tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post7135885238589731082..comments2024-03-01T07:35:49.740-08:00Comments on Come Reason's Apologetics Notes: Ignoring the Eyewitnesses to the ResurrectionLenny Espositohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04064209669748618955noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-27633322301733845602016-09-12T10:32:42.022-07:002016-09-12T10:32:42.022-07:00But where would a historian go wrong in using John...But where would a historian go wrong in using John 7:5 to justify his own skepticism of Jesus' pre-crucifixion miracles? The fact that this anomaly can possibly be used to support some other argument too doesn't erase the fact that skepticism by the wonder-workers own family members is powerful medicine. If you wouldn't call me foolish to base my some of my skepticism of the Fatima apparitions of Mary on the fact that the mother of one of the children referred to the whole business as "childish nonsense", then apparently you agree with me that a family member's skepticism of a wonder-worker cannot lightly be dismissed or turned on its head and made to support the believer's position. Since John 7:5's immediate context is the skepticism of Jesus' own brothers toward his messiahship claims/ministry, and not his resurrection, let's exhaust that immediate contextual matter first.<br /><br />Blogging certainly isn't as conducive to the parties bringing the full weight of their arguments to bear. I would like to have a formal written debate with you, on any internet forum of your choice, on the narrowly defined topic of exactly how many resurrection-of-Jesus testimonies in the NT come down to us today in first-hand form. I do not say secondhand testimony counts for nothing, I simply wish to be meticulous like any good historian or judge in a court of law, and keep the first-hand testimony separate from the non-first-hand testimony.<br /><br />Blogging such matters is "fun", but no scholar would ever say that blogging such issues is the least bit conducive toward giving such a subject the comprehensive scholarly treatment that it deserves.<br /><br />I prefer to be thorough. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-51589979870143360812016-09-11T18:01:58.225-07:002016-09-11T18:01:58.225-07:00Why does James' skepticism of Jesus' mirac...Why does James' skepticism of Jesus' miracles count as evidence towards Jesus' resurrection being true? <br /><br />Doesn't his being an immediate family member of Jesus suggest (equally as strongly as any theory that you aspire to), that James continued being skeptical even after private family talks with Jesus that the average person on the street wouldn't have been able to have?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-42913709837767757752016-09-11T16:18:05.168-07:002016-09-11T16:18:05.168-07:00I've covered these kinds of objections in othe...I've covered these kinds of objections in other articles here. You should be able to find them by clicking on the resurrection label at the bottom of the original post. The fact that James was skeptical of Jesus' claims actually counts as evidence towards his resurrection being true.Lenny Espositohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04064209669748618955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-69282626848317411212016-09-11T16:04:15.040-07:002016-09-11T16:04:15.040-07:00Well if you insist that I stick with the Benny Hin...Well if you insist that I stick with the Benny Hinn analogy, you assert that I have to deal with the people who saw Hinn fail. I would like to know whether the failure of Jesus' own brothers to believe in him during his miracle ministry (John 7:5), can be reasonably interpreted as their belief, at that time, that Jesus' signs and wonders were not supernatural in character. <br /><br />Also, what exactly would be wrong with using a biblical excuse to defend Hinn? You know...if anybody says Hinn's healings weren't true miracles fron God, such doubters are just blinded by the devil. Why is it that the excuse "the devil is blinding you to the truth" only applicable to those who doubt Jesus, but not applicable to Christians who doubt Hinn's miracles? I personally think such a biblical excuse should not be employed for any reason, ever. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-24847409324376503612016-09-11T15:53:52.144-07:002016-09-11T15:53:52.144-07:00No, but now you've begun a separate line of qu...No, but now you've begun a separate line of questioning. Lenny Espositohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04064209669748618955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-45497452576155038012016-09-11T15:50:44.770-07:002016-09-11T15:50:44.770-07:00Assuming you hold to Markan priority, which is the...Assuming you hold to Markan priority, which is the dominant theory today, how much does Matthew's choice to use most of Mark's text, impact the value of his gospel as an eyewitness account? Does his choice to incorporate extensive sections of Mark, establish that his gospel is a combination of hearsay and first-hand reporting?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-64231224727323277412016-09-11T15:33:05.310-07:002016-09-11T15:33:05.310-07:00Benny Hinn has a reputation as a charlitan, so in ...Benny Hinn has a reputation as a charlitan, so in your example, no. You have to deal with others who have seen Hinn fail, with those who are exposing him, and with the fact that his action while claiming to be on God's behalf actually contradict the teaching of the Bible. There's more evidence than simply that one piece of testimony.<br /><br />Of course, that is also true of the resurrection claim. There's more evidence than just one or two people claiming they saw Jesus.Lenny Espositohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04064209669748618955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-21363789315320221882016-09-11T15:24:36.601-07:002016-09-11T15:24:36.601-07:00So would I be correct to conclude that you don'...So would I be correct to conclude that you don't believe the mere fact that somebody was an eyewitness, is sufficient, standing alone, to obligate belief that their understanding of the alleged event was correct?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-25970431032703710362016-09-11T15:10:43.969-07:002016-09-11T15:10:43.969-07:00It may be enough to establish that *they really be...It may be enough to establish that *they really believed* they saw miracles happen, which is the claim historians start with. However, today people argue that the apostles were themselves figments of some fictional Gospel writers' imagination. That's a wholly different claim.Lenny Espositohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04064209669748618955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-81931403827056323642016-09-11T15:07:34.984-07:002016-09-11T15:07:34.984-07:00Suppose you meet another Christian on the bus, the...Suppose you meet another Christian on the bus, they tell you they went to a Benny Hinn Crusade a few months ago, and they saw him with their own eyes performing genuinely supernatural healing miracles.<br /><br />Assuming you could verify to your personal satisfaction that they did indeed attend that Crusade as they said...is their eyewitness testimony sufficient to establish Benny Hinn as having the real healing power of the Holy Spirit, yes or no? If not, why not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com