Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Matthew

[Pree]

> So I conclude decisively that all of this precludes the possibility that some of the disciples actually didn't believe.

I think that's a pretty bold claim. So far your argument seems to be: All of the written records about the apostles makes it clear that they all believed, therefore it is impossible for some of them to have not believed. And I don't think this follows. All of our written sources are from Christians, with a clear agenda to present Jesus as the exalted Christ. Of course they're going to say the apostles believed! Whether the apostles truly believed or not, we would expect the gospel writers to say that they did.

[jimwalton]

It's pretty unrealistic to expect that a person who saw Jesus walking around after his crucifixion, being touched, eating, and talking with people, would be an unbeliever. Of course all our written sources are from Christians, because whoever saw him after the resurrection could not continue in unbelief and rejection.

> with a clear agenda to present Jesus as the exalted Christ.

Seeing someone alive after the brutality of flogging and crucifixion is bound to be a life-changing experience. No one one could continue unchanged. But thinking about bias, Dr. Michael Licona says, "Of course they're biased. They have an agenda. John is explicit about his bias. Every historian writes because they are interested in the subject. But bias doesn't mean you're wrong. If it were, then we can't believe any Jewish historian who writes on the Holocaust, or any African-American writing about antebellum slavery. Too many elements of the gospels don't come across as having been invented for the sake of bias (the disciples' lack of faith, the testimony of women on resurrection, Jesus' claiming his father had forsaken him, etc.). But elements in the gospels also show they are trying to report accurate history. Richard Dawkins has an objective, an agenda. Gerd Ludemann has an agenda. We don't reject writings because the authors have an agenda, but because the arguments are insufficient. Even we as readers are biased."

[Pree]

> It's pretty unrealistic to expect that a person who saw Jesus walking around after his crucifixion, being touched, eating, and talking with people, would be an unbeliever.

Now we run into the issue of whether these stories are actually trustworthy. I personally don't believe the gospels can be trusted, but not because of their bias. As you stated, bias doesn't mean you're wrong... and I never said it did. My only point was this: you're claiming that it's impossible for some of the disciples to be unbelievers because the gospels say otherwise. And I'm responding by saying "Of course they say that! They had an agenda to convert people! Does that make them wrong? No. But it does open the possibility that they might've embellished the narrative."

[jimwalton]

> you're claiming that it's impossible for some of the disciples to be unbelievers because the gospels say otherwise.

This is not actually what I'm claiming. Here's what we know for sure, regardless of whether or not you think the Gospel stories are trustworthy:

1. Jesus' disciples taught he was raised from the dead and appeared to individuals/groups
2. Jesus' disciples intended for us to interpret the resurrection as an actual event
3. A new religious movement based on the resurrection blossomed in Jerusalem coincident with the resurrection.

In other words, we can say for a fact that followers of Jesus believed that he rose from the dead, taught that he rose from the dead, and Christianity grew in the Roman Empire on that basis. There is enough corroboration from hostile sources (Paul, Suetonius, Tacitus) and other extrabiblical sources (Josephus), along with the testimony of archaeology (Christian bone boxes, grave markings, church buildings, historical records of martyrdoms). Whether or not all of the records of the Gospels are trustworthy is the subject of another conversation. For this conversation, however, there is no debating that a new movement was born based on the apostles' teaching around the empire of an actual resurrection.

You seem to be working very hard to discredit what I have given repeated and thorough evidence for. If the evidence I have piled on is insufficient for you, I suspect you have a mental block about your perceptions of the Gospels or the resurrection, or you have a hidden agenda that has yet to be revealed. I have substantiated my case quite thoroughly.

What would have been their motive to convert people to a belief they knew to be a lie? It didn't make them wealthy, powerful, or gain them sexual favors. Most of them are lost to history (so they weren't famous or powerful), but the traditions we have say they were all killed for what they were preaching. If they knew they were lying to people, and those people were being ostracized, arrested, and martyred, what was their motive in the "embellishment"? What would have driven them to be such heartless beasts, and even in the face of the execution of friends and neighbors, and to their own deaths, perpetuate the lie? You need to substantiate your case with something stronger than the case I have offered so that your case is the one that leads us to the most reasonable conclusion. Why are you so sure (or so obstinate to assert the possibility is wide open) they were liars (the word you used in the first post)? But then you must also carry that to all its logical and historical conclusions for it to work. Honestly, I don't think you have a case, but I'd be pleased to read it.

[Pree]

> In other words, we can say for a fact that followers of Jesus believed that he rose from the dead, taught that he rose from the dead, and Christianity grew in the Roman Empire on that basis.

I don't dispute any of this. The question is not whether the disciples believed or not... but rather whether some believed or all. Ultimately I don't think it's possible to know, but it's certainly plausible that some of them didn't. The evidence you presented does not necessitate that all of them were believers.

Regarding whether they lied, I don't hold a firm position on this view. I certainly don't think they all lied. But it seems feasible to me that some of them genuinely had an experience that they interpreted as the risen Christ, and the others just lied and said they did. As for why they would do this, there could be several reasons. Perhaps they saw some moral benefit in converting others to this religion and thought it a cause worth dying for. Perhaps they saw that all the other apostles were having these experiences, so they lied in order to seem just as devout as the others. Perhaps they just went along with the resurrection story because they loved Jesus so much and were willing to die in his honor. Or maybe a combination of all these things. But again, I think it's impossible to know one way or the other.

