He Is Risen
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
How could Christ have been seen by the 12 when Judas (supposedly) killed himself?
Also, some suspect that verse 6 (the appearance to 500) is nothing but a later interpolation too and simply an embellishment of the Pentecost story in Acts 2:1-13.
Notice also that the word for “was seen” in the Greek is ophthe which is in the passive voice with the dative. This Greek verb and idiom is regularly used of visions in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) and since Paul puts his own “appearance” in the same terms as the others, what we have here is most probably strong evidence that Paul (and the early Christians) thought the “appearances” were nothing more than visionary experiences: what we would rightly call dreams and oral and visual hallucinations. There is not one shred of direct evidence in 1 Corinthians 15:3–6 for the view that the disciples saw a walking, talking corpse: rather, their “appearances” appear to be in the same category as Paul’s: delusions, dreams, and hallucinations of their dead leader. And note how Paul says nothing about any women seeing Jesus.
Moreover, when you go on to read 1 Corinthians 15.35–53 you see that Paul says that Jesus had a “pneumatic body” (in soma pneumatikos in Koine Greek) when he was resurrected.
1 Corinthians 15.35–53 makes it clear that Jesus’s new “pneumatic body” was separate from his dead body of flesh and blood. Paul says “what you sow is not the body that is to be” (1 Corinthians 15.37) – that is, what is buried (a body of flesh and blood) is not the resurrected pneumatic body. Paul says flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of god (1 Corinthians 15.50) – so the “pneumatic body” will not be one of flesh and blood nor have flesh or blood (but be of some heavenly substance).
That is why the Paul and the earliest Christians as described in Paul’s letters show no interest in an empty tomb. The “proof” of Jesus’s resurrection for them was nothing but dreams and oral and visual hallucinations.
The empty tomb was the invention of the author of the gospel of Mark some 40 years after Jesus’s death for literary and theological purposes. The bodily flesh and blood resurrection is an invention of still later Christian writers like the author of the gospel of Luke.
Excellent post LK.
Mark is the oldest gospel. It has no undead sightings. Indeed the final bit of Mark is a late addition. The earliest texts end with women fleeing an empty tomb and telling no-one.
Many of these points are discussed here http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/
Good to see you back LK. It’s been a particularly exasperating few weeks here.
(1) “The earliest texts end with women fleeing an empty tomb and telling no-one. “
That is absolutely right.
And more than that: both Mark and Matthew require that the resurrection “appearances” to the disciples happened in Galilee, not in Jerusalem (as in John and Luke).
In Mark, the women tell no one of their discovery of the empty tomb: this is precisely what one would expect if the author of this gospel invented the tale of the empty tomb, and needed an explanation of why no one had heard this story before.
Imagine you are a Christian reading or hearing the ending of Mark’s gospel. You say: “why the hell haven’t I heard this empty tomb thing before?” Mark has an answer ready: “the women told nobody. And you know what women are like, right?”
Women are also made to be eyewitnesses to the tomb because the earliest tradition appears to have been that the disciples fled back to Galilee after Jesus’s resurrection, and the author of the gospel of Mark felt bound to respect that.
(2) and I should emphasize: all the evidence suggests that the earliest Christians thought Jesus was raised directly to heaven from the grave. That is, they thought his “resurrection” and exaltation were simultaneous events, and that is why they thought he was transformed into a spiritual being with heavenly body as Paul says.
Any appearances were just “visions” (read hallucinations or delusions) of what they thought was Jesus in heaven.
That’s what I always say. Life without both Ken B and Lord Keynes simultaneously is particularly exasperating.
Here is N.T. Wright’s take on Mark:
“Sixth, a word about the ending of Mark. Did Mark intend to include a resurrection story as such? Let us approach this question by thinking of the rest of the gospel. Mark has introduced us to Jairus’s daughter. He has told as that Herod thinks Jesus is John the Baptist, raised from the dead. He has conveyed to us the puzzlement of the disciples when Jesus spoke of the Son of Man rising from the dead. What is more, he has told us three times that Jesus warned the disciples of his coming death and told them that afterward he would be raised to life. Finally, he has emphasized that Jesus told the disciples on the Mount of Olives, and Caiaphas in the Jewish hearing, that the Son of Man would be vindicated, exalted on the clouds to a position or glory (not returning in the clouds in a second coming, please note). Mark’s structure is a lot more sophisticated than his grammar. He has so ordered his gospel that the warnings about suffering come to a great climactic crescendo in his crucifixion narrative. What are we to say about what follows?
