Tonight's Easter Analysis of the Evidences for the Risen Jesus BYP LIVE!

[Philo Sofee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2_a1IRdgjM

Come join me as I talk about both sides, believers and skeptics, on the resurrection. I have been preparing all week for this, and it promises to be an exceptionally informed show! Look forward to seeing you all there.

[huckelberry]

I have mentioned that I find Easter emotionally puzzling and difficult to relate to as a celebration. It so happened this morning I spent a short time in a Catholic hospital waiting room. I felt glad to see the crucifix. I understand that and appreciate seeing it complete with Christ figure. I spent a short bit of time reviewing the gospel accounts for Easter. I gather that on Easter morning people were confused, uncertain, and wondering, “Where is Jesus?” Perhaps the search for Easter eggs takes inspiration from that search, “Where is Jesus?”

A lot of things in this world and time might suggest that question.

A few days back I watched again the movie Gandhi. No reason to give him a special spiritual place but he was inspired by Jesus and did a better imitation (in an honest valid way) of Christ than many people.

[huckelberry]

Philo, you make interesting presentations but sometimes they are longer than I have the will to fallow. Perhaps in pieces over time.

Your image of a war, skeptic and little miss goody two shoes is for me off putting. I know the subject results in uncertainty in terms of objective evidence. If it is a matter of does objective evidence demonstrate that in fact Jesus rose from the dead, no, the evidence is short of sure demonstration.

Ehrman’s observations are clear. People may have imagined his presence due to their combination of love and distress over his death (maybe). Stories may have grown more concrete over time (maybe). Crossan's theory may have been right, the Romans sent his body to the dogs (maybe).

[huckelberry]

On the other hand evidence is clear that in the first century Christianity grew with and upon the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. As the years went on clearly Jesus was thought of as present spiritually as introduced at Pentacost but people looked back at memory, report of Jesus Initially appearing directly. It is also clear that Christianity has lived on with the sense of ongoing spiritual presence.

For first hand reports of Jesus appearing there is only Paul. I have watched a youtube presentation by Habermas focusing on that 1 Corinthian statement he sees as a tradition from a time earlier than the letter. looks very likely but I am not going to study a thousand pages trying to determine just how early and from whom. I see the Ehrman objection that the passage does not say Peter claims this. It is true we have no statement from Peter making this claim. That fact would be more significant if we had statements from Peter omitting or denying this. We have no such statements. We just have Paul's report.

One of the strangest critical lines of argument is to doubt that Paul spoke to Peter about the Jesus events. What if they only talked about fishing and where to find a good sandwich? There is no proof but I suspect even if fishing got mentioned between them basic observation about Jesus would have received some discussion.

I think it is clear that apologist can fall for the temptation to stretch their points and hide uncertainties. It is also clear at least in my mind that critics can stretch their points in sometimes far fetched ways.

[Equality]

It is true we have no statement from Peter making this claim. That fact would be more significant if we had statements from Peter omitting or denying this. We have no such statements. We just have Paul's report.

With Peter's track record in the "denying" department, not sure we'd be able to rely too much on a denial from him one way or the other.

Roosters crowing thrice and all that ...

[Gabriel]

It is true we have no statement from Peter making this claim. That fact would be more significant if we had statements from Peter omitting or denying this. We have no such statements. We just have Paul's report.

With Peter's track record in the "denying" department, not sure we'd be able to rely too much on a denial from him one way or the other.

Roosters crowing thrice and all that ...

On the other hand, IF the affair of Peter's denial was a historical event -- the details of which could only have been recounted by Peter (and/or possibly John) -- would you rather that his shameful action was left hushed up and unconfessed?

[huckelberry]

Philo, I did get through you Easter presentation though I had to proceed in several pieces on a couple different days. I appreciate the work you do digging up information. You can make people think. Your comments about Psalm 22 made me look at it a bit closer. I realize I had skipped past the basic observation that Jesus in Mark was referencing a psalm without asking myself if that meant anything. Reviewing it gave me a new appreciation of the author of Mark’s literary intelligence. The psalm clearly prefigures the idea of resurrection. Of course by itself it is not about resurrection; it has no mention of death just God taking saving action. Placed in the new context, Jesus’s death, it suggests an expectation of some reversal of the death occurring in the scene. As story telling, it sets up the guarded, almost mysterious presentation of resurrection which ends Mark.

It is clear, I think, that it is naïve mistake to think the psalm is a prophesy of Jesus’s crucifixion. Importantly, there is in the psalm no death, no burial, and no three days later. There is a textual ambiguity which centuries later got translated in error as pierced hands and feet. Even if that detail was in the psalm it would not make it into some prediction of Jesus. Instead, the psalm illuminates themes and hopes which the author of Mark connects to Jesus to illustrate what is believed to be happening: Asking the reader to look in that direction.

I noticed a short Dan McClellan presentation about the psalm. He note that the first translation saying pierced hands and feet was 1535 Coverdale Bible.