That even though the Apostle Paul was the only NT author to claim he saw the risen Jesus, Paul said he merely saw a vision of Jesus on the Damascus Road rather than Jesus himself. Yep, just see Acts 26:9: "So then, King Agrippa, I (Paul) was not disobedient to the vision (i.e. ὀπτασίᾳ) from heaven." That's called evidence? I hardly think so at all.
- What's the significance of "NT authors"? If a historical source tells us that somebody saw the risen Jesus, what's the significance of the fact that the resurrection witness in question didn't leave us a New Testament document in which he made the claim that he saw Jesus risen from the dead? If Josephus tells us that Herod the Great made claim X, do we dismiss Josephus' report just because we don't have a document from Herod in which he affirms X?
- If Matthew wrote the gospel attributed to him, then he claims to have seen the risen Jesus (Matthew 26:32, 28:7, 28:10, 28:16-17). John 21:24 most naturally suggests that the author of the fourth gospel claimed to be the beloved disciple, and that gospel refers to the beloved disciple as a witness of the resurrected Christ (John 21:1-23). Given the widespread early Christian belief that seeing the risen Jesus was required for apostleship (Acts 1:21-22, 1 Corinthians 9:1), the Petrine documents indirectly affirm Peter's status as an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ by affirming his apostleship (1 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1).
- Surely Loftus doesn't think Paul wrote Acts. If he's going to include the author of Acts' report about what Paul said concerning the resurrection in Acts 26:19, then why not include similar reports about what other individuals said (Luke 24:35, John 20:25, Acts 10:40-41, etc.)? Then we wouldn't be limiting ourselves to "NT authors", and Paul wouldn't be the "only" witness.
- Why doesn't Loftus interact with the arguments for a traditional Christian understanding of Acts 26:19, such as the references to the physical and objective nature of Jesus' appearance to Paul elsewhere in Acts (9:3-4, 9:7-9, 22:9, 22:11, 26:14)?
- Loftus' claim that Paul "merely saw a vision of Jesus on the Damascus Road rather than Jesus himself" is contradicted by Acts 22:14 and 1 Corinthians 9:1.
- Does Loftus think Acts' report of what Paul said in Acts 26:19 is historically reliable? If so, why? And what does that view suggest about common skeptical claims regarding the alleged unreliability of Acts? If he doesn't consider Acts 26:19 reliable, then what's the significance of his citation of it? If he's claiming that the passage is problematic for Christianity under Christian assumptions, like the assumption of a high view of Acts, then Christian assumptions also include the sort of qualifications I've outlined above (Acts' references to the physical and objective nature of Jesus' appearance to Paul, etc.). How would Acts 26:19 be problematic for Christianity when those qualifications are included?
- What Christian has ever argued for the resurrection only on the basis of Acts 26:19? That one passage isn't the full extent of what we "call evidence". Even the testimony of Paul taken as a whole is just a portion of the evidence Christians have traditionally cited. Loftus hasn't even given us good reason to reject Paul's testimony, much less all of the evidence considered collectively.
- Loftus often mentions his Christian education. And how old is he now? How long has he been arguing against Christianity, publishing books against it, etc.? Why is he still overlooking evidence like what I've outlined above? Why would he include such a bad argument against Christianity in a "Top Ten List of Christian Delusions"?
Paul's is the only named first person story of seeing a post-rez Jesus.
ReplyDeletePaul says Jesus "appeared" to him, that's all (1 Cor.) No word in that letter as to how or where, or what Paul saw and heard. Paul says just as little about that appearance in Galatians.
Luke-Acts was composed decades after Paul's letters above, and not by Paul. Neither does Luke-Acts, nor the four Gospels, name who wrote them. The names were all added later.
Lastly, Paul in his early letters says several things that are at odds with Luke-Acts. Paul speaks of a "spiritual body." But Luke-Acts has the raised Jesus insist that he is NOT a spirit at all, and eats fish to prove it, and rises bodily into the stratosphere.
Ed,
ReplyDeletePaul's very use of the word "body" -- spiritual or not -- renders his account entirely consistent with Luke-Acts and the rest of the New Testament accounts of Jesus' resurrection.
You seem to render the term "body" as some sort of whispery ghost without substance when accompanied by the description as "spiritual." Quite simplistic, wrong, and anachronistic. The term "body" precludes such an understanding, as it denotes materiality. Jesus' spiritual body is no more incorporeal than the "spiritual food" eaten and "spiritual drink" consumed by the Israelites (1 Cor. 10:1-5) or the "spiritual man" Paul wants Christians to be (1 Cor. 2:15).
