliberately made up the whole thing; I have said that what they believe is myth, but how that myth grew is still not completely understood. That still does not make the myth reality. They still can die still being very sincere believers, but this does not make the belief true. Again, we have had many humans die for beliefs that are more than a little ridiculous. It’s nothing new, now or 2000 years ago.
SS seems to be a little offended that I said that he’s used William Lane Craig’s arguments. Now, from what I recall which may be faulty, WLC came up with those arguments first, before the other apologists that SS cites. SS also claims he uses Charles Foster and his book “The Jesus Inquest”. Now, it seems that the Jesus Inquest book has the following as chapters: 1) Does all this matter? 2) The sources 3) The death 4) The burial 5) The Empty Tomb 6) The Post-Resurrection Appearances 7) Did the Early Church Believe in the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus? 8) Where Did the Christians Get Their Idea of Resurrection?
Now, let’s look at WLC’s website: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-evidence-for-jesus I ask the audience to take a look for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Here are the highlights: 1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. 2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary “urban legends.”3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. 4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. 5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.
The reader may take from that what they will.
Plagiarize means take word for word, which unsurprisingly I never accused SS of. SS certainly didn’t do that, and it doesn’t seem Foster did either. They’re just just using the exact same arguments as WLC does and they still fail. So much for bringing a bad reputation for apologists, it’s already here.
And please do mention Pascal’s Wager. Oh please! 🙂
Club Schadenfreude 
Wow! I have nothing more to add, you do this very well boss! Brilliant post. I am encouraged to finish reading the good book when I see your mastery!
LikeLike
Thanks! You make me blush.
I do recommend that people do read the Christian bible. it’s quite eye-opening.
LikeLike
I still don’t get where Vel is going with Paul. Paul wrote numerous letters of which we possess many today. This is about as close to proof as one can possibly get for the historical existence of a person, even the most stubborn mythicists admit he existed. If Vel still disagrees, I would love to know why.
Oh, and for the record, Acts is not a, what is it? A “story”. Acts is a detailed history of the early Church up until Paul’s imprisonment in Rome. It reads like history, not mythology. Vel believes it is just a story. I would ask her to explain why. And about the existence of Luke, we have two full documents written by him. That should be more than enough to show that he existed.
Vel seems to be what we would call a Wikipedia scholar. She cites two passages of his conversion, which, ironically, are exactly the two we find on the Wikipedia website. In actuality, there are additional passages where he discusses his conversion, for instance, 1 Corinthians 9:1. He also describes his persecution of the Church in other letters, for instance, the Epistle to the Philippians. And either way, details or no details, Paul records his conversion from persecutor to believer. This must be explained.
And in Acts, when we do have details, once again the discrepancies are pointed out. I have already dealt with the problem of contradictions, so if Vel still thinks they invalidate this recording, she should elaborate. And Vel, didn’t you yourself say that contradictions do not automatically invalidate testimony? If I am not mistaken, this seems to be the attitude here, for you do not go in depth apart from mentioning the discrepancies.
Do you want proof 1 Corinthians is a creed? Sure, I will give it. I would use other sources, but this time I will use Wikipedia simply because you probably will trust it more than articles written by actual Biblical scholars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_15
Look under 1-11.
Now, concerning the absence of this appearances in other accounts, several things must be kept in mind. First, this appearances is recorded in a creed well before any of the Gospels were ever written, so it is has a strong claim to authenticity. Second, most scholars believe this appearance would have been in Galilee. John is out on his own limb, and Luke only records Jerusalem appearances. I have already argued Mark’s ending is incomplete, it is quite possible he included it in the original ending. Third, some scholars believe this appearance was the one in Matthew, though far from conclusive, it is possible that the appearance in Matthew was this appearance to 500.
Now concerning your claim these people did not know about this appearance, I really should explain. Paul had already visited the Church on his journeys, he had already written another letter prior to this one. Do you really think the Corinthians would have said “500? What is this? Who were they? When was this? Where was it?” It is reasonable to assume the answers were already available to them. These people were already Christians, this reference was simply a reminder in the form of an ancient creed about the Resurrection. It was merely a reference to the evidence, not a map of it. The Church was asking much deeper questions about the Resurrection, they had moved on.