I tried for some years to believe that Mark was really a postmodernist who would deliberately leave his gospel with a dark and puzzling ending, but I have for some time now given up the attempt. Grammatically, the gospel could have ended with “for they were afraid” (ephobounto gar); structurally, it could not have ended without the story of the risen, vindicated Jesus. I am convinced that Mark’s scroll, like so many scrolls in the ancient world, lost its ending, and quite possibly its beginning, at a very early stage. What the ending contained I do not know. Stephen Neill reckoned it must have been pretty similar to the ending of Matthew. I am sure, however, that it told stories not unlike those in Matthew, Luke, and John, though no doubt in Mark’s own way: stories about a risen Jesus appearing and disappearing, teaching and commissioning, and finally being seen in that way no more. If so many others within the scholarly world have the right to invent new early Christian texts, why should we not do so as well, just this once?” from http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm
Also, here is Dr. Habernas’ lecture on dealing with the resurrection, and speaks of the 1 Corinthians 15 passage given at UCSB. “The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars ” – Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M
Right. Thanks for making it clear as to why the disciples died, LK! /sarcasm off
They died because they were not immortal. Lord Keynes and Ken B. make excellent points here (which I was already familiar with, but which still need repeating to others). I do think Bob should have expected this when he failed to add his own commentary.
Bob’s commentary on these threads usually consists of compounding the errors. He routinely conflates and harmonizes gospels in blithe disregard of any issue or difficulty. He was not even aware that different gospels place the crucifixion on different days relative to Passover, and did not believe it when I pointed it out. I learned that in grade 5 for pete’s sake. (Bob did acknowledge it after I cited passages. But he seems not to worry about the implications.)
My apologies EH. It was very early this am when I typed my response and should have been more clear.
The idea that the disciples were willing to die for a lie must be explored for clarity in this matter.
Further, Ken B’s citation of a fringe scholar such as James Tabor is problematic also. Why not someone such as William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Gary Habermas, Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, D.A. Carson or any other number of distinguished scholars instead?
Lastly, as has been pointed out, this whole affair is in poor taste today. Would either of you, LK or Ken B, venture to do this during a Hebrew, Muslim or Hindu holiday? I doubt it.
Indeed, He has risen!
Click through, scroll down and read Tabor,s bio. Fringe scholar?
Oh, absolutely, Ken B.
http://jamestabor.com/2014/04/13/two-paths-the-mount-of-olives-palm-sunday-and-good-thursday/
http://www.amazon.com/The-Jesus-Discovery-Archaeological-Christianity/dp/1451651538
http://www.amazon.com/The-Jesus-Dynasty-History-Christianity/dp/074328724X
Tabor thinks the weirdest things.
“The idea that the disciples were willing to die for a lie must be explored for clarity in this matter.”
Nobody here said that the disciples thought that what they were saying about Jesus was a lie, Anonymous.
On the contrary, it is likely — like many delusional religious fanatics — that they believed that their hallucinations or dreams were supernatural visions and that Jesus had been raised. Hell, that era of one of wretched superstition. Most people really believed that dreams were visions from the gods.
That the disciples may have died for their delusional beliefs provides no strong evidence that Jesus was actually raised or for any other supernatural dogma of Christianity, any more than Buddhist, Islamic or pagan martyrs prove that delusional and false Buddhism, Islam or pagan religions are true.
Also, we actually have no strong evidence about how many of Jesus’ disciples were actually martyred. What we mostly have is late Christian rumour and legend. Tales of James martyrdom, for example, look like ridiculous fiction.
Even Acts never explicitly says that Paul was martyred!
As for appeal to authority, New Testament studies is a discipline where appeal to mainstream scholarship proves NOTHING.
Many of these mainstream scholars are Christian conservatives and apologist hacks and even the mainstream discipline is contaminated by fundamentalism.
It is only arguments and evidence that matter here.
LK and Ken B,
We shall see. Just not today. My responses may be slow in coming as I am very busy so I may have to “resurrect” this post throughout later dates.
Pun intended.
Well if you have evidence and argument, not appeals to voices or splenetics, I look forward to it.
This, “It is only arguments and evidence that matter here.”
refutes
“As for appeal to authority, New Testament studies is a discipline where appeal to mainstream scholarship proves NOTHING.
Many of these mainstream scholars are Christian conservatives and apologist hacks and even the mainstream discipline is contaminated by fundamentalism. ”
No arguments or evidence is provided to support the claims.
LK, this particular statement is self-contradictory. It’s an appeal to emotion and you’re committing the genetic fallacy.
William Crag Lane is not a “distinguished scholar” but “distinguished Christian-fundamentalist apologist”.
Fake ending of the Gospel of Mark Tabor is talking about is old news. Except some really extreme Christian fundamentalists everyone else accepts it’s fake.
Yes. I often present here well known stuff. Even stuff explicitly in most Bibles, such as those from Zondervan Publishing, the world’s largest Bible publisher, and it gets denied or treated like some outlandish claim. And then, depite the fact I disclaim expertise, provide links, and tell people to look for themselves, I get accused of variously pontificating, lying, pretending to be an expert.
-Agreed.
I do not consider apologists for Conservative Christianity serious scholars. Craig is not an N.T. scholar, neither is Moreland. All these people you mention make me cringe due to their fantastic ability to believe the manifestly absurd and attempt to defend it. Tabor is fringe, but no more fringe than Habermas.
-100%, but America is a Christian-majority country, even if it seems my neighborhood is majority Hindu. So most of our targets end up being Christian hypotheses.
Well that’s another answer to John. Murphy does not just proclaim his faith. He says it is supported by evidence and reason, and he attacks evolution and the relevance of neuroscience to to such questions.
