The resurrection of Jesus is not historical - a rebuttal

 This is a rebuttal of an argument presented on Reddit;  This is an outline of the argument presented:

Two claims

1. That “assertion” that Jesus Christ rose is theological not historical. 
2. The gospels and acts do not provide sufficient historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

(These are reiterated in the conclusion)

Sources that Christian use (the Gospels and Acts) do not meet the criteria that historians use, which are:

• Numerous 
• contemporary [to the time question]
• independent
• Impartial
• consistent with other sources

Christian sources have the following issues

A - Are of a late date

B - Are not eyewitness accounts

C - are anonymous

D - akin to the telephone 

E - Use only one source 

F - Are contradictory 

G - are biased 

Further points

I - Salem witch trials, and eyewitness accounts are unreliable, 80% failure rate to ID per Robert Buckhout 

J - The “floodgate” problem: …”Christians would have to accept religions that conflict with their beliefs like Mormonism (unless you were already Mormon), Islam, Hinduism, etc.” and all reports of “events of magic everywhere, even today”

K - Appeal to empirical observation empiricism

The rebuttal

A - Are the Gospels and Acts late?

First there is no argument presented for this. Selected scholars are cited, and a conclusion is drawn.  I could cite scholars who hold to a pre 70 A.D. date New Testamant . But the problem with this whole line of argumentation is that consensus isn’t critical thinking. Here is Bart Erhman:  I need to say that again: scholarly consensus is not evidence. But big but – if you have a view that is different from the view of the scholarly consensus, given the circumstance of who maintains the consensus, you probably should have some pretty amazing evidence of your own.

So, it comes down to who has the best explanation for the available data. But we cannot evaluate which argument the best explains data because there is NO argument presented, only the conclusions of selected scholars that are presumed to be correct. 

Remember the scholarly consensus was that the Hittites were a fictious people since there was no archaeological or historical evidence to support their existence. Except for the Biblical record and that “biased” piece of fiction certainly couldn’t be trusted in this matter. Until it could be  This is one of many examples where the “scholarly consensus” was proven wrong. So we have no reason to simply accept any scholarly consensus 

 As I argued here]the Gospels and Acts, the entire New Testament, in fact, is early. In short  the Jewish War in 66 , the Neronian persecution of the late 60s , the fall of Jerusalem in 70; there is no mention of the death of Peter, Paul, or James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.200. Luke had no problem recording the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:58) or James of Zebedee (Acts 12:2). And yet, Luke writes nothing about the deaths of Peter, Paul, and James. These were the three central leaders of the early church, but Luke doesn’t even hint at their deaths. Easy to explain if none of the their deaths had yet to happen. 

A question

Do atheists/critics here also rail against the “myth” of Alexander the Great? If not, why not?

Alexander the Great lived ~356-323 BCE, but we only know about him due to: 

Diodorus Siculus' Library of History - c. 30 BCE  [350 yrs later]

Quintus Curtius Rufus' Histories of Alexander the Great - c. 40 CE [360 yrs later]

Plutarch's Life of Alexander - c. 100 CE [425 yrs later]

Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander - c. [450 yrs later]

Justin's Epitome of Pompeius Trogus - c. 200 CE [525 yrs later]

This seems to be a double standard fallacy that is consistently used by atheists/critics; Judging the historicity of Jesus by one measure and the historicity of others ancients by a different standard. 

B - Are not eyewitness accounts

The only “argument” presented is the scholarly consensus of a late date. And thus any eyewitness would be long dead. However since we have good reason to believe that the New Testament was written early – see above – then there is no reason to discount the plentiful eyewitness accounts of the Risen Jesus 

C - are anonymous

Anonymity of the sources is not a death sentence for a historical document and should not be used as some kind of indictment of any anonymous ancient text. 

If rejecting an anonymous document is a standard used historians, I am have not been able to confirm it,  in fact, historians do allow for the use of anonymous texts to establish historical facts. See Gottschalk,  A Guide to Historical Method p 169 – If you have a source controverting this please provide it. 

Craig Evans adds an even stronger argument concerning the “anonymous” Gospels. He states, “In every single text that we have where the beginning or the ending of the work survives, we find the traditional authorship.” full argument here 

If we have people arbitrarily attaching names to the Gospels throughout the centuries, why is it that we don’t see that in the extant documents?  Why do we see only “Matthew” attached to Gospel attributed to him? And the same for Mark, Luke, and John?  

Evans summarizes, *“There are no anonymous copies of the Gospels, and there are no copies of the canonical Gospels under different names. Unless evidence to the contrary should surface, we should stop talking about anonymous Gospels and late, unhistorical superscriptions and subscriptions"* Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the Manuscripts: What We Can Learn from the Oldest Texts, page 53

D - akin to the telephone game

The Bible was not translated similarly to how the telephone game is played. The telephone game is designed to be confusing for the sake of fun. The Biblical authors did everything they could to preserve the accuracy of the biblical texts.

Oral traditions were involved in preserving some biblical texts, but this does not mean the oral traditions were not scrutinized and transmitted correctly. Similar to how a martial art is taught, repetition was used and perfection was expected by Jewish teachers. 

Oral culture is a culture in which stories are learned and passed on primarily by word of mouth. Those people tend not to rely on written accounts. Because the United States and Western Europe are not oral cultures, many people in these cultures struggle to understand how facts can be reliably communicated orally. But there is ample evidence that people who do live in oral cultures are capable of seemingly near-impossible feats of memory and accuracy.

The telephone game:

a) the message is heard and passed along one person at a time,

b) there are no controls over the message,

c) there is no cost attached to reliable or unreliable transmission.

All of this makes it fundamentally different from the oral transmission of the Gospels:

a) The biblical stories were relayed in communities (not one-to-one),

b) when the stories were shared in community, many people knew the stories and would correct mistakes relayed in the retelling,

c) the people retelling the stories had a strong personal interest in the truthfulness of what they were saying, especially when persecution of the church increased.

The telephone game is irrelevant to how the oral tradition worked.

E - Use only one source

The further back in time one travels, the thinner the source material becomes. Sources for WWII are vast beyond the ability of anyone to master them. Sources for the Napoleonic era is abundant and more than adequate. Sources for the Hundred Years War are meager and somewhat fragmentary. For the Carolingian Period, one really needs to dig deep to adequately cover any topic. The Roman Empire is a jigsaw puzzle missing a significant number of pieces. Ancient civilizations are lucky to have one source to an event. 

Let one example suffice: the details of the demise of Pliny the Elder while he was attempting to rescue a group of Pompeiians when Vesuvius exploded in 79 AD are known from **one source only** - the report written by his son, Pliny the Younger, who was also present that day.

So to have one source for a historical event is not unheard of in history. And to reject the Gospels and Acts on the basis is to be guilty of the Special pleading  fallacy

The similarities among the synoptic gospels, the whole basis for the synoptic problem are vastly overstated; see this harmony of the Gospels and see how dissimilar they actually are. 

Secondly, the similarities are better explained as artifacts of relying on the same witnesses or of different witnesses relating the same events. 

F - Are contradictory

For every alleged contradiction there are better explanations of the passage in question. But let’s look at the specific contradictions mentioned.

Note: A logical contradiction is the conjunction of a statement S and its denial not-S. In logic, it is a fundamental law- the law of non contradiction- that a statement and its denial cannot both be true at the same time.

Many atheists/critics fail to recognize in their critique of the Bible that additional information is not necessarily contradictory information. Many also fail to realize that these independent writers are at liberty to mention every detail, or as few as they want.

What is also fun to note is that atheists/critics will allege that the Gospel writers “copied” one another, then in the same breathe show differences, which undermines their first point!

Did Jesus carry his cross the entire way himself, or did Simon of Cyrene carry it (John 19:17, Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, and Luke 23:26)?