Moving on to the predictions, here it gets interesting. Once, again, we see Vel has clearly failed to do her homework on this matter, giving predictions only found on the top of the Wikipedia article, and didn’t even include all of the predictions in it. It is plain to see that it is her, and not me, who is the ignorant one.
I looked through all the Synoptic Gospels. There is a total of nine predictions about him rising from the dead on the third day. Here is a list of the passages. (Matthew 16: 21-23, 17: 22-23, 20: 17-19), (Mark 8: 31-33, 9: 30-32, 10: 32-34), (Luke 9: 21-22, 43b-45, 18: 31-34). An excellent table can be found here.
http://www.voiceofjesus.org/predictionsofdeath.html
I took the liberty of reading all the passages individually, and here’s what I found.
For four of the passages (Mat 17: 22-23, 20: 17-19, Mark 10: 32-24, Luke 9: 21-22) there is no mention of a failure to understand. In two of them (Mat 16: 21-23. Mark 8: 31-33) we see Peter fails to understand what Jesus was talking about. In three of them (Mark 9: 30-32, Luke 9: 43b-45, 18: 31-34) we have the reference of a failure to understand. So, in 4 there is no reference, in 5 there is, so I think we have a majority here. For the record, in John 12, there is no mention of rising after three days, and we see the crowd does fail to understand.
I now ask Vel to do something very tough. I have shown that in this case I am correct and you are not. I simply request that you admit you are wrong. We all make mistakes, heck, I make mistakes, but insisting I am wrong will only make you look stubborn.
I stand by my statement about dying and rising Gods not taking off in Palestine. The fact is, there is very little trace that pagan mystery cults of dying and rising gods had much of a hold in first-century Palestine at all. The Jews weren’t like the Romans, they worshipped one and only one God, and did their best to prevent these other mystery religions from infecting their culture. And no, the fact that these religions appear before the Resurrection does not imply that they influenced it, this is post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking. Concerning Heracles, perhaps I should have been more specific. He never returned to a mortal life on the earth, in fact, you outlined the difference between him and Jesus quite nicely.
Why would people associate Jesus with the one true Messiah? Because he apparently claimed to be one. As I have already shown, even though Jesus told his disciples of his fate, they were frightfully slow to understand it, as the same with pretty much everything else. In those days, failed Messiah’s were about a dozen a dime, and the Jewish beliefs about Resurrection were quite foreign to what Jesus allegedly experienced.
I still don’t think my message concerning martyrdom is coming across. These people were the ones who the supposed “myth” started with. They were the beginning, they preached the original Gospel and died for it. They either made up the whole thing, thought they told the truth, or they did tell the truth. It seems Vel thinks they did not make up the whole thing, so Vel must show why they thought they told the truth.
And Dr. Craig was not the first who came up with the Resurrection argument, there were many who debated the topic before and after him, and others (like Habermas and N.T. Wright) developed their own approach independently. Yes, there are overlaps between their arguments, but of course this is inevitable when you deal with the same facts. And for the record, Charles Foster makes very little reference to Dr. Craig in his book. My arguments are not “exactly the same” as Dr. Craig’s. There are similarities, but there are differences, there are always differences.
LikeLike
I’ll address the rest of this in a day or two. Paul may have existed, a man who thought god spoke to him and who ran around trying to tell Christians that his and only his version was the right one, SS, but until you can show that he had any magical powers, and was following a real Jesus and God, we’re still without any evidence that your religion is true. There are a lot of people who follow religions and claim that they talk to their gods. Since you don’t find this evidence that their religions are true, I do wonder why you think I should.
LikeLike
Not much new here again. Legends that are claimed as real but again with no evidence. Stories that are claimed to be “detailed histories” but have nothing to support those claims, selected from competing claims that were believed to be just as true.
And still no corroborating evidence for any of this. There may not have been intentional lies but people who honestly believed and this again makes nothing true. Things that read like history are not automatically true, if this were so then myths from many cultures would be just as true. I suggest reading the Mahabarata to note this for one’s self. I’ve read the histories of the Star Trek universe. Funny how we all didn’t notice the Eugenics Wars in the 1990s.
So, to the question did Luke exist? Well, we know someone compiled together stories of what he thought was true. We can call him Luke, but again this does not mean what was written is true.