I find it hard to believe you've never encountered this response before. Perhaps you just choose to ignore it.
EDWARD T. BABINSKI SAID:
ReplyDelete"Paul's is the only named first person story of seeing a post-rez Jesus."
We're waiting for an argument.
"Paul says Jesus 'appeared' to him, that's all (1 Cor.) No word in that letter as to how or where, or what Paul saw and heard."
He as a doctrine of physical resurrection in 1 Cor.
"Paul says just as little about that appearance in Galatians."
A red herring.
"Luke-Acts was composed decades after Paul's letters above..."
We're waiting for an argument.
"..., and not by Paul."
Luke was a close companion of Paul.
"Neither does Luke-Acts, nor the four Gospels, name who wrote them. The names were all added later."
i) We're waiting for an argument.
ii) Moreover, authorship can be implicit.
"Lastly, Paul in his early letters says several things that are at odds with Luke-Acts. Paul speaks of a 'spiritual body.' But Luke-Acts has the raised Jesus insist that he is NOT a spirit at all, and eats fish to prove it..."
I notice that you don't bother to exegete "spiritual body."
"...and rises bodily into the stratosphere."
Wrong. It levitates to a certain altitude, still within range of eyeshot of earthbound observers, then is enveloped by the Shekinah.
Ed is a medical anomaly. His brain is not connected to his fingers.
Notice that Ed Babinski ignores John Loftus' argument and responds to me on other grounds. But I was responding to Loftus' argument. Even where there's overlap between Loftus' argument and Babinski's, such as regarding the authorship of the gospel attributed to Matthew, Babinski ignores much of what I cited.
ReplyDeleteEd writes:
"Paul's is the only named first person story of seeing a post-rez Jesus....Neither does Luke-Acts, nor the four Gospels, name who wrote them. The names were all added later."
The Petrine documents name their author, and I've explained how they imply the author's status as a resurrection witness. If you want us to think that indirectly referring to yourself as a resurrection witness isn't enough, you'll have to explain why. Why would we need a "story"? It would be helpful for a witness of an event to say more about what he experienced, but it doesn't follow that his testimony has no value if he doesn't say more. Paul could have said more, as you note yourself, yet you're including his testimony.
Regarding the gospels' authorship, you ought to interact with the evidence we have for the early inclusion of author names with the documents. See, for example, my citations of Richard Bauckham and Martin Hengel here.
But even if there was no author name included with the documents in writing, it's highly probable that oral reports about authorship circulated with the documents from the start. Do you want to argue that authorship attribution is evidential only if it takes the form of writing within the main body of the text of the original document? If so, where's your argument for that ridiculous conclusion? If Tacitus' Annals, for example, doesn't name its author in the main body of its text, but there seems to have been a widespread early understanding that Tacitus wrote it, do we ignore all evidence pertaining to authorship that doesn't take the form of writing within the main body of the text?
And you're ignoring what I illustrated with my Josephus/Herod example. If Paul suggests that other people were claiming to be witnesses of the resurrected Christ (1 Corinthians 15:5-7), do we ignore their testimony if it doesn't take the form of "named first person stories of seeing a post-rez Jesus"? If so, why? And do you apply that reasoning consistently (in situations like the one I mentioned with Josephus and Herod)? If John Loftus tells you that a few other atheists at a convention he attended agreed with him on a particular issue, do you assign no evidential value to Loftus' claim, since you don't have "named first person stories" from those other atheists? Do you reject similar reports from ancient Roman historians, modern American historians, etc.? You only accept "named first person stories"? Do you apply that reasoning consistently in your home, in the workplace, etc.?
The remainder of your post ignores evidence I've already cited, makes more assertions without supporting argumentation, and/or has been addressed by Layman and Steve. Concerning the issue of the nature of the resurrection in Paul's writings, you may want to listen to a recent interview with Michael Licona.
I would make the same point about you that I made about John Loftus. How old are you now, Ed? How long have you been arguing against Christianity, publishing books against it, etc.? Why are you still overlooking evidence like what we've outlined above?
Since critics like Loftus and Babinski keep mentioning Paul while neglecting other resurrection witnesses, we should note how much difficulty they have even explaining Paul.
ReplyDelete