Both carried the cross.  John 19:17 does not say that Jesus carried the cross alone the **entire** distance or that **only** Jesus carried the cross,  it says he bore his own cross, which He did. A contradiction occurs when one statement makes another statement impossible but both are supposed to be true.  John not adding that detail doesn’t equal a contradiction. 

Did both thieves mock Jesus, or did only one of them mock him, and the other come to his defense (Mark 15:32, Matthew 27:44, and Luke 23:40-43)? 

While Luke 23:39 does say “ One of the criminals…” this is not the same thing as ONLY one of the thief reviled Jesus.  Recording how one person was doing something is **not** the same thing as saying ONLY one person did something..

Luke seems to be relating what was specifically said by one of the thieves. Both men can be reviling Jesus in the beginning but later one of the thief has a change of heart. 

What did the women see in the tomb, one man, two men, or one angel (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, and Matthew 28:2)? 

First, wherever there are two angels [or men] , there is also one! The fact that Mark only referenced the angel (“man”) who addressed the women shouldn’t be problematic. The fact that Matthew only referenced one angel does not preclude the fact that two angels were present.

Even though Luke did not specifically refer to the two men as angels, the fact that he described these beings as “men in clothes that gleamed like lightning” (Luke 24:4) should have been a dead giveaway. Moreover, he was  addressing a predominantly Gentile audience, Luke no doubt measured his words carefully so as not to unnecessarily give rise to their pagan superstitions.

Finally, after reading the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, or John for that matter, any critical thinker has ample data to determine that the “man” described by Mark was an angel; that the “men in clothes that gleamed like lighting” were angelic; and that Matthew’s mention of only one angel does not preclude the possibility that another was present.

Did the disciples never leave Jerusalem, or did they immediately leave and go to Galilee (Luke 24:49-53, Acts 1:4, and Matthew 28:16)?

Three times in Matthew, it is recorded that certain disciples of Jesus were instructed to meet the Jesus in Galilee after his resurrection (Matt 26:32; 28:7, 10). In Matthew 28:16 we see that the disciples went to Galilee. So, Jesus desired to meet with his disciples in Galilee. His disciples obeyed. Jesus did not rebuke them.

But, according to Luke 24:33-43, he also desired to meet with them in Jerusalem. The two places are about three  days journey from one another. People can't be in the same place at the same time, so this is a contradiction, right?

We must remember that the resurrection accounts of Jesus are coming from different, independent witnesses, So, a reasonable explanation is that Jesus met with his disciples in both places - but at different times. It appears that on Easter Day, he met with all of the disciples (except Thomas) in Jerusalem just as the Gospel writers Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19-25). 

We know that Jesus appeared to the disciples a number of times during the forty days on earth after his resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:1-7). Matthew, Luke, and John only mention some of the more prominent instances. Though Luke does not mention the trip to Galilee, in Acts 1:3 he states that there was a forty day period before Jesus' ascension. A lot can happen in forty days; including a three day trip.

(1) Assuming Jesus' words were stated on Easter Day, they were not stated in an absolute sense, but with an implied contingency (as determined from the other 3 Gospel accounts), given a future planned meeting in Galilee.

(2) The words in Luke 24:44 could have been stated on Day 40. The disciples did in fact stay in Jerusalem for ten more days, until Pentecost, as Luke himself relates in Acts 1:13.

It's merely an assumption to assert that Jesus spoke Luke 24:44 on Easter Day. The use of the Greek "de" (meaning "and," "then," or "now") to begin Luke 24:44 does not necessitate immediacy, but merely at "a time after." Witnesses do not always share things in chronological order - this includes the Gospel writers as well. The Gospels jump from topic to topic without any warnings at times (see Luke 4:1-4; Matt 4:1-11). At times information is just skipped; just like we skip it today.

 Both statements can be true. Just because information is omitted in one statement does not make the other statement false. In Luke 24, the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Galilee were omitted, but commented upon by both Matthew and John. However, notice that Luke never stated that Jesus remained only in Jerusalem from the day of his resurrection until the day he ascended up into Heaven. Acts 1:3 leaves a lot of room for a lot more activity (cf. John 21:25).

G – are biased

This objection eats itself. Everyone is biased. If the objection is to rejected any and all biased accounts, then all accounts must be tossed.  

I - The “floodgate” problem: …”Christians would have to accept religions that conflict with their beliefs like Mormonism (unless you were already Mormon), Islam, Hinduism, etc.” and all reports of “events of magic everywhere, even today”

When Christians say, or at least this Christian says, the supernatural what is meant is that a physical only model of the world is illogical we have good reason to think that [the universe was fine-tuned for life, the origin of DNA is best explianed by design the best explaination for all that is God 

 Anything "supernatural" must be in that context. 

J - eyewitness accounts are unreliable, 80% failure rate to ID per Robert Buckhout

This was  “A mock crime, a mugging and purse snatch, was staged as representative of the usually difficult observation conditions present in crime situations”

This study is mis-applied]

On one hand we have someone who was 

1) unknown to the witnesses, 

2) who was seen only for a few seconds, and 

3) who changed his appearance - a slight mustache during the crime but not in the lineup film 

Versus Jesus who 

1) walked, talked, taught, ate with His disciples [and others] for 42 months, then 

2) post Resurrection, who walked, talked, taught, ate with His disciples [and others] for a time and 

3) didn’t change His appearance [though He did hide who He was for some, temporarily] 

So we are comparing apples to oranges here. For an analogy to be a valid analogy the comparison between two objects must be similar. Given the above there is too much dissimilarity for this to be a reasonable or justifiable analogy. 

K - Appeal to empirical observation empiricism

Reason is the basis of knowledge not empirical observation. And we know that Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-defeating, so any who hold to that idea need to address how they ground goal-oriented, critical thinking in a physical-only model of the world where all things are caused by the antecedent physical condition acting in accordance with the physical laws.

Those that do not hold to Philosophical Naturalism, I’d ask what then is the objection to something acting outside the bounds of the physical laws? 

Conclusion:

The two claims revisited:

1 - That “assertion” that Jesus Christ rose is theological not historical. 

First, we see the OP attempted to Poison the well (a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an opponent). Here it’s suggested that all Christians have are assertions not arguments grounded in facts. Why do that unless one is not confident of one’s view being able to compete and an intellectual discussion?

Secondly, the main (only?) argument is basically a presumption of naturalism or as Ruse puts it “but to act as if [naturalism] were” while evaluating data. 

Thirdly, given the arguments linked above we do have good reason to think that, sans the presumption of naturalism, the Resurrection of Jesus is historical. 

2 - The gospels and acts do not provide sufficient historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Given the above we do have good reasons to think that the evidence presented in the Gospels and Acts are exactly what was the criteria that historians use:

• Numerous 

• contemporary [to the time question]

• independent

• consistent with other sources

I left out “impartial” since no one is impartial.

I think this argument was an example of skeptical thinking, but skeptical thinking is not critical thinking It’s a low bar to sow doubt. The higher bar is to offer a better explanation  for the facts surrounding the Resurrection of Jesus).

Objection A - human testimony is obviously not sufficient to establish such a suspension of natural laws occured. There is no way to grant the resurrection of Jesus without opening a floodgate of millions of other supernatural claims

Reply - First, can you explan why its "obvious" human testimony is obviously not sufficient to establish such a suspension of natural laws? 

Second I'm not saying not saying that any human testimony can establish a suspension of natural laws; I am saying that since a physical-only model of reality is illogical, and that God is the best explanation for reality, and that [the universe was fine-tuned for life, the origin of DNA is best explianed by design the best explaination for all that is God thus thest Best explaination for the facts surround Jesus is that He rose from the dead. 

Objection B - There is no way to grant the resurrection of Jesus without opening a floodgate of millions of other supernatural claims

Reply - I guess you didn't read the  “floodgate” problem above

Objection C - What puzzles me is that an omniscient god could have anticipated skeptical reaction and preempted it by arranging conditions such that the resurrection was extraordinarily well attested.