We have claims that details don’t matter, but of course they do matter when, for instance, it comes to claims about the divinity of JC if the Christian wants his claims to be taken as true. I did like it when SS mentions that John must be wrong since “experts” agree that the appearance had to have been in Galilee. It seems our “witnesses” are even questioned by Christians when there are contradictions.
More and more claims of things that “may” have happened or could have happened, baseless assumption after assumption. It’s all fan fiction applied to the bible.
Now for a bit about the competing bible verses and claims that “most of the predictions” were accompanied by claims that they apostles did not understand. We do have those four where this is not the case at all, ones that SS was mistake in his claims. Then we have two of the same scene, Mark 8 and Mark 16, where Peter denies the prediction by JC will happen (Peter is evidently very much into denial). To deny something means that one understands it but refuses to accept it. I can say “I refuse to accept that my cats will eventually die.” This does not mean I do not understand the concept that cats die. We also have John 12 where the apostles have no problem with JC’s claims of his imminent death and where the crowd does not understand (it is interesting that SS notes that John doesn’t mention the three days thing, which makes our witnesses questionable again) The ones that have the claims of no understanding are Mark 9, Luke 9 and Luke 18. The reader may count up the numbers and determine themselves if SS is premature in his claims of victory.
We continue with claims of how the Jews were a monoculture and could not be influenced by other cultures. This seems to be a baseless claim and keeping with the desire to believe one is a chosen people and “pure”. I suggest reading about the history of Judaism, including the various sects and Hellenic influence, to see the current debate about the influences between cultures.
We have accusations of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, based on the claim that the Christians *could not* have been cross pollinated and we have nothing supporting this claim at all. It is not beyond the realm of probability at all that they were influenced. It is much harder to show that they were not and could never be influenced when we witness the phenomenon of religions being influenced by others throughout history. It is possible that they weren’t, however it is not probable.
SS, your claims about martyrdom are coming across, I simply think you are wrong and have evidence to support that. You can’t show that JC existed or the apostles. There is no telling how the myth started, but it did not need to be with a real group of 12 guys and a supposed messiah. We have Jason and the Argonauts, and they don’t have to be real either, nor does the golden fleece. Christians preached what they thought was true and died for it.
I’ve already said why they thought they told the truth. It’s the same as why you think *you* tell the truth. You accepted stories from people you had a reason to trust. You want to believe that death is not the end. You want to believe that you have a special omnipotent friend that cares for you and only you. You want to think that you are “right”. This is the same for most, if not all theists. Again, people die for untrue things all of the time, unless you want to claim that Allah is true, that aliens were behind Comet Hale-Bopp were real, that Jim Jones was the true messiah, etc.
Since Craig, et all were not dealing with facts at all, they came up with the same apologetics. And again, I did not say you plagiarized, I said you used the same arguments. I’ve said that Foster uses the same arguments. You claim that your arguments aren’t “exactly the same” as WLC. Really? So, how does your claim about the sincerity of believers differ from WLC?
LikeLike
Things that read like history are not automatically true, yes, but it does make it much more likely to be historically accurate as opposed to mythology. And I never said John was wrong, I was simply saying John was taking his own original take on events pertaining to the life of Jesus.
In the two Bible verses we discuss, Peter says to Jesus “This will never happen to you.” Do you wonder why he said that? Jesus was the Messiah, he wasn’t supposed to die and rise from the dead, the Jews simply were not expecting a dying Messiah, let alone one that rose from the dead before the end of time. Peter’s rebuke of Jesus is much more consistent with my hypothesis than with yours.
With dying and rising gods, there is a reason why this issue is no longer debated on the academic level when it relates to the Resurrection of Jesus. I will provide a few links. I use Dr. Craig this time because this time I think he is on the right track, and I use Wikipedia just so you know it is not just Christian scholars who agree.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=DZ8XzHSJpd4C&pg=PA391&lpg=PA391&dq=dying+and+rising+God+resurrection+of+Jesus+reasonable+faith&source=bl&ots=dx27uMeX4G&sig=a8dUl9MP9AQu4sW9WI5xVbNMnRI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=L76kUYzYCuWXiQLqq4DAAw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Not%20from%20Pagan%20Influences%20&f=false
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_god
Concerning the use of Dr. Craig, let’s have an example of what I mean. I argue with many of the same facts, I argue with much of the same reasoning, but that doesn’t mean my arguments are identical to his. For example, many atheists argue from the problem of evil. Even though at the core all their arguments are the same, they can differ in many respects, they can differ in writing style, choice of citations for authors they borrowed from, and emphasis on different facts and facets of the argument. Dr. Craig has no doubt contributed to my approach to some degree, but my arguments are not necessarily the same as his.