Tabor is not fringe. He is a department head at a major university. He may be extreme in some views, I have not read enough to know. But it is ironic on a blog where Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell are cited regularly to balk at “fringe”.
Being a department head at a major university does not exempt one from being fringe. The Talpiot Tomb is agreed by 99+% of scholars as having nothing to do with Jesus. Tabor’s “Jesus Dynasty” position is also quite fringe, though it is based on less fringe positions. I’d be very wary of any claim of Tabor that was not already believed by me.
Ok. That was the first I have heard of talpiot.
But you agree his conclusions on the ending of Mark are mainstream?
His view on Mark’s ending is fairly conventional (I estimate it’s the view of some 50-70 % of NT scholars), and his take on the resurrection is one that is common with several other Liberal Christian and atheist scholars. His views on Talpiot are accepted by no other scholar that I know of.
Actually Tabor’s scholarly views on Christianity are quite reasonable, well argued, and a development of the “Two Missions Hypothesis” of F. C. Baur — and that has a perfectly good pedigree in NT scholarship, even if the apologists hate it because it conflicts with many of the cherished beliefs.
To me, the “Two Missions Hypothesis” is the most convincing explanation of the origin of Christianity ever proposed.
One the best books on it is
Michael Goulder,1995. St. Paul versus St. Peter: A Tale of Two Missions, Westminster/John Knox Press, Louisville, KY.
“Craig is not an N.T. scholar,” is not true.
Craig might be better known as a Philosopher but he is also a N.T. scholar, having PhD’s in both Philosophy and Theology. “He [Craig] earned his Ph.D. in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England, in 1977 and a D.Theol. under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich, in the former West Germany, in 1984.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig#Academic_background)
He even writes just recently, “Having already completed my doctoral work in Germany on the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, I was well-aware that the large majority of New Testament historians find the evidence for Jesus’ burial in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea to be convincing. ” (from http://www.reasonablefaith.org/grounds-for-scepticism-concerning-jesus-burial-and-empty-tomb#ixzz2zXVIW64v )
Well, theology is not NT scholarship, which is largely about languages. But I believe you are right, most scholars accept that J of A buried the body. It is well attested by different traditions, serves no obvious theological goal, and is entirely plausible. It seems pretty solid to me too.
Luke begins writing in Chapter 1:
“1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.”
Luke 24 also says:
“38. And He [Jesus] said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?
39. “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
40. And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.
41. While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?”
42. They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish;
43. and He took it and ate it before them.”
This makes it very clear that the writer of Luke sought to write an accurate and truthful account of Jesus’ life. The evidence the writer compiled is that Jesus had a physical body, which was physically resurrected, as shown in Chapter 24 of Luke.
(1) On the late and general historical worthlessness of Acts, see:
http://thoughtsphilosophyculture.blogspot.com/2014/03/richard-carrier-on-acts-as-fiction.html
(2) Question, 1 Corinthians 15.35–53 totally contradicts this walking talking corpse story in Luke.
1) Burke (2011) concludes:
“Current scholarly attitudes towards the historicity of Acts remain mixed, with extremist views expressed at both ends of the spectrum. However attitudes have generally become more positive since the publication of influential works by writers such as Hemer and Hengel, and historians of Rome have renewed their interest in the use of Acts as a valid source of information on the social, legal and political milieu of the empire in the first century. A number of objections to the historicity of specific events in Acts have now been dismissed conclusively, and a new consensus has emerged concerning the relationship of the ‘we’ passages to the question of authorship. ” from http://www.academia.edu/454431/Studies_In_The_Historicity_of_Acts
So the link you provided is not the end of the argument.
Question,
That there is some incidental and historically accurate data in Acts that reflects real social, legal or political life in the 1st century does not prove that its supernatural claims are true, any more than the real presence of some incidental and historically accurate data about Victorian Britain in Bram Stoker’s novel Dracula proves that the people and events in that novel are true.
Plenty of lurid and crazy fictions have historically accurate background details.
Furthermore, Acts is notorious for disagreeing with Paul’s letters.
One example: Acts has Paul educated in Jerusalem and a major persecutor of Christians in Judaea, but Paul tells us explicitly in his letters that even after his conversion and first visit to see James and Peter he was “unknown by face to the churches of Christ in Judaea” (Gal. 1.22) (in the Koine Greek: ἤμην δὲ ἀγνοούμενος τῷ προσώπῳ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Ἰουδαίας ταῖς ἐν Χριστῷ).
But Acts says that Paul was in Jerusalem “destroying the church entering house after house, dragging out men and women and delivering them to jail” (Acts 8.3).
Someone is lying.
Perhaps it is Paul, but more probably it is Acts: the author of Acts wants to make Paul the great hero of early Christianity and so invents an education for him in Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel and makes the narrative more dramatic by having Paul be a major persecutor who is miraculously converted to the faith.
You have left out Galatians 1:23:
“but only, they kept hearing, “He [Saul] who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” ” (or in Greek μονον δε ακουοντες ησαν οτι ο διωκων ημας ποτε νυν ευαγγελιζεται την πιστιν ην ποτε επορθει), this would then agree with Acts 8:3. Paul is simply telling the Galatians of his moving into ministry in Galatians 1, as briefly shown in verses 18-24:
“18. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.
19. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
20. (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.)
21. Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
22. I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ;
23. but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.”
24. And they were glorifying God because of me. ”
(or if you prefer Greek
18. επειτα μετα ετη τρια ανηλθον εις ιεροσολυμα ιστορησαι πετρον και επεμεινα προς αυτον ημερας δεκαπεντε
19. ετερον δε των αποστολων ουκ ειδον ει μη ιακωβον τον αδελφον του κυριου
20. α δε γραφω υμιν ιδου ενωπιον του θεου οτι ου ψευδομαι
21. επειτα ηλθον εις τα κλιματα της συριας και της κιλικιας
22. ημην δε αγνοουμενος τω προσωπω ταις εκκλησιαις της ιουδαιας ταις εν χριστω
23. μονον δε ακουοντες ησαν οτι ο διωκων ημας ποτε νυν ευαγγελιζεται την πιστιν ην ποτε επορθει
24. και εδοξαζον εν εμοι τον θεον)
The account in Galatians does not agree with Acts: it blatantly contradicts it.
(1) Acts: Paul is educated in Jerusalem, present at Stephen’s stoning and then Paul was in Jerusalem “destroying the church entering house after house, dragging out men and women and delivering them to jail” (Acts 8.3).
(2) Galatians: Pauls tells explicitly that even after his conversion and first visit to see James and Peter he was “unknown by face to the churches of Christ in Judaea” (Gal. 1.22).
—————-
It is very clear from your laughable comment above, Question, that you’re so deeply brainwashed by your Christian faith you are just going pretend there is no contradiction here.
No rational person is going to take you seriously, however.
If the churches were destroyed, as Acts 8:3 provides, then trivially they would not be “around” to know Saul/Paul by face, as referred to in Galatians.
That’s hopeless Question. Beyond hopeless.
Paul, having destroyed a bunch of churches in Judea then writes “I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ” meaning “because the ones who saw me I obliterated without a trace”. This is absurd. Aside from its transparent special pleading, show ones face is an idiom.
I was replying to Lord Keynes literal views of these passages in Acts and Galatians. If one holds to literal interpretation, instead of allowing for idioms, then the logic is valid.
So the question, in my thinking, is what is Lord Keynes view of interpretation? It appeared to be very literal, in this one instance, with regards to the passages under discussion. Hence, the argument presented.
I think there is no doubt Saul persecuted and converted, becoming Paul. Gamaliel etc I don’t know, but that Paul was originally a persecutor seems certain.
Yeah, but Ken B, from Paul’s own letters he clearly wasn’t persecuting them in Judaea: most probably it was up in Damascus or in other cities where Paul lived, because Paul was part of the Jewish Diaspora community.
Messianic belief in Jesus had spread to Jewish communities outside Judaea by this stage.
OK. But you know the double standards and distortions endemic to this blog. It’s not Paul being a persecutor you deny, but the accounts of where and when conflict in key ways.
LK, The Book of Acts is not “notorious for disagreeing with Paul’s letters”. Remember: The simplest answer is probably the best. I believe the passages you say disagree with one another in this case seem to disagree because you, the reader, are imposing too “tight” of a time frame on the sequence of events as they are written. If you would merely cease doing that I believe they would make much more sense.
2: New Testament Scholar N.T. Wright rejects this thinking.
Two youtube videos on his thinking with regards to the resurrection can be found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fki5wq48fpc and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXAc_x_egk4
Wright also writes, “To speak of the destruction of the body and the continuing existence, however blessed, of something else (call it a “soul” for the sake of argument) is not to speak of resurrection, but simply of death itself. Resurrection” is not simply death from another viewpoint; it is the reversal of death, its cancellation, the destruction of its power. That is what pagans denied, and what Daniel, 2 Maccabees, the Pharisees and arguably most first-century C.E. Jews affirmed, justifying their belief by reference to the creator God and this God’s passion for eventual justice[5].
The doctrine remained, however, quite imprecise and unfocused. Josephus describes it, confusingly, in various incompatible ways. The rabbis discuss what, precisely, it will mean and how God will do it. Furthermore, the idea could be used metaphorically, particularly for the restoration of Israel after the Exile, as in Ezekiel 37, where the revived dry bones represent the House of Israel.
The early Christian hope for bodily resurrection is clearly Jewish in origin, there being no possible pagan antecedent.” (http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Resurrection.htm) Further, articles from Wright can be found on http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Resurrection.htm and a full list of his scholarship on http://ntwrightpage.com/NTW_Publications.htm
This is the correct link for articles, sorry about the mistake:http://ntwrightpage.com/#lectures
Wright is unconvincing.
His book on the resurrection which I have read is unconvincing too, and repeats all the tired apologetic nonsense you’re also recycling.
The claim that no Jewish writers know of a resurrection involving transformation of people into heavenly bodies with no flesh and blood or resurrection into a spiritual heavenly existence is untrue, it is found in 1 Enoch 104 and Jubilees 23:22.
Is that a typo for Jubliees 22:22?