Reply: There is more than enough evidence, but nothing can overcome, chronic skepticism - a suspicion about everything, that's a sickness. Suspicion means you've made a foregone conclusion; that's why one should be a critical thinker not skeptical thinker. 

Objection D - Jesus could have been a real person who was mythologized after his death.

How does one then explain the empty tomb? Various theories are examnied here 

Objection E - You are presupposing that the Bible must be accurate

For investigatory purposes one must assume that a text or testimony is accurate.  For example, when police take statements regarding an incident they assume that the statements are true and accurate then they can look for inconsistencies errors etc.  Assuming the document is the beginning of the investigation, not the end.  If one concludes that the document is true and accurate then there must be solid reasons for it. 

Objection E -You trying to control the narrative of what exactly is a "contradiction."

It's the law of non contradiction [one of the fundamental laws of logic] connect contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense and at the same time. If you think you have a better attested definition please provide it

Was The Resurrection of Jesus Christ a Mythological Development?

An argument for the Mythological Development of the Risen Jesus is put forth this way:

1) The Gospel of Mark which is the earliest gospel contains no post resurrection appearances,

2) the later Gospels of Matthew includes post resurrection appearances, and

3) Luke includes more detail.

4) But only in the Gospel of John [which is the last Gospel] do we get doubting Thomas where And famously says he doesn't believe that it's the risen Christ, and Jesus says come and touch my wounds, and he touches his way and he said my Lord and my God and Jesus says you believe because you've seen blessed of those who believe that don't see it

5) the myth ends in a moral lesson to believe without evidence.

So, we have is this mythological development of no resurrection appearances and as the time goes on as we get further away from the source the stories get more embellished, fantastical, and preposterous, ending in a moral lesson to "believe without evidence".

So, we have is this mythological development of no resurrection appearances and as the time goes on as we get further away from the source the stories get more fantastical, preposterous ending in a moral lesson to believe without evidence.

There are major problems with this. 

The Resurrection as a mythological development idea is subverted by the early creed founded 1st Corinthians 15 while First Corinthians was written in the early 50s which predates Mark's Gospel and it contains an early creed that likely goes back to within five years of the death of Jesus

This oral creed says:

1. that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
2. that he was buried,
3. that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 
4. and that he appeared to Cephas, 
5. then to the twelve. 
6. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 
7. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.  
8. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Belief in the death, burial, resurrection, and reappearance to Peter and the Twelve in verses 3–5, are an early pre-Pauline kerygma or creedal statement. Biblical scholars note the antiquity of the creed, possibly transmitted from the Jerusalem apostolic community. Though, the core formula may have originated in Damascus, with the specific appearances reflecting the Jerusalem community. It may be one of the earliest kerygmas about Jesus' death and resurrection, 

Early kerygma:

• Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) p. 47;
• Reginald Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1971) p. 10 (ISBN 0-281-02475-8);
• Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) p. 90 (ISBN 0-664-20818-5);
• Oscar Cullmann, The Early Church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) p. 64;
• Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, translated James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress 1975) p. 251 (ISBN 0-8006-6005-6);
• Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament vol. 1 pp. 45, 80–82, 293;
• R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) pp. 81, 92 (ISBN 0-8091-1768-1)  [From Wiki]

Ancient creed:

• Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) p. 90;
• Oscar Cullmann, The Early church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) p. 66;
• R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) p. 81;
• Thomas Sheehan, First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity (New York: Random House, 1986) pp. 110, 118;
• Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection translated A. M. Stewart (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1977) p. 2 [From Wiki]

The historical facts do not fit well with the idea that the resurrection appearances are the result of mythological development over time as you move further away from the source, so that's the first problem.  They do fit well with the fact that Jesus died, was buried, was risen on the third day, and was seen by multiple people is what Christians believed from the beginning 

More evidence for 1 Cor 15 bening very early

The Oxford Companion to the Bible: “The earliest record of these appearances is to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, a tradition that Paul ‘received’ after his apostolic call, certainly not later than his visit to Jerusalem in 35 CE, when he saw Cephas (Peter) and James (Gal. 1:18-19), who, like him, were recipients of appearances.” [Eds. Metzer & Coogan (Oxford, 1993), 647.]

Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]

Robert Funk (Non-Christian scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar): “…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or three years at most.” [Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, 466.]

James Dunn (Professor at Durham): “Despite uncertainties about the extent of tradition which Paul received (126), there is no reason to doubt that this information was communicated to Paul as part of his introductory catechesis (16.3) (127). He would have needed to be informed of precedents in order to make sense of what had happened to him. When he says, ‘I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance (en protois) what I also received (parelabon)’ (15.3), he assuredly does not imply that the tradition became important to him only at some subsequent date. More likely he indicates the importance of the tradition to himself from the start; that was why he made sure to pass it on to the Corinthians when they first believed (15.1-2) (128). This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus' death. [Jesus Remembered (Eerdmans, 2003) 854-55.]

Michael Goulder (Atheist NT professor at Birmingham): “[It] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion. [“The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oneworld, 1996), 48.]

A. J. M. Wedderburn (Non-Christian NT professor at Munich): “One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’ here, … most probably in the first half of the 30s.” [Beyond Resurrection (Hendrickson, 1999), 113-114.]

N.T. Wright (NT scholar [Oxford, 5+ honorary Ph.ds]): “This is the kind of foundation-story with which a community is not at liberty to tamper. It was probably formulated within the first two or three years after Easter itself, since it was already in formulaic form when Paul ‘received’ it.” [The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress, 2003), 319.]

Many also speak of how early, in general, the creed must have been. Some feel the creed was “in use by AD 30” ( Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ, trans. V. Geen (Paulist, 1976), 125.). Virtually no scholar puts it beyond the 40s (Gerald O’Collins, What Are They Saying About the Resurrection (Paulist Press, 1978), 112.].).

Peter May: “Christ’s death is generally thought to have occurred in AD 30 (or 33). Paul wrote his letter to the church at Corinth around AD 55, some 25 years later. He had delivered this creed to them when he visited Corinth in AD 51. Few dates could be more certain, because while he was there he was hauled up before the Roman proconsul Gallio (Acts 18:12-17). Gallio, who subsequently conspired against Nero, was the brother of the philosopher Seneca. Proconsulship was a one year post and a Roman stone inscription found early in the 20th century at nearby Delphi records his period of office as being AD 51-52. This date is so firmly established that it has become one of the lynchpins for working out the dates of the rest of New Testament chronology.” [“The Resurrection of Jesus and the Witness of Paul,” (2008) online at bethinking.org]

The moral lesson? 

Critics say, John's gospel culminates with the story of doubting Thomas to communicate the moral lesson to believe without evidence. However, read the last two verses of John 20:

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

This passage isn't against evidence for faith. In fact, this passage is part of the evidence for Faith. There are those like Thomas who saw the Risen Jesus and believed. But John knows that's not most people, and that's why he includes this account in his Gospel. We don't get to see the evidence (the Risen Jesus) and believe, rather we get to read the evidence (about the Risen Jesus) and believe, but make no mistake, both seeing the evidence and believing and reading the evidence and believing rest on a firm foundation.

So, ironic that people pick the story of doubting Thomas to show that evidence and belief are at odds. Since, John includes the story for one simple reason: to provide evidence for belief, as John puts it. These are written so that you would believe

Objection A - No matter how well they are evidenced, supernatural claims will never be the best explanation for any historical event, unless we get to establish some actual knowledge about the supernatural first. Call that a supernatural bias. 

Reply: First, that's not a supernatural bias, it's an anti-supernatural bias or a pro-naturalism bias. But, as argued previously, Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting, so we have good reasons to reject a physical-only model for the world and no good reasons to accept it. At least none have been presented. 

Objection B - By not rejecting the supernatural will unavoidably lead to special pleading in favor of the religion one is willing to prove.