I think we are reaching the end of what fruitful discussion was possible. You have called me a wishfully thinking, willfully ignorant, wonderfully stupid Christian who hasn’t had his head in the game long enough yet to see sense. I want to believe death is not the end, so? That has no bearing on whether Christianity is true or not, and does not change the facts pertaining to the Resurrection of Jesus. I want to think I am right, just like you do, we all are subject to this, you and all other atheists are not exceptions.
Concerning the disciples, just think about what you said. You have argued at different times that Paul, James, the disciples and Jesus himself did not exist. The sources we have for them come from the period of time when they were still alive, and (in the case of Paul) come directly from them. You have said there is “no telling how the myth started”, indeed there is not. Do you really think some guys got together in the middle of the first century and said, “Hey, let’s make up a new religion about a guy called Jesus and try and make everyone believe it.” The idea that this mere myth grew from a group of lowly first century Jews to a religion that would one day be the biggest in the world is quite a tall claim. It is no wonder these ideas find no scholarly support at all.
Because of some rather pressing family issues (My grandfather is dying), I believe I have reached the end of my commenting on this blog, at least for the time being. Though rather tedious at times, I think that it was worth the time. Thanks again for that, not so polite dinner conversation. I hope that I have not been rude or spiteful during the discussion, I certainly never meant to be. So until next time, live long and prosper.
LikeLike
I want to throw this question out here at the moment. I’ll get back to the other posts in a bit.
SS claimed that if it reads likes history it is history. He now admits that this is not always the case. I would ask him: what are the hallmarks of how history reads?
Also, this is what you said about John ” First, this appearances is recorded in a creed well before any of the Gospels were ever written, so it is has a strong claim to authenticity. Second, most scholars believe this appearance would have been in Galilee. John is out on his own limb, and Luke only records Jerusalem appearances.”
According to you, most scholars find the claims in John wrong in that John does not agree that the appearance would have been in Galilee. Do you agree?
LikeLike
SS: do you believe in a humans who may have thought they were messiahs, brothers of messiahs or the deputy of the messiah?
Or do you believe in a divine entity and men who did magical things?
How do you determine what contradictions you have the ”right” answer for, if you admit that some have no answer?
if you believe that most scholars find John wrong in his claims, why do you side with those “experts” and not with one of those supposed eyewitnesses you tout?
You have made the false claims that dying for a belief is evidence for the existence for a god since you have yet to admit that this makes Islam just as valid as Christianity and we have the modern very dead bodies to show just how much they believe in their nonsense.
You have yet to show that Peter didn’t understand as you have claimed. Denial is not “not understanding”; it is not accepting.
You have yet to show what you think makes something sound “historical”. If you cannot show this, then your claims that the stories sounding “historical” is evidence are nonsense.
You have claimed that the debate about resurrecting gods is “no longer debated on the academic level”. Now wiki is true, God be praised! It is true that the category has been shown to be likely over generalized. However, the article also states that there are still myths that are about resurrecting gods, and this again does not show that there is anything innately special or unique or *true* about Christianity’s claims.
You have claimed I have called you ‘stupid’. Please show where. I always try not to use that word, since stupidity is far too general a term. I may have slipped up, but as yet I have not found the instance you claim. Are you bearing false witness against me, SS?
You have again made the baseless claim that the “The sources we have for them come from the period of time when they were still alive, and (in the case of Paul) come directly from them.” This cannot be shown to be true since we have no evidence that these people ever lived, that Paul was what he claimed. You make the same strawman claims as JBOJ when you claim that I have said that two guys just decided to come up with these myths. Since you keep repeating false claims about me, they are no more than intentional lies. Of course your lie has no support in scholarly circles since no one is making that claim.
I do hope your grandfather has an easy death. However that does not absolve you from ignoring questions honestly put to you though they might require an uncomfortable answer. That’s what willful ignorance is, SS, refusing to acknowledge that which makes your claims false.
LikeLike