[jimwalton]

I have shown you repeatedly that the authors have written in a way (contextually, terminologically, and even by literary analysis) to show that **all* of the disciples believed. Tradition (not confirmable) also claims they died as martyrs. You say ultimately it's not possible to know, but then you are disregarding the texts or intentionally distorting them. The evidence I presented was specifically ordered and repeated to verify the thesis: All of the disciples were committed believers. Summarizing again for you:

1. There are several segments of "being of two minds" but coming to belief: Mary, the two on the road to Emmaus, Thomas (in specific), and the disciples. The conclusion in every case is belief.

2. Luke 24 and John 20 both also tell parallel accounts of the journey of the disciples from doubt to belief.

3. The record we have of the deaths of the apostles (scant and questionable though it is) is that they died as martyrs for preaching the resurrection they believed in.

4. The context of Matthew 28 indicates they all saw and they all worshiped. Being "of two minds" better fits the context as "Unbelievable!" rather than "I'm not convinced."

5. According to Dr. Dr. Dr. A.T. Robertson, the term is not expressing a contrast between "worshipped" and "doubt."

6. The context of Matthew portrays this scene (Mt. 28.16-20) as a theophany—God revealing himself on the mountain—reminiscent of Moses on Sinai. Moses on Sinai was a story of revelation, communion with God, and belief.

7. The Gospel writers wrote of a physical resurrection, and that everyone who came in contact with the risen Christ was a believer. Every one, without fail. Their "bias" as writers stems from their life-changing experience.

8. There is no reasonable motive attributable to the disciples to explain their bold preaching of the resurrection and the origin of the church. The motives of power, wealth, fame, and sexual favors all fail.

That's my summary. I have given you eight evidences to support my contention. You continue to say "It's not possible to know." We have to infer the most reasonable conclusion, and that is: It IS possible to know. It is fair-minded beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the disciples were firm and committed believers.

OK, you think some lied. Beyond just "feasible to [you]," what evidence do you have biblically, historically, or evidentially that they did? Not just "perhaps this" or "perhaps that." Give me the goods. We're going around in circles.

Let's look at your proposals for motive:

> Perhaps they saw some moral benefit in converting others to this religion and thought it a cause worth dying for.

It's not moral if it's a lie, and it's not moral if people are going to their deaths for lies that you intentionally told. It's a false religion and not worth dying for if it's a lie. This is just barbaric cruelty.

> Perhaps they saw that all the other apostles were having these experiences, so they lied in order to seem just as devout as the others.

But what evidence do you have? We can't just make possibilities up; there have to be evidences for drawing this conclusion.

> Perhaps they just went along with the resurrection story because they loved Jesus so much and were willing to die in his honor.

Men may often die for what they believe, but they will seldom die for what they know to be a lie. George Orwell wrote, "In the face of pain there are no heroes." But they were scoundrels if, based on their testimony, others were being killed for a lie. It's one thing to die for a lie; it's a totally different matter to watch hundreds or thousands of others killed for your lie.

What you're claiming is this: The apostles were thinking, "Let’s make up a story so we can die for no reason. Yeah. And we’ll endure flogging and execution for this lie. Why not? Some of us will be put in prison, we’ll be publicly ridiculed and insulted for what we know to be untrue, but it will be worth it, right? Let’s make this our mission, and let’s make a pact about it. We’ll tell the same lies, and invent stories that will benefit nobody, neither ourselves, nor those we deceive, nor the God we’re trying to honor. None of us must fail in our dedication. There is no prize at the end, only the punishments we’ll all face. We will be shackled, whipped, imprisoned, and stoned. We’ll be crucified, burned, and put in arenas to face wild animals. What could be a better plan than to make enemies of gods, friends, and family for no reason at all, to have no pleasure in life, to gain no profit for our families, to make no money from this, or to have no hope of anything good at all coming from this except for the sheer pleasure of deceiving others for no purpose." It's nonsense. if you claim it's impossible to know one way or the other, you are denying the facts.

[Pree]

1, 2, 6, and 7 assumes the reliability of the gospels (which you have yet to defend). 3 is a case built on scanty questionable evidence (which you admit to). Even if I grant 4 and 5, it then requires us to assume the reliability of the gospels in order to be taken seriously as an argument for all the disciples being believers. 8 assumes that all the apostles preached the resurrection, which again is based on questionable evidence.

So ultimately, your case rests on the gospels and on questionable early church traditions. Without these, your argument fails... wouldn't you agree?

As for defending my argument, I don't need to present evidence for something that I admit is pure speculation. I think it's possible some of them lied but I certainly wouldn't defend that as an explanation built on evidence. It's not built on any evidence, it's just speculation. And the argument you've presented is built on weak, unsupported evidence (at least until you've demonstrated the reliability of the gospels & early church traditions). So where do we go from here?

[jimwalton]

> the reliability of the gospels (which you have yet to defend)

We can certainly talk about the reliability of the Gospels. They convey accurate historical, cultural, geographical, and religious information. The theological premises are not confirmable, but neither are they disprovable. Every piece of information we have, where information is available, confirms their reliability.

> So ultimately, your case rests on the gospels and on questionable early church traditions. Without these, your argument fails... wouldn't you agree?

I would agree that without all my evidence the case fails. : )

> I don't need to present evidence for something that I admit is pure speculation

But then you have no reason to subscribe to it. It's purely speculative, but you insist on hanging onto your speculative theories over and against the evidence that's available. That's not good scholarship, in my opinion.

> So where do we go from here?

So let's talk about the reliability of the Gospels.I've begun the conversation ("They convey accurate historical, cultural, geographical, and religious information. ... Every piece of information we have, where information is available, confirms their reliability."). So let's take it from there.