Reply - Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the exception. It's a double standard.

The key is "without justifying the exception"; but I have justified it in the link above. Not only that, but naturalism is simply presumed.  In what world is one view, which is simply presumed true, favored over one that has a valid argument for it?

Objection C - How do you deal with the time between when the events happened and the stories were written? Or the time between the events and formation of the creeds? A few days is more than enough time for legends to develop. How do you know what was written was accurate to reality?

Reply - I have already addressed this issue in Do Late Accounts and No Eyewitnesses Justify Doubting The Historical Authenticity of People & Events?

Objection D - The creed in 1 cor 15 doesn't actually go into any detail regarding what those experiences were, so it can't really be used to say that the resurrection appearances being taught in the first few months are basically what ended up in the gospels.

Reply - What detail is it missing? Death, burial, Resurrection, list of five different appearances are there...

Objection E -We know that a person cannot return from the dead, by somehow overcoming death. That would break the Laws of Nature.

Reply - This assumes that Philosophical Naturalism is true, but we know that it's actually a self-refuting viewpoint

If one is simply assuming that Philosophical Naturalism is true, then it can be cut away with Hitchens's razor - "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

If one does not claim that Philosophical Naturalism is true, then this objection falls apart.

If one does claim that Philosophical Naturalism is true, then they need to provide the reason/evidence. And need to address the argument in the link above. 

Therefore, we can safely say the following: Philosophical Naturalism is false and an objection based on that can be, and should be, dismissed

Objection F - You can believe in Yahweh specifically and still think that it is extremely unlikely that someone would be raised from the dead. Orthodox Jews do not believe Jesus was raised, and they are hardly naturalists.

Reply - First there are Jews who did believe that Jesus rose from the dead; for example all the disciples were Jewish, secondly there are Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah today And Jesus did fulfill the requirements to confirm Himself as the Messiah. Additionally, Jesus did fulfill the Messianic prophecies 

Objection G - So you have Paul’s 1 Cor 15 version [50s], then you have Mark's Gospel, which has no resurrection [60s], then you have Matthew and Luke gospels that include the resurrection. This is exactly how myths work, you just made a very strong argument for mythicism

Reply: This falls apart when one reads Mark 16:6-7 - And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” Mark didn't leave out the Resurrection!

Objection H - The oral creed says that christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. But can that be since Mark’s the earliest gospel.

Reply: It makes sense when you realise that it's speaking of Old Testment; mosy likely Jonah and Isaish 53

Objection I -  The Bible isnt evidence that the Bible is true. Thats circular reasoning and non sequitur.

Reply: The Bible is a collection of 66 "books" of various genres, written by over 40 people, on 3 continents over the course of centuries that the church put into a single binder, i.e. book. So, it's like saying "circular reasoning" becuse one cites an entry in an Encyclopedia to support another entry by a different author in the same Encyclopedia. It's an absurd objection

Objection J - How do you go from "the story was told at X time" to "therefore the story was not a myth"?

Reply: Since the Resurrection was told early it couldn't have developed over time

Related posts

1st Corinthians Was Written in the 50s

But I thought Christianity was based on blind faith...

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ Is a Historical Fact

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus of the Bible in ancient non-Christian sources

Do Late Accounts and No Eyewitnesses Justify Doubting The Historical Authenticity of People & Events?

Has My "Seven Facts About Biblical Slavery Prove that It Was Not Chattel Slavery" Been Debunked?

My Seven Facts About Biblical Slavery Prove that It Was Not Chattel Slavery is my second most viewed post.

It also seems to be very popular among atheists and other anti-Christian critics. Popular in that they like try to slam, condemn, denounce, excoriate, disparage, lambaste the post. Unfortunately there isn't a good deal of actual analysis. But I want to respond to my critics and give their criticism the justice it deserves.  

The Hitchen's Razor variety: The critics that have non-effort criticism. 

Most of it is not very intellectual, just rants that say that it's been rebutted, full of fallacies, errors, yet zero effort given to show it or make their case. 

For example: 

"corrected/rebutted/rebuked very thoroughly"

"thoroughly got taken down point by point"

"It just get's crushed by scholarship"

"they are not willing to entertain the idea they are wrong"

The assertion is the extent of the "analysis" - i.e. none; it's just make an assertion that it's been debunked, and hope that people conclude that the assertion is true.

I call these Hitchen's Razor variety criticisms since comments like these one can, and should, apply Hitchens's razor: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

So I just lop those off and don't worry about them, and neither should you. This dismissal is the justice such criticism deserves.

But now we come to a different category of critism...

The Some Effort Criticism - 

My original statements will be underlined

Debunk attempt : will be noted as such - with bold to indicate key points

My response to the "debunking" will be in red  

Debunk attempt one - Did God in the Old Testament specify that a Hebrew may purchase a person from the foreigners and keep him as property for the lifetime of the person purchased? The answer is yes, the purchased person is chattel by definition, thus chattel slavery. No amount of obfuscations and red herrings alters that fact.

What this seems to have missed is that, the main lynch pin of my argument. The Anti-Kidnap law - and the Anti-Return law. As I sated in my argument:

These laws very explicitly outlaw chattel slavery. With the anti-kidnap law, one could not take anyone against their will, sell or possess them, nor could they be returned if they left. LV25:44-46 is the main verse critics use to argue for chattel slavery, but given these two laws, it's reasonable to read that passage through the lens of indentured servitude.

Regrettably the criticism doesn't take this key points into considereation. 

Given the above, what Lev 25: 44-46 is saying is, peoples from other nations were going to volunteer themselves into the hands of the Israelites - it was permissible to only "purchase" men and women who voluntarily sold themselves into indentured service, which is a big difference from being held against one’s own free will. Voluntary service doesn't equal chattel slavery. And remember, any bond-servant purchased from the Gentiles had the right to flee their master.

It is very difficult to think that the Bible endorses or supports chattel slavery with the Anti-Kidnap and the Anti-return laws in mind.  This is why they need to ignore it. 

Debunk attempt two: 

This alone is enough to dismiss your entire post [Lv 25] and to exemplify the issues in your approach. This passage is the most direct and explicit statement of chattel slavery in the Bible - but you only offer a paper-thin response to it, none of which actually addresses the substance of the passage. You also mysteriously leave out the extremely relevant first half of this passage; here is the full thing: Lev 25:39-46

This makes the same fatal flaw as the one above: ignoring  point 4 - Anti-Kidnap  anti-return laws. Ironically this rock solid foundation is called "paper-thin".   

Debunk attempt three: 

First, one would have to ignore points 1-7 above to reach that conclusion - in reference to LV 25:44-46: says you can buy a foreign slave, and you can bequeath them to your children

Let's break down your response: By itself this is a naked assertion and it's not clear how many of your 7 points would even relate to this. You do argue two specifically though, presumably the two you thought were most relevant, so I'll assume this is just teeing that up.

Calling my entire argument a "naked assertion" is low effort enough to warrant Hitchen's Razor

Debunk attempt four: 

One must assume, without any rational basis, that “ebed” must mean “chattel slave”. But as argued above the passage can mean, and most likely does mean "servants".

This is just completely absurd. No, one does not need to assume that "ebed" must mean "chattel slave" in order to find chattel slavery in this verse. We don't think this verse refers to chatter slavery just because it says "ebed"! We think that because of all the very explicit details of chattel slavery here - 

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my argument; if one is simply using the word "slavery" or "ebed" to say that means chattel slavery an argument without any rational basis. However, I did say that "whether "ebed" mean indentured servant, chattel slave, or something else would have to be determined by the context."

Debunk attempt five:

these people are your property, you can buy and sell them, you can leave them as inheritance, they remain owned for life. We also think it because of the extreme contrast between the two halves of this passage, which immediately clarifies what the meaning of "ebed" is here. The first passage describes indentured servitude of Israelites, and the second passage is written in direct contrast to it and clarifies very strongly that this is not the same indentured servitude slavery discussed in the first half. By your interpretation, 25:39 would be forbidding indentured servitude of Israelites, which is obviously inconsistent with everything you have said and also with the dozens of laws about how to treat Hebrew "ebed"s.