Jub. 23:31:
“And their bones shall rest in the earth, And their spirits shall have much joy, And they shall know that it is the Lord who executes judgment, And shows mercy to hundreds and thousands and to all that love Him.”
What were the Jewish writers of the 1st Century thinking and believing? Enoch and Jubilees are not even considered part of the Canon by almost all Jews. “It [Enoch] is not part of the biblical canon as used by Jews, apart from Beta Israel.” (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch ) and ” There is no official record of it in Pharisaic or Rabbinic sources, and it was among several books that were left out of the canon established by the Sanhedrin and rabbi Akiva ben Joseph in the late first century. Sub rosa, many of the traditions which Jubilees includes for the first time are echoed in later Jewish sources, including some 12th-century midrashim which may have had access to a Hebrew copy. The sole exception within Judaism are the Beta Israel Jews formerly of Ethiopia, who regard the Ge’ez text as canonical.[13]” (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilees#cite_note-13)
Where are your arguments to refute Wright? Clearly wright was aware of “spiritual” vs. “bodily” theories of resurrection.
The passage of Jub. 23:31 is not even contradicted by Jesus’ parable in Luke 16:22-31.
“22. “Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.
23. “In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.
24. “And he cried out and said, `Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’
25. “But Abraham said, `Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.
26. `And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’
27. “And he said, `Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house–
28. for I have five brothers–in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29. “But Abraham *said, `They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’
30. “But he said, `No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’
31. “But he said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’ ” ”
Clearly, Wright knew this passage and believed it not to refute his view of the resurrection. That there is physical death, but the soul continues to exist, and there will eventually be a physical resurrection.
“Enoch and Jubilees are not even considered part of the Canon by almost all Jews. “
So what? You claimed that the notion of resurrection was absent from any but Christian sources. Enoch and Jubliees are Jewish sources.
Ken, you wrote, “So what? You claimed that the notion of resurrection was absent from any but Christian sources. Enoch and Jubliees are Jewish sources.”
This is incorrect, as I clearly cited Wright, “The early Christian hope for bodily resurrection is clearly Jewish in origin, there being no possible pagan antecedent.” (http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Resurrection.htm) with regards to Lord Keynes views of Wright’s scholarship.
What were Jews in 1st century Palestine thinking and believing? Wrights scholarship involves this. Lord Keynes reply cited two non-Canon sources by most Jews. Apparently the only Jews to accept these books as being in the Canon are from Ethiopia.
“The Book of Jubilees, sometimes called Lesser Genesis (Leptogenesis), is an ancient Jewish religious work of 50 chapters, considered canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church as well as Bete Israel (Ethiopian Jews), where it is known as the Book of Division (Ge’ez: Mets’hafe Kufale). Jubilees is considered one of the pseudepigrapha by Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Churches.[1]
It was well known to Early Christians, as evidenced by the writings of Epiphanius, Justin Martyr, Origen, Diodorus of Tarsus, Isidore of Alexandria, Isidore of Seville, Eutychius of Alexandria, John Malalas, George Syncellus, and George Kedrenos. The text was also utilized by the community that originally collected the Dead Sea Scrolls.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilees
if it was used by the Dead Sea Scroll community, then that is strong evidence it was accepted by some groups in Judaea.
Fragments of Enoch are also found amongst Dead Sea Scrolls, so on that topic too Question is wrong.
And the issue here is: did some Jewish groups believe in a resurrection involving transformation of people into heavenly bodies with no flesh and blood or resurrection into a spiritual heavenly existence?
Yes, they did, and Paul and the early Christians did too.
Paul’s notion of the resurrection DOES come as a natural development within Judaism. That is the whole point.
If it was known widely known, and accepted, in Judea, in the first century, then Wright must have been aware of this and considered it in his scholarship and view of the resurrection.
Still left unanswered is argument as to why Wright’s scholarship is wrong?
As shown before, Luke 16 doe not contradict Jub. 23:31, hence Wright must consider the existence of a spiritual soul after death, but still comes to the conclusion of an expectation of an eventual physical resurrection.
If it was known widely known, and accepted, in Judea, in the first century, then Wright must have been aware of this and considered it in his scholarship and view of the resurrection.
Still left unanswered is an argument as to why Wright’s scholarship is wrong?
As shown before, Luke 16 does not contradict Jub. 23:31, hence Wright must consider the existence of a spiritual soul after death, but still comes to the conclusion of an expectation of an eventual physical resurrection.
“How could Christ have been seen by the 12 when Judas (supposedly) killed himself?”
Acts 1:
20. “For it is written in the book of Psalms, `LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT’; and, `LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.’
21. “Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us–
22. beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”
23. So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias.
24. And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen
25. to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”
26. And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
That is how the “12” could have seen him; Matthias was added as an apostle and the early church community would have considered him one of the “12” when Paul wrote his epistle.
And yet Acts 1 makes it clear that this selection of Matthias happened after the ascension of Jesus: which entails that — if you want to engage in this type of desperate harmonization — the “appearance to the 12” as described by Paul can only have been a visionary appearance: not the appearance of a walking, talking corpse.
