Music

The build is atheist blogger has apparently been reading up on Christian Apolloget

In fact, he interacts with your work quite a bit, I find myself reading his articles and bringing them to the podcast because he really tries to interact with your work.

His objections are in this article one, he claims the gospel writers were not eyewitnesses in two that the women at the tomb story is problematic.

First, he says, quote, many Christian apologists insist that the resurrection was documented by eyewitnesses. Their motivation makes sense. The resurrection is the punchline of the Jesus story and the authors can't simply be passing along a popular yarn. Only eyewitness authors could be credible.

We must start by agreeing on what it means to witness a man's resurrection from the dead. You must one, see him alive, then two, see him dead, then three, see him alive again.

This is obvious, I realize, but you'll soon see where this is missing in the gospels. So Bill, what do you think about his requirements here for being an eyewitness of Jesus' resurrection?

Well, let me say first of all, Kevin, that Bob Zydenstäcker, I love that last name, such a good German name. The Bob has a very naive understanding of the case for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

I don't know of any prominent exponent of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection who would base it upon the gospel writers being eyewitnesses to these events.

Bob statement, only eyewitness authors could be credible is outrageously naive and patently false. Just to give one example, Aryan and Plutarch are ancient historians who wrote the life of Alexander the Great, and they did so hundreds of years after Alexander's death.

And yet classical scholars regard these biographies of the life of Alexander as largely credible historically accurate accounts of the life of Alexander the Great.

So it's just patently false, what Bob says, that only eyewitness authors are credible. But having said that, what about his conditions to being an eyewitness in his peculiar sense?

Well, he says, you've got to see the person alive, then you've got to see him dead, then you've got to see him alive again. Well, I don't think condition one is necessary to be a witness of a resurrection. All you have to do is to see the person dead and then see him alive again.

And that would be sufficient for being a witness of his resurrection. But I would go even further than that. I don't think it's even enough or required to see him dead if you see him alive again and you know that he was dead.

If you have good grounds for thinking that this person was killed or died, and then you see him alive again, that would give you good grounds for thinking is risen from the dead.

And that would be enough to say that you're an eyewitness of his resurrection.

Next equals the Gospel of Matthew, quoting, then all the disciples deserted him in fled, Matthew 26. The next day Jesus was crucified and many women were there watching from a distance, Matthew 27, including Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph.

There were men present, Roman guards and pastors by who insulted Jesus, but no disciples with no male disciples to observe the crucifixion. This eyewitness claim fails and point to above. You must see him dead if you want to later claim a resurrection. Matthew doesn't even claim any disciples at the empty tomb.

Not also that it's modern Christians who claim that Matthew was an eyewitness that Gospel never makes that claim. Bill, your response.

Well, I would say that disciples did see the crucifixion and burial and resurrection of Jesus. They were female disciples of Jesus.

Bob speaks of the disciples. He means members of the group of the 12 who had fled from the Garden of Gethsemane. But even the 12 had every reason to think that Jesus was dead.

The Romans could be relied upon to crucify a person and ensure that he was dead, especially with the Jewish Sabbath looming.

...