Once again this makes the EXACT same fatal flaw as the one above: ignoring the Anti-Kidnap/anti-returns laws. Ignoreing key points in an arument is NOT the path to debunking it. 

Debunk attempt six:

As Stuart notes [fact 7 above] "buy" means financial transaction related to a contract.

Yes, "buy" relates to transactions. Are you trying to say that the fact this verse uses "buy" is evidence it's not talking about chattel slavery? Even if you want to argue that this word can sometimes be used for other things, you know it's primarily used for buying property, right? This is not a counter to the verse!

Once again the EXACT same fatal flaw as above: ignoring the Anti-Kidnap/anti-returns laws.

Asking, "Are you trying to say that the fact this verse uses "buy" is evidence it's not talking about chattel slavery?" No,  I'm saying that Anti-Kidnap/Anti-Returns laws is evidence it's not talking about chattel slavery.  One must read it in the context of those laws.

Debunk attempt seven:

And note that vs 45 and 46 say that they may be your property and bequeath them to your sons. It doesn’t say must or will, it wasn't required or nor could it be imposed by force.

This is by far the most mind-boggling part of your defense. It says you may take them as property, not that you have to, so there's no chattel slavery here????? If I said "you may murder people if you want" would you read that to have no murder in it????

Sigh. So all this person has is, let's ignore the actual argument and attack a strawman version of it. 

How can they I'd just say go back and [read the response to objection F](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2024/02/seven-facts-about-biblical-slavery.html) that answers this.

Debunk attempt eight:

This is very explicitly allowing you to do these things - to engage in chattel slavery. It sets out a legal way to own another person, to buy and sell them, to treat them as property. This passage could not possibly be more explicit about that. It takes care to give multiple redundant examples of property rights, to clarify things multiple ways, to contrast it with indentured servitude so that you can't possibly confuse it with that. This unambiguously says "you may engage in chattel slavery" and your response was "well it says 'may', not 'must', so that means the Bible outlaws chattel slavery".

Only if one ignores the Anti-Kidnap/anti-returns laws, then they could see that this was speaking of indentured servsants and "owning" their services. And these servants, upon the death of the master could be bequethed to the children until their contract runs out. Or they may choose to stay forever, 

Debunk attempt nine:

So to recap all you've said is: "Ebed" doesn't necessarily always mean slave; "Buy" refers to financial transactions;  This only says you "may" buy people as property, not "must"

All three of these are true! And none of them respond in the slightest to the objection that this verse describes chattel slavery clearly and obviously.

But the hat Anti-Kidnap/Anti-Returns laws do!

Debunk attempt ten:

There's so much else wrong here: your brazen mistreatment of slave-beating law which also ignores Exodus 21:28-32, 

Exodus 21:28-32 deals with a bull goring a man or woman. Furthermore corparate punishment was normal in the ANE, even free men could be beaten. So, this has nothing to do with slavery. 

Debunk attempt eleven:

Your attempt to preempt academic criticism because you know this is a fringe view that nearly every serious commentator in the last 2000 years would have found laughable while you yourself lean heavily on a scholar's authority, 

How am I "preempting academic criticism"?

Majority opinion isn't a test for truth.

Debunk attempt twelve:

your reading of a person who "desires" a woman captured in war and so "takes" her and makes her his wife who is not free to go unless he "doesn't delight in her" as just her buddy hanging out with her with no indication of rape,

The law stipulated that a rapist was to be killed by stoning, see Deuteronomy 22:25.

Debunk attempt thirteen :

The complete lack of any discussion of the enslavement of Israelites in Egypt which would counter like half your claims about the meanings of "ebed" and the state of slavery in the ANE, 

First I never said that "ebed" couldn't mean chattel slavery; I said that "whether ebed means indentured servant, chattel slave, or something else would have to be determined by the context.

Debunk attempt fourteen:

your absolutely BONKERS response to objection B that for your sake I'm going to let you reexamine and blame on the person you quoted, 

Calling my response "bomkers" is low effort enough to warrant Hitchen's Razor

Debunk attempt fifteen:

So to recap all you've said is: "Ebed" doesn't necessarily always mean slave, "Buy" refers to financial transactions. This only says you "may" buy people as property, not "must"

You missed the most important part of my argument: the Anti-Kidnap law & Anti-Return law - These laws very explicitly outlaw chattel slavery. With the anti-kidnap law, one could not take anyone against their will, sell or possess them, nor could they be returned. Given that, it's reasonable to read LV25:44-46 through that lens. As I wrote earlier, one would have to ignore points 1-7 above [especially 4 & 5] to reach the chattel slave conclusion; sadly, this seems to be the case of most of the critical replies.

Debunk attempt sixteen:

The first passage describes indentured servitude of Israelites, and the second passage is written in direct contrast to it and clarifies very strongly that this is not the same indentured servitude slavery discussed in the first half.

It's right there in the verse: They are to be treated as hired workers...; the contrast isn't between indentured servitude and chattel slavery, but between indentured servitude and hired workers

Debunk attempt seventeen

By your interpretation, 25:39 would be forbidding indentured servitude of Israelites

Correct, They are to be treated as hired workers... which is different from an indentured servant.

"buying" slaves - The verb acquire [qanah] in Leviticus 25:39–51 need not involve selling or purchasing foreign servants. For example, the same word appears in Genesis 4:1 Eve’s having “gotten a manchild and 14:19 - God is the “Possessor of heaven and earth” Later, Boaz “acquired” Ruth as a wife (Ruth 4:10). So you are trying to force a narrow definition onto the word. And as noted earlier, "buy" can refer to financial transactions, as in "work for x amount of time for x amount of debt to be paid off".

Debunk attempt eighteen

these people are your property, you can buy and sell them, you can leave them as inheritance, they remain owned for life.

Nope, you've ignored the anti-kidnap law and the anti-return law. Under penalty of death they could not be bought or sold, or possessed against their will, and they always had the opportunity of escape without the fear of being returned. Again, one would have to ignore points 1-7 above [especially 4 & 5] to reach the chattel slave conclusion.

For an example of "ebed" escaping: But Nabal responded to David’s servants, “Who is David, and who is this son of Jesse? This is a time when many servants are breaking away from their masters! 1 Sam 25:10; Also 1 Kings 2:39 - Three years later, two of Shimei’s servants ran away to King Achish son of Maacah of Gath

Debunk attempt nineteen

It says you may take them as property

They were not considered property in the same sense as an ox or coat because escaped slaves were not to be returned (Deut. 23:15-16) but an ox or coat was to be returned (Exodus 23:4; Deut. 22:1–4). Since they were not considered strict property nor chattel slaves, it must be that the work these inherited slaves produced was considered the property of the master.

Leviticus 25:47 states that the strangers living within Israel could “become rich.” In other words, a foreign slave could eventually get out of poverty, become self-sustaining, and thus wouldn’t have to be a slave anymore. While foreigners in Israel could serve for life, serving multiple generations if they wanted (just like an Israelite slave could), the Torah didn’t require that. Third, except for automatic debt cancellation in the seventh year, foreign slaves were afforded the same protections and benefits as Israelite slaves, including protection if they decided to leave at any time.

There's so much else that you got wrong here, there's really no point addressing any more of your responses, until you figure out how you will deal with the Anti-Kidnap law & Anti-Return law which is the very foundation of my argument.

Debunk attempt  twenty

You read the anti-kidnapping and anti-return laws a certain way, take that as authoritative, and then say 'what the rest of the entire slavery code says is inconsistent with that, so we should read it some other way.' Not due to any internal reason within the text, but because it doesn't match your reading of these other two laws.