Of course, a more plausible explanation is that the Judas story is just a later gospel fiction and Paul knew nothing of it because it never happened.
And we still have not a shred of convincing evidence in Paul that the “appearances” were anything but dreams or oral and visual hallucinations.
Acts does make clear Matthias was added to the Apostles after the ascension, however, verses 21 & 22 show that Matthias would have been a witness of the resurrection and ascension.
“21 …the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us–
22. beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”
LK, I’m going to have to make this quick so I will just respond briefly in the order you presented.
1) The simplest explanation is Judas was alive. The key to the answer is to understand that the passages in Matthew 27:1-8,11 describe the events in a time sequence relative to what happened to Judas, not in a time sequence relative to what happened to Jesus.
2) The Pentecost events and the appearance of Jesus to the 500 are two separate events. There is simply no justification for any other interpretation and no interpolation from another manuscript.
3) The Greek verb ophthe used in the NT is not used to describe immaterial spirit beings. Luke 24:39 makes it quite clear that Christ was resurrected physically was seen in this form, so direct reference from 1st Corinthians would not be necessary anyway.
The spiritual body referred to in 1st Corinthians 15:44-50 & 1 Peter 3:18 is translated as a supernatural, spirit-dominated body. Soma pneumatikos (spiritual body) refres to a body directed by the spirit, as opposed to one under the dominion of the flesh.
It is an indistputable fact that the Greek word for “body” (soma), when used of a person, always means physical body in the NT. There are no exceptions.
4) This is demonstrably false and patently absurd. For the sake of brevity, I refer the interested reader I would refer them to the book Jesus Under Fire. It is heavily footnoted and easy to understand.
5) This is also demonstrably false and patently false. I would again refer the reader to the aforementioned book for a long list of citations.
I hope this helps those who sincerely seek the truth.
Impossible to follow, sorry. Can you identify the actual points of contention? Numbered points in a long post like this are impossible.
Wow Ken! Looks like I have made a big mess somehow. I am responding to the very first post of LK’s at the top, point by point. Sorry…
Re your point 3. LK is arguing physical ressurrection, of the vile body, is an idea that came later. You cite Luke. Luke’s gospel is later than Paul. So your cite in no way refutes LK’s contention.
I say 12 tone music came after atonality, and you cite a 1950 s text book explaining the rules of dodecaphony. How does that refute me?.
Ken, if you re-read what I said I clearly cited 1st Corinthians 15:44-50 so LK’s claim is false.
Naw that’s circular. The contention is that soma p does refer to a vile body (Phillipians) but to something else, so your blanket assertion about soma just begs the question. Social intercourse. I don’t know Greek but in English that’s an appositive phrase.
Ken, let me make sure I understand this. You admit that you don’t know Greek, but you’re telling me that it cannot be correct? . I sourced it from 3 separate people, all of whom speak Koine Greek (one of whom happens to be my step-father). Would you be willing to concede that it is possible they are correct, and, by extension, Paul’s mention of it in 1st Corinthians 15:44-50 is correct?
I read Koine Greek and so do many scholars who read 1 Corinthians 15:44-50 and conclude (rightly) that Paul is not referring to a body of flesh and blood.
Yes, he is referring to a “body” in this passage but the substance of which the body is made is the fundamental point of the whole passage:
Τοῦτο δέ φημι, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομῆσαι οὐ δύναται, οὐδὲ ἡ φθορὰ τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν κληρονομεῖ. ἰδοὺ μυστήριον ὑμῖν λέγω• πάντες οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα, ἐν ἀτόμῳ, ἐν ῥιπῇ ὀφθαλμοῦ, ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ σάλπιγγι• σαλπίσει γάρ, καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἐγερθήσονται ἄφθαρτοι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀλλαγησόμεθα. δεῖ γὰρ τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀφθαρσίαν καὶ τὸ θνητὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν.
“I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery: we will not all fall asleep but we will all be changed – in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye – at the last trumpet: for a trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised imperishable and we will all be changed. For it is necessary for this perishable body to put on imperishability, and this mortal body to put on immortality.” (1 Cor. 15.50–53).
Paul says explicitly: ” flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god”.
The soma pneumatikos is not one of flesh and blood.
Yes Anonymous, I openly rely on the concensus of scholars who read the ancient languages and are familiar with all the texts. This is an area for boffins. And unless every translation I have ever seen is deliberately and consistently distorted it seems clear Paul does not mean our vile bodies. I have made this allusion several times because Paul uses the word, variously translated, in Phil.
Lord Keynes writes:
“I read Koine Greek and so do many scholars who read 1 Corinthians 15:44-50 and conclude (rightly) that Paul is not referring to a body of flesh and blood.”
