Dan Petersen and the Resurrection

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
hauslern
1st Counselor
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:36 am

Dan Petersen and the Resurrection

Post by hauslern »

In the latest blog comment cites scholars like Habermas , Michael Licona, William Lane Craig, and N. T. Wright as supporters of the resurrection of Jesus.
When one reads (Horizontally as Bart Ehrman suggests one finds problems. If one adds Joseph Smith's changes even more interesting.

Matthew
28 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”

Inspired Version
...early in the morning came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher 2. And behold; there had been a great earthquake; for two angels of the Lord descended from Heaven, and rolled back the stone from the from the door and sat upon it."

If you compare Mark, Luke and John you see the differences and even more so in the Inspired version.

Some really good youtube videos where Bart Ehrman debates with these evangelical scholars.
drumdude
God
Posts: 5219
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Dan Petersen and the Resurrection

Post by drumdude »

Side note, DCP made what is (I think) a novel apologetic argument a few weeks back. He claimed there’s no way Joseph could have associated volcanoes and lightning the way he did in the Book of Mormon.

Yet here we see in this very famous scripture that lightning is associated with earthquake and cataclysm, as it is many times throughout the Bible. And those Book of Mormon volcanoes were associated with earthquakes.

Another instance of DCP drawing a bullseye around an arrow.
User avatar
Doctor Steuss
God
Posts: 1672
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:48 pm

Re: Dan Petersen and the Resurrection

Post by Doctor Steuss »

drumdude wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:33 pm
Side note, DCP made what is (I think) a novel apologetic argument a few weeks back. He claimed there’s no way Joseph could have associated volcanoes and lightning the way he did in the Book of Mormon.

Yet here we see in this very famous scripture that lightning is associated with earthquake and cataclysm, as it is many times throughout the Bible. And those Book of Mormon volcanoes were associated with earthquakes.

Another instance of DCP drawing a bullseye around an arrow.
In that same Book of Mormon chapter of "how could he have associated lightning with volcanoes/earthquakes," there's also a tempest (how could Joseph have known to associate lightning with a tempest??!?!?!??!??!?!?!?!?!?).

It's a basic kitchen-sink hodgepodge of all things cataclysmic.
User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1557
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: on the battlefield of life

Re: Dan Petersen and the Resurrection

Post by Physics Guy »

Nothing written in any old book could ever be sufficient evidence for a resurrection from the dead. Even wildly unlikely coincidences would be less wildly unlikely as explanations, for any written accounts there could ever be, than an actual resurrection.

And in the traumatic circumstances of a high-commitment religious movement losing its leader to crucifixion, it doesn't take very unlikely coincidences to explain a desperate leap to believe. People in circumstances like that aren't dispassionate reporters carefully recording all relevant details. They grasp at straws, confuse things, cling to hope.

Bearing that in mind, the gospel accounts of post-resurrection appearances by Jesus—there is no account of the event itself—read to me as authentic. They're confused and inconsistent in detail. Eyewitness accounts are often like that. I was once part of a military trial at which witnesses disagreed about the trajectory of a thrown glass object. One spoke of a beer glass shattering on the table in front of him, while for the other it was a bottle that flew across the room and he swept up the pieces. Probably the glass and bottle throwings were two separate events that had both become the main event in the two people's memories; however it happened, the two sets of details were both vivid and clear, yet diverged.

Some of the gospel resurrection accounts themselves, as we have them, are even unpolished enough to suggest non-miraculous explanations for what they record. The episode of the two unnamed disciples meeting Jesus on the road to Emmaus, for instance, reads a lot like a story of two shell-shocked disciples meeting a random stranger who chats with them about scripture and who then freaks out and leaves when they start getting weird. For what it's worth, though, the Emmaus encounter could have been an absurd case of mistaken identity like that, which got passed down for all faithful posterity in the gospel, even if Jesus really was resurrected, but didn't walk to Emmaus.

Other post-resurrection accounts aren't as ambiguous as that one. Whatever one makes of them all, though, I think their inconsistency in detail actually speaks more in their favour than against them. At least for many of them, I think the best guess is that they are what people involved at the time remembered not too long afterwards. They'd probably read much as they do if Jesus really had risen bodily from the dead; they'd probably read much the same if the empty tomb was just a random empty hole with which disciples became obsessed out of confused delirium, and if Thomas's touching Christ's wounds was a dream whose retelling was mistaken for a memory by someone who heard it.

Nitpicking inconsistencies is as pointless as trying to reconcile them. The gospel accounts are as good a record as one could expect if the Resurrection were real, but that's still not worth much as evidence for the Resurrection.
I was a teenager before it was cool.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Dan Petersen and the Resurrection

Post by Moksha »

hauslern wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:23 pm
Inspired Version
...early in the morning came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher 2. And behold; there had been a great earthquake; for two angels of the Lord descended from Heaven, and rolled back the stone from the from the door and sat upon it"
If Dr. Peterson had time from his travel itinerary, he would have pointed out that Joseph adding the extra angel meant there were both two Cumorahs and two Watson letters.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Post Reply