No, I do not say that the rest of the entire slavery code says is inconsistent with the anti-kidnapping and anti-return laws. I say that they are completely consistent with the rest of the entire slavery code if one understand that it talks abut voluntary servitiude. 

Debunk attempt  twenty-one

The verb acquire [qanah] in Leviticus 25:39–51 need not involve selling or purchasing foreign servants.

Are you planning to give any evidence for this, or are you just going to assert it? Saying the word has multiple meanings won't cut it! I agreed with you that the word refers to financial transactions. So what? You're concluding from that "and therefore this does not refer to the purchase of property." Why?????

You agree that acquire [qanah] refers to financial transactions; all I'm saying that based on that alone it doesn't necessarily mean  purchasing chattel slaves.  It could mean, just as easily, purchanse the services of someone. 

Debunk attempt twenty-two

You mention the "anti kidnap law" a lot. If there is a law that says "thou shalt not steal a car", is that the same thing as a law that says "thou shall not own a car"?

Slavery apologetics is just bizarre to me.

In order to aquire a slave one must take another person against their will - i.e. kidnap them. Which is vasly different than purchasing another's services. 

Differentiating between chattel slavery and voluntary servitude us foolish and absurd? I think it's wish to understand something before you judge it 

Debunk attempt twenty-three

Genocidal and slaving societies aren’t known for the consistency in their laws and action. Your whole argument seems to be on the level of denying Israelites ever killed anyone because it clearly says in the bible that killing is wrong so they can’t possibly have committed genocide.

I'm not saying that chattel slavery didn't happen in the ANE or in Israel, I'm saying that if it did it went against the law. Just like Israel had laws against muder, rape, robbery tht doesn't mean those things didn't happen.  those who did that broke the law as did those who partook in chattle slavery. 

Debunk attempt twenty-four

and they always had the opportunity of escape without the fear of being returned.

Slavery was a major social institution, and obviously allowing slaves to run away whenever they pleased would break a whole bunch of stuff. 

I agree, that slavery was a major social institution. I put multiple quotes showing that slavery was poverty based social institution. You accept one but not the other. Why?

For example, enslavement was used as a punishment for some crimes; a thief who can't afford his fine is sold as a slave (Exodus 22:2-4). 

Thanks, that's another example of debt slavery 

You would have us believe they can get up and walk away the next day if they don't feel like serving out their sentence.

Oh, please. You ncan't see the difference between one who voluntarily goes into indentured servitude and another who is sentenced to serve as slave to pay for crime?   

Creditors could take children as slaves to pay the debts of their dead fathers (2 Kings 4:1-7) - you would have us believe they could high-five the creditor and go back home.

Do you realize that Ancient Israel was an honor-shame society, where honor was a cultural value that could grant people power and status? And that walking away from a debt could seriously harm the entire family group? One's family's honor becomes your own and vise versa, as does the reputation of your hometown. That is why genealogies are so important. You can earn honor by doing something worthy or noble. And lose it by doing something unworthy or dishonorable. So to walk away isn't something that was taken lightly 

Debunk attempt twenty-five

Again, you rest your entire case (as you admit) on this plainly wrong reading of the return law. Here, let me quote a Talmudic commentator who says the exact opposite thing that you do and even quotes Deuteronomy 22 as support for returning escaped slaves: The Gemara states that verse is referring to a slave who escaped from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, 

The Gemara, a part of the Talmud, was written around 500 AD by scholars in Babylonia. The Gemara is a commentary on the Mishnah, a written version of the Oral Torah that was completed around 200 AD.

Deuteronomy was written around 630 BC; what was this interpreation based on? From something in the text?  What would that be? Show me where you getr that idea from the text: 

DT 23:14-16 Because the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.15 “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.

This  law applies to ALL slaves who have escaped from their masters

a. The decisive factor is that the text itself does not limit the law to foreign slaves  

b. This law would put pressure on the system of slavery in Israel to be of such a nature that it would be beneficial/tolerable to the slave. Though it could be abused, it would place strong pressure on Israelite society for justice in this area which would be in line with Anti-Oppression laws - 

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. [Leviticus 19:33-34]

You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt [Exodus 23:9]

The fact is Israel was not free to treat foreigners wrongly or oppress them; and were, in fact to, commanded to love them.

c. The fact that ANE cultures had both treaties that dealt with foreign runaway slaves and laws that dealt with internal runaway slaves may favor seeing this law as dealing with both.

Not a single one proposes an interpretation remotely similar to yours. Why do you think that is?

Incorrect. Two who do are Matthew Poole, see English Annotations on the Holy Bible and Christopher J.H. Wright in New International Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy And of course the  one I cited in the original Seven Facts about Slavery article: 

HANEL Page 1007: "A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to his master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of. This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations, and is explained as due to Israel's own history as slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution.

Debunk attempt twenty-six

Leviticus 25:47 states that the strangers living within Israel could “become rich.” In other words, a foreign slave could eventually get out of poverty, become self-sustaining, and thus wouldn’t have to be a slave anymore.

Your reading here is completely and absurdly wrong,... let me point out the obvious: Leviticus 25:47 speaks about foreigners. Foreigners, obviously, were not all slaves!

But neither does it exclude them; once out of indentured servitude they could become a hired worker - they already have the knowledge and skills - and thus work to become self-sustaining

Debunk attempt twenty-seven

Almost every protection for Israelite slaves specifically states it's for Israelites, not for slaves in general. I know of exactly two protections for foreign slaves - no murder (Exodus 21:20-21) and free them if you disfigure them

I cited the Anti-Oppression laws “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. [Leviticus 19:33-34]

You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt [Exodus 23:9]

In Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, God charges all Israelites to love aliens  who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her sservants. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the Israelites were to look to God himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities.

Debunk attempt twenty-eight

You are wrong when you said chattel slavery is explicitly outlawed by an anti-kidnapping law. Saying you can't kidnap people is not the same thing as saying you can't own people as property. They are two different things, 

In order to own people as property, it must be against their will, so yes the Anti-Kidnap law does apply, since there are no Slave codes that legalize chattel slavery in Israel. The verses that people cite that say "buy" and "property" must be read in light of the anti-kidnap,  anti-oppression laws and voluntary servitude. 

Debunk attempt twenty-nine

To maintain your argument you were forced to claim that the Old Testament forbids indentured servitude of Israelites. The reason for this is that Leviticus 25:39-46 very explicitly and unambiguously draws a distinction between Israelite indentured slaves and foreign chattel slaves:

You want to deny chattel slavery and make the second half of this passage about indentured slaves instead. But this passage could not possibly be more clear that the first half is in contrast to the second, so that means the first half can't be about indentured slaves - so you claim that there were no Israelite indentured slaves and that they were all hired workers:

First, given my argument I reject your presumption that foreigners were chattel slaves

Second, there is a distinction between Israelite and foreign "ebeds", but it's not what you think.

Ellicott's Commentary says this about LV 25:39-40 - Under these circumstances he is not to be treated like heathen slaves who are either purchased or captured, and made to do the menial service which these Gentile slaves have to perform. The authorities during the second Temple adduce the following as degrading work which the Israelite bondman is not to be put to: He must not attend his master at his bath, nor tie up or undo the latchets of his sandals, etc.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible...but a brother, an Israelite, sold to another through extreme poverty, was not to be put to any low, mean, base, and disgraceful service, by which it would be known that he was a servant, as Jarchi notes; such as to carry his master's vessels or instruments after him to the bath, or to unloose his shoes; but, as the same writer observes, he was to be employed in the business of the farm, or in some handicraft work, and was to be kindly and gently used, rather as a brother than a servant, and to be freed in the year of jubilee.

Israelite and foreign could both be indentured servant, but only foreigners could do the work above. 

The good effort critism - These I actually appreciate this kind of critism, since an intelligent, in-depth conversation is hard to find on the internet. Not shockingly these are rare.