This view is disputed by New Testament Scholar N.T. Wright. A 1:37 video clip to explain why is found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jNaVgyqUD8
If one desires a more substantial refutation of Lord Keynes view, you can read Wright’s article: Early Traditions and the Origins of Christianity ( http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm )
A “brief” excerpt compared to the whole is found posted below:
“But what sort of a body will this be? We may lump ahead for a moment:
What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and thus mortal body must put on immortality. When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body put on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled. “Death has been swallowed up m victory.” (l Cor. 15:50-54)
Here Paul states clearly and emphatically his belief in a body that is to be changed, not abandoned. The present physicality—in all its transience, its decay, and its subjection to weakness, sickness, and death—is not to go on forever, that is what Paul means by saying “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” The term “flesh” (sarx) is seldom if ever for Paul a merely neutral description of physicality; almost always it carries some hint both of the corruptibility and of the rebelliousness of present human existence. What is required for God’s future state of affairs is what we might call a “noncorruptible physicality”: the dead will be raised “imperishable” and we—that is, those who are left alive until the great day—will be “changed” (1 Cor. 15:52). As the parallel with 2 Corinthians 5 makes clear, Paul envisage the present physical body “putting on” the new body as a new mode of physicality over and above what we presently know. It is not the mere resuscitation of a corpse, coming back into the same mode of physicality it had before, but equally and emphatically it is not disembodiment. And if this is what Paul believes about the resurrection body of Christians, we may assume, since his argument works in both directions, that this was his view of the resurrection of Jesus as well.
In between the passages we have just briefly examined comes the most complex part of the chapter, verses, 35 to 49. Here, Paul speaks of the different kinds of physicality between which there exists both continuity and discontinuity. In verses 36 to 38, he uses the analogy of the seed and she plant: there is both continuity and discontinuity between the one and the other. The oak is, and is not, the same thing as the acorn. Then, in verses 39 to 41, he points out that there are different sorts of physicality appropriate for different kinds of creatures each enjoying its peculiar “glory” (doxa). These two points—the analogy of the seed, and the observation that there are different types of physicality—are the basis for the point he then makes in verses 42 to 49; the resurrection body is to the present body somewhat as the plant is to the seed, having a different mode of physicality, differing in its peculiar doxa. Mere specifically, the present body is psychikos (“natural,” KJV), the future resurrection body is pneumatikos (“spiritual,” KJV).
What does this last distinction mean? A good many people (including at least two well-known bishops) have suggested that Paul here refers to resurrection existence in terms of what we would have to call a “nonphysical” body, in other words, a life beyond the grave that left the grave full, not empty—a view that the NRSV’s mistranslation of psychikos in verses 44 and 46 as “physical” has doubtless encouraged them to hold. This, as is now regularly argued by a good many commentators, and almost as regularly admitted even by those who think Paul’s belief was false, is to allow into the argument a hellenistic worldview that is totally out of place in this most Jewish of chapters. Paul, remember is contrasting the present body, which is a psychikos, with the future body, which is a pneumatikos. Now, since psyche is regularly translated into English as “soul,” we might have assumed, on a strictly hellenistic basis, that Paul would mean that the present body, too, is nonphysical—a “soulish” body! Since that is clearly out of the question, we rightly cake both phrases to refer to an actual physical body, psychikos on the one hand—animated by psychē, “soul”—and pneumatikos on the other—animated by “spirit” (clearly, God’s Spirit). Having established his point, Paul in verses 44 to 49 is concerned to counteract the argument of those who were denying the resurrection: presumably they were saying that the “spiritual body” was created first, and then the “soulish body.” Paul insists that the order is the other way around; first the present “soulish” body and then the future Spiritual” one. The present body cannot be affirmed forever as it stands, but neither should it be dismissed as irrelevant. It is to be changed, transformed. “
Ken B, yes, in Phil. 3.21 Paul says clearly and explicitly that Christ at his second coming will “transform the body of our humiliation into the same form as his body of glory …” .
The Christians do not think that Jesus has a body of flesh and blood in heaven. That is just stupid.
He presumably is imagined as having a “body” of some different incorruptible substance, not of flesh.
Yes, that’s the passage. In the KJV the phrase is vile body.
1 Corinthians 15:44-50 does no such thing: it absolutely supports my reading.
N.T. Wright ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright ) rejects your “reading” as shown in the short video clip “What did Paul mean in 1 Corinthians 15 by a “spiritual body”? ”
found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jNaVgyqUD8
and Wright’s article “Early Traditions and the Origins of Christianity” is available here: http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm
Question, not trying to dissuade you from trying but, it’s obvious LK will reject Wright’s (or anyone else’s) work since it does not support LK’s desired outcome.
I reject Wright’s views because his arguments are
unconvincing, and for no other reason.
Take the claim that all Paul means by “flesh and blood” is “mortal and corruptible,” and not “made of flesh and blood”, because Jewish belief in the resurrection could only be of a body of flesh and blood.
It is true, the apocalypse of Daniel, Jubilees 23:31 and 1 Enoch 91-105 envisage a resurrection of the spirit or of a new spiritual body without flesh and blood.
The sectarian writings at Qumran seem to show belief in a life after death for the sprit (or nephesh) in heaven perhaps with a new kind of “spiritual” body, but not a resurrection of the flesh, as is shown by John J. Collins, 2007. “Conceptions of Afterlife in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in M. Labahn und M. Lang (eds.), Lebendige Hoffnung – ewiger Tod?!: Jenseitsvorstellungen im Hellenismus, Judentum und Christentum. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Leipzig. 103–125.
Anonymous
“Question, not trying to dissuade you from trying but, it’s obvious LK will reject Wright’s (or anyone else’s) work since it does not support LK’s desired outcome.”
Yes, this became clear as Lord Keynes “demanded” (my interpretation) an argument:
“If 500 people all at the same time really saw Jesus as a walking taking corpse and that was an early tradition, then somebody tell me why none of the gospels thought it was worthy of mentioning.”
I provided a reply using examples from the gospels of Luke and John, and I concluded, “If you change your “If 500 people all at the same time really saw Jesus …” to instead “If numerous people all at the same time really saw Jesus …” then clearly this is mentioned in at least one gospel.”
Lord Keynes reply:
“The passage does not need to refer to 500 for the early Christians to make up wild fantasies.”
Clearly this shows Lord Keynes, typically unstated, premise “early Christians make up wild fantasies”.
With this as a premise the arguments, provided by Lord Keynes, argue in a circle. However, one can point out to other readers that Lord Keynes views are disputed by other distinguished New Testament scholars.
(1) More desperate harmonization. According to Matthew 27:3-5,he committed suicide by hanging himself after throwing the 30 pieces of silver at the priests’ feet (Matthew 273-5) — which implies it was before the resurrection.
Yet Acts 1:18 says he bought a field with the money, in which he fell head first in such a way that he exploded (yuk).
So you do nothing here except raise further bizarre contradictions.
(2) No, Anonymous, you are just assuming later Christians could wildly invent new stories form older stories, when they clearly could: witness the way Jesus is made to enter Jerusalem on a donkey and a colt in Matthew.
The reference to the donkey and the colt in the Hebrew of Zechariah 9:9 is nothing but Hebrew poetic synonymous parallelism ( a type of literary tautology), and refers to only one animal.
Matthew has read the Greek Septuagint text of this and misinterpreted it to mean two animals.
So many gospel passages like this are just fabricated out of Old testament “proof texts” that Christians imagined were prophecies of Jesus.
(3) “The Greek verb ophthe used in the NT is not used to describe immaterial spirit beings.”
No, Anonymous, is REGULARLY used to described visions in the Septuagint and even in the NT. You are just ignorant.
E.g.,: Acts 16.9: “during the night a vision was seen by Paul” (ophthe + the dative).
Yes, soma means “body” of some kind, but it need not be a body or flesh and blood.
(4) and (5) not even sure what these refer to. Citing some Christian apologetic work does make an argument.
Correction:
“(2) No, Anonymous, you are just assuming later Christians could NOT wildly invent new stories from older stories”
Unfortunately, I cannot get my whole post posted all at once so I guess I’ll break it down into sections and address your post point-by-point.
In reference to you first concern the simplest answer is usually the best; Judas was still alive. You are reading too “tight” a time frame on the sequence of events relative to what happened to Judas. They are not described in a time sequence relative to what happened to Jesus. We are told what happened, not when.
Ah, well, it seems it just took a couple of hours to get posted. Please disregard the second comment.
Anon sorry but if I’m out running errands etc. I can’t approve posts. Only when I’m in front of a computer, so depending on when WordPress decides to jam you up, it might sit for a few hours.
Understood. Didn’t mean to seem impatient.
LK, I’ll be frank with you. You clearly have a predisposition to avoid anything that deals with the supernatural because it would destroy your worldview and force you to re-think what it is you believe you know and nothing I say or post will change that; I get that. That is your choice and I respect that.
For the interested reader I will leave this link. It is well worth the time it takes to read it. I simply don’t have the time to go through this day-in and day-out. Thanks! http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-bodily-resurrection-of-jesus
Here is Dr. Habernas’ lecture on dealing with the resurrection and speaks of the 1 Corinthians 15 passage given at UCSB. “The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars ” – Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M
Also why do the gospels never mention the appearance to James or the 500? This should set off alarm bells and show us that this passage has been altered by later Christians.
The 500 appearance does not appear most probably because it never happened and was a later fiction and insertion into the text after the Gospels were written.
The James appearance does not appear either because (1) it did not happen and was invented later or (2) just possibly because it was suppressed by the Gospel writers for sectarian reasons to lessen the importance of James who appears to have opposed to St Paul’s heretical gospel of justification by faith and the abolition of the Torah.
O ye of little faith…
Are you not aware that Luke wrote Acts?
Acts 1:
1. The first account I [Luke] composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles
So the fact that the author of the 3rd gospel was the author of acts means there could be no later interpolations into acts? How does that work?
“How does that work?” – that the same author would take the same care, of accurately reporting facts, as the author lays out in Luke 1:
1. In as much as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
(1) in the opening remarks in this video, Carrier disposes of the idea that we need to take this introduction seriously as any kind of evidence that what we have in Acts is history:
http://thoughtsphilosophyculture.blogspot.com/2014/03/richard-carrier-on-acts-as-fiction.html
(2) a good historian tells you who is. He tells you whether he knew the people he writes about. He tells you what sources he used. And what method he uses when his sources conflict or contradict — as, say, