tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post114628835707321543..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Jason Pratt responds to Keith Parsons Part IVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1146515919814993832006-05-01T13:38:00.000-07:002006-05-01T13:38:00.000-07:00Thanks, Victor. Not sure why the formatting comes ...Thanks, Victor. Not sure why the formatting comes out odd.Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1146356329089587292006-04-29T17:18:00.000-07:002006-04-29T17:18:00.000-07:00Jason: I restored the relevant html passageJason: I restored the relevant html passageVictor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1146345023506675842006-04-29T14:10:00.000-07:002006-04-29T14:10:00.000-07:00Jason writes ' So, what _good_ reason can be given...Jason writes ' So, what _good_ reason can be given by Keith (whom, I can freely suppose, has no higher opinion of ruthlessly opportunistic religious authorities than I do), to explain why these ruthlessly opportunistic religious authorities didn't just _fake_ showing a body, using their authority to sanction belief in that?'<BR/><BR/>OK, I give up, why didn't they just fake showing a body?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1146330313272573772006-04-29T10:05:00.000-07:002006-04-29T10:05:00.000-07:00And, of course, Paul is clear in Galatians 6 that ...And, of course, Paul is clear in Galatians 6 that observance of the law (not resurrection) is what was at dispute between Christians and Jews.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1146325765577604292006-04-29T08:49:00.000-07:002006-04-29T08:49:00.000-07:00Opps--one of the html headers didn't make it in. T...Opps--one of the html headers didn't make it in. The paragraph beginning "I objected that nobody knows how long a period passed..." was supposed to have <B> bold </B> marks, indicating a quote from Keith.<BR/><BR/>(Interestingly, this could make for a handy illustration of something else regarding the Pauline epistles later, though... {g})<BR/><BR/><BR/>Since I'm presenting a rebuttal of Keith's letter, and since I mentioned that I _did_ call a win in his favor by a solid edge in (Jeff's abstract of) his debate with WLC, I intend to work up a summary of points I thought he did well on in that debate, and post them as a follow-up comment later. (Might not be today, though; I have to go make a building with Dad.)<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason<BR/><BR/>PS: I've long since answered Steven's reply here (on the Pauline matter) in-depth in previous months. If he doesn't remember, he should pay more attention. If he does remember, he should take the reply into account, even if he still disagrees with it. In any case, it'll be brought up again, in passing, in Part 2 of the letter (which Victor already has.)<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, I would ask him to remember that I _did_ say in Part 1 here: "For what it is worth, I (myself) *am not especially impressed* by the typical 'Sanhedrin would have produced the body but they didn't' arguments put up by apologists." One of those typical arguments is 'they didn't produce a body, so no body was there'. I think that's an extremely weak argument, and I'm not making it here. In fact, I'm not making _any_ direct argument for the bodily resurrection here.<BR/><BR/>Even so: the situation the Sanhedrin would be facing would be _rather_ significantly different than Elvis sightings today, or even Nero sightings (if there were any, other than expectations of his return) back in the 1st century. The historical contexts are crucially important to keep in mind as an overall picture; and they can't be quickly entered into much less covered quickly.<BR/><BR/>(Also, remember story contexts please: Antipater wouldn't necessarily know at first where JohnBapt was buried, head included. And since that story detail drops out of sight by the time he returns to the scene, for all we know he _had_ had the body confirmed in place in the meanwhile. Though more likely he simply came to the realization that Jesus was a different person from John.)Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1146293921653092672006-04-28T23:58:00.000-07:002006-04-28T23:58:00.000-07:00I have never heard anything so dumb as people bein...I have never heard anything so dumb as people being asked to produce a 7 week old corpse to show that somebody is dead<BR/><BR/>Why don't people produce the body of Elvis to disprove all these Elvis sightings?<BR/><BR/>Why didn't people produce the body of Nero to disprove the people who claimed Nero had not died, but was still alive?<BR/><BR/>Why didn't Herod produce the head of John the Baptist , to squash the rumours that Jesus was John the Baptist risen from the grave.<BR/><BR/>Of course, the Christians would simply have pointed out that the dead body of Jesus was just the seed which died, and that Jesus was alive as a 'life-giving spirit'<BR/><BR/>As Paul said, if there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Producing the natural body of Jesus hardly disproves the spiritual body, does it?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.com