Debunk attempt thirty

You are wrong on ebed, the Hebrew word is actually abad

You are correct; abad, whose primary meaning is "to work, serve" is used 3x in Lev 25 and ebed whose primary meaning is "slave, servant" is used 8x; I don't see the meaning changing much, and certainly not to mean chattel slave.

I'll rework my argument to incorporate this into it. 

Note: This will be an ongoing post as I field other critisms and examine them to see if they have any merit. So far, nothing that would justify any significant changes 

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ Is a Historical Fact

Molly Worthen is an associate professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She received her BA and PhD from Yale University. 

Lorian Foote, Patricia & Bookman Peters Professor of History at Texas A&M, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma.  

This is a transcript of a talk entitled How a History Professor Changed Her Mind About the Resurrection

Note: This has been slightly edited [ums, ahs, you knows, double words deleted] and links and emphasis added. 

Lorian Foote: So what were kind of the key realizations that you had that that started to to make you think that the resurrection was possible and plausible,

Molly Worthen: The book that was most important for me was N.T. Wright's big book on the resurrection although I had to... it is even for a historian it's really a slog.

So I would constantly have to kind of pause and read a chapter that Tim Keller has in his book Reason for God on the resurrection where he sort of summarizes N.T. Wright's whole argument. So I could remind myself of the forest for the trees. That book is a is a very elaborate kind of layer after layer exploration of the views of the resurrection, and the afterlife, both in the Greco-Roman Pagan context in the first century and the spectrum of Jewish views, and he makes clear that whatever Jesus's disciples were hoping would happen, expecting would happen the end of the gospel story and the resurrection appearances are so far outside the cultural lanes, the sort of range of cultural imaginative options, that one has to really take seriously the possibility that they they did not confect these stories to support their beliefs but rather they develop these beliefs to explain unbelievable things that actually happened.

And part of the power of N.T. Wright's book is that, for me, is that it is such a slog and that there's just this cumulative effect of the depth of detail that he explores that I found really compelling. I guess I had in the past accepted what I now think of as fairly lazy analogies between Jesus and other self-declared messiahs**, other stories of gods, you know, descending and rising again to heaven. And once Wright and other scholars s**ubjected these comparisons for me to more scrupulous analysis I was persuaded that they weren't very good comparisons at all and that, the Jesus case is just incredibly strange.

And this drove me into, I think a new relationship with the gospels. I was reading the gospels over and over, you know, and having a reaction, I'm not, I'm still waiting for the mystical experience that I thought I would get, you know, at some point and nothing like that; the closest I have gotten to that is the experience of seeing for the first time the sheer strangeness of the things Jesus does his interactions with people especially the accounts of healing and the strange details, the way every healing is a little bit different. Jesus meets each person on their own terms and as much as I hate, I think I had a real, sort of allergic reaction to that evangelical theme of, "imagine yourself in the scriptures, put yourself in, in the place of these people", I did start to get tugged into the stories a little bit.

I also, I mean, there's a way in which when you spend a lot of time reading primary sources, you just develop a sort of sixth sense for what a source is, what category it belongs in. And I think this is one change that's happened in the New Testament scholarship.

So, you know following, the famous German scholar, Rudolf Bultmann in the early 20th century there was, I think, a move toward talking about the Gospels really in the category of Mythology. But the consensus has shifted and I think this is fair to say even of non-believing historians. That the appropriate genre for them is really more, Greco-Roman biography, but even then if you go and you read Plutarch’s Parallel Lives or you read, say Philistratus's biography of Apollonius of Tiana who was a traveling, Greek sort of magician, healer, who's in the first century sometimes compared to Jesus, the character of those texts, is so different.

So, the character of those texts is they're very polished. They're deeply embroidered, that the authors have a real commitment to careful theme setting. There is a brutal roughness to the Gospels. Especially Mark. Mark, I'd always kind of dismissed Mark because, like, the short one was sort of boring, least theological, Mark was the one that wrestled me to the ground and it is the grittiness, the sense that this is not, honestly, it is not a great work of literature, it is a desperate author, just trying to get on paper this bananas stuff, that this author was much closer to, than I had realized. And I became persuaded by the work of people ike Richard Bauckham was another one of these Anglicans, who can kind of speak to secular American snobs, that it's not that we need to distinguish between some sort of vague idea of oral tradition passing from community, to community and getting garbled along the way and oral history. And that there are, there are clues in the text that create a, not an airtight, but an awfully interesting and persuasive case that the Gospel authors were quite close to the events they were describing and, and possibly should be dated earlier than I had kind of come to believe. And so all of that, I mean, this was so imoprtant, I did not have to treat the Gospels as inerrant. All I had to start to do was to treat them with the same methods and the same kind of respect and questions as I would treat other historical sources. But for that to be possible, for me, they had to be sort of de-familiarized.

Lorian Foote: Interesting. Yeah, you know it's as a professional historian what you described is, how I feel about the Gospels. Because when I bring the techniques that we have in our profession to them, you know, I was telling Molly earlier, it drives me crazy. When I just hear somebody casually say, "well there's so many things that don't exactly match across the four Gospels. And so that's why it shows that that didn't really happen" and I'm like, okay. So then clearly we don't know that anything in history happened because as historians we know, when there's accounts of events....

So like I'm a civil war historian, there is not a single newspaper article and a single eyewitness to the Battle of Gettysburg that agree on the details of what happened at the battle. None of us questioned the battle we have to piece together a rough estimation of what we think happened based on accounts that don't add up.

And so to me I think as a historian I came to some things on my own that scholars, who are much better than me at the New Testament, come to do as part of their apologetics. But it was just striking to me that, in one gospel that there's two thieves are both making both making fun of Jesus and another gospel, one of them eventually turns to him, and that's what I witnessed. They both have on either side of Jesus, different witnesses are remembering different things that they saw that to me, made it more plausible and made it read as you said more like a true attempt to write a biography than a formalized document and and little things like the gospels record that women were first there.

And that women are there and women are the key eyewitnesses in a culture that discounts the testimony of women. As a historian when I would read a document like that, I would say, okay now, wait a minute, why are they having, if they're wanting to convince people of something that isn't true, would they put these witnesses, as their first class. Look, these women were the witnesses, so just lots of questions, the way that I methodologically go through and ask questions of the source. If I do the same thing to the gospels, I've always found them to be very compelling as historical documents

Molly Worthen: And the women, their role is one part of the broader absolute humiliating scandal of the whole end of the gospels. And this is what N.T. Wright's picture of Jewish theology and culture, really drove home to me in a way that I just had not assimilated before that no other movement that had believed in a self-declared Messiah had then seen that Messiah killed and declared him God. I mean, you could run away, right? Because the whole idea of the role of the Messiah in Jewish thought, was that this would be the individual who would lead Israel to worldly victory, and then Resurrection would kind of follow in the in for everybody, in the context of that victory.

And so I think this helped me see how I thought as a historian, it always been really an important part of my self-understanding that I approached people in the past with respect and a sense of humility.

But I think that there was a way in which that first task, that we're called to as historians to just really respect the chasm between them and me. It can easily slide into a kind of condescension. Because you you forget, you in your quest to distance yourself from your subjects, you can dehumanize them a little bit and maybe reduce the complexity of their worldviews.

So worldviews in the first century were, of course, very different from ours, but no less complicated. And so there were clear ideas for these people about what was and was not possible. And they were not, they were not fools. Who would just sort of believe any crazy thing, They were clear on on dead people, remaining dead, right?

And I think I had just not fully grappled with the radicalism of the Gospel claims in the first century, forget about now for me, the big hurdle and I think this is true of many scholars who spend their careers on this subject. If you don't already allow for the possibility of an open universe. If you are committed to an anti-supernaturalist understanding of reality than any possible explanation of the empty tomb and Jesus's appearances to his followers is preferable to the Christian explanation, no matter how Baroque and elaborate and I had to come to grips with my own deep anti-super-naturalist bias, I could always sort of thought of myself as open to the claims of Christianity.

But I had just, mean, my whole existence was in this one epistemological groove and this one kind of lane of approach and there are good reasons why in the modern research university in a secular university certain questions are just ones we set aside and we focus on other questions. But there's a way in which in doing that one can just get so used to setting aside those questions that you forget about the presuppositions that are involved in ruling those questions out and you can begin to think in the subconscious way that those questions are just foolish questions. Because your tools that you use in your teaching and research are not aimed directly at them.

I think also, I had a kind of "all or nothing" view of the historical method. If we define the historical method as drawing our ability to draw analogies between our own experience of cause and effect in our own life and the way cause and effect works in the past.

And we Define a miracle as Divine intervention Interruption In the normal order, normal relationship between cause and effect. Then yes, it's true that at the sort of Singularity of the miracle, the historical, method fails. So you can't prove as you couldn't a lab or or even you know, to the extent that that historians can prove things, you can't prove the resurrection.

However, there's all sorts of context. And you can bring the historical method to bear and all kinds of really fruitful ways to the textual record, the archaeological record. You don't have to make the perfect the enemy of the good. And if you're willing to suspend your disbelief in the Supernatural, then then you can be, you can begin to investigate the historical context of Christians claims about the empty tomb and the appearances of Christ that then get you to the point where you are, you're still faced with a leap of faith, but it's no longer a wild leap in the dark; it's a well-researched, reasonable leap. And then you start to realize that you were always making a bit of a leap and you just weren't acknowledging it. This was from true for me, anyway, that I had paid, I think lip service to the idea that, yes, as a secular agnostic person I had unproofable presuppositions because we all do, no view from nowhere blah, blah, blah.

But I had never. I'd never truly like looked that in the face and and and wrestled with it.

[End of Talk]

Key take aways:

1) If we treat the Gospels as we do other ancient documents they are clearly historical and reliable.

2) Accounts that "don't add up" are common in historical documents

3) In the first century people were not fools and knew that dead people stayed dead. so to conclude, even from the evidence, that Jesus rose was radical.

4) It's only a bias for an anti-supernaturalist understanding of reality that is the stumbling block for accepting the ressurection of Jesus Christ as a historocal fact.

Two agreed upon historical facts

1) We know that Jesus died a torturous death by crucifixion; this is attested to in every gospel, but it is also confirmed by several non-Christian sources. - Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, and the Jewish Talmud.

2) The empty tomb. Something happened to the body. Both the Jewish and Roman authorities had plenty of motivation to produce a body, bring it to downtown Jerusalem and dump it on the street. Especially after His post-mortem appearances and empty tomb were first publicly proclaimed in Jerusalem. This is ezpecially true since the Jewish authorities asked the Romans to guard the tomb. 

The alternative explanations...

The Swoon Theory does not take seriously what we know about the scourging and torture associated with crucifixion. A nearly dead man, in need of serious medical attention, could hardly serve as the foundation for the disciples’ belief in the resurrection, and that he was a conqueror of death and the grave.

Second, Roman soldiers were professional executioners, and knew everything about the torture and crucifixion of people, making this theory highly improbable.

Third, are we to think that the Jewish and Roman authorities sealed and guarded the tomb without verifying the Jesus was dead in it? Another highly improbable assumption.

The disciples stole the body - this was the charge by Jewish authorities; Jesus’ followers stole the body unbeknownst to anyone and lied about the resurrection appearances.

First, this theory does not explain why the disciples would invent women as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb - the were not considered to be reliable witnesses. This is not the way one gets a conspiracy theory off the ground.

Second, this also doesn’t explain how the disciples actually stole the body that was 1) sealed by a heavy stone, and 2) guarded by Romans.

Third, there was no expectation by first century Jews of a suffering-servant Messiah who would be shamefully executed by Gentiles as a criminal only to rise again bodily before the final resurrection at the end of time: “As Wright nicely puts it, if your favorite Messiah got himself crucified, then you either went home or else you got yourself a new Messiah. But the idea of stealing Jesus’ corpse and saying that God had raised him from the dead is hardly one that would have entered the minds of the disciples.” [Craig (citing N.T. Wright), Reasonable Faith, p372.]

Fourth, this theory cannot account for the conversion of skeptics like Paul, a devout Jew and persecutor of Christians, who also testified to having seen the risen Lord and willing suffered and died for his belief in the resurrection.

Every source we have indicates that the practice in Israel, especially in the vicinity of Jerusalem, in peacetime, was to bury the executed before nightfall. This was a practice that Roman authority permitted. source  This gave the disciple little time to come up with a "steal the body" plot, especially given their emotional state. 

The disciples experienced hallucinations.

First, the testimony of Paul along with the Gospel writers is that the appearances of Jesus were physical, bodily appearances. In fact, this is the unanimous agreement of the Gospels.

Second, hallucinations are private experiences as opposed to group experiences. Therefore, hallucinations cannot explain the group appearances attested to in 1 Cor. 15, the Gospel narratives, and the book of Acts.

Finally, hallucinations cannot explain such facts as the empty tomb, why the Roman and Jewish authorities didn't produce the body, and the conversions of skeptics like Paul

The only real obstacle to resurrection as a plausible explanation is an anti-supernatural bias. But as I've argued the belief that nature is all that exists is logically self-refuting and thus cannot be true if reason, critical thinking, and knowledge are part of our reality

Objection A - Right in that last bit she says that "you can't prove the resurrection"!

Reply: That is in the context of the historical method which, like the scientific method, assumes an unproofable presupposition, i.e. an anti-super-naturalist bias. So please provide your proof or argument that "physical only view of the reality" is correct.

We have good reasons to think that "physical only view of the reality" is logically incoherent

I have had many atheists and critics say that they do not ascribe to a "physical only view of the reality"; so what then given the above is the issue with the conclusion that the ressurection of Jesus Christ as a historical fact?

Objection B - If we treat the Gospels as we treat every other historical document, then we could never conclude that an actual resurrection occurred as a historical event.

This is the thing that Christian apologists are never honest about: historians, scholars, and us skeptics and atheists don't accept the resurrection story not because we aren't giving it a fair chance; it's because WE are the ones treating the Gospels the exact same as every other historical text that exists.

Reply: Yes, you are using the same anti-supernatural bias that you look at everything. But that lens is faulty. Thus, I am under no obligation to view reality through your faulty lens especially when this unsupported assumption that has been pointed out time and again, with no defense ever offered for it.  This is even touched on in the OP

Objection C - Why is the "best explanation" here something that we know to be impossible and not "people lied?"

Reply: First it’s only "impossible" if one assumes Philosophical Naturalism, but we have good reasons to think that is a false idea. Secondly, it's not part of the historical method to assume that the writer of a document lied or the poeple quoted in the text lied; that would have to be proven.

Objection D They got the wrong tomb. Josephus said he buried the body and didn't.

Reply: Are we to believe that the Jewish and Roman authorities, the latter posting a gaurd at behest of the former, wouldn't have checked to see that the body was there prior?

Objection E - You need to reproduce your proof

Reply: We do not prove historical events by reprodcuing them. Do we prove World War 2 by "reproducing" the proof? No. 

Obkection F -  The writers consisting of what is now called the new testament constructed a resurrection account based on various old testament expectations.  Paul, undeniably preached a Jesus pulled from Old testament scripture and practiced Judaic Pesher

Reply: Why then didn't the Jewish or Roman authorities dump the body Jesus in the town square while somebody was preching the jesus has rose from the dead? That's why they put guards on the tomb. to prevent these stories from happening. Did they just forget? Was it suddenly not important to them? Or, most likely, they didn't have the body...

Related post 

Was The Resurrection of Jesus Christ a Mythological Development?

The resurrection of Jesus is not historical - a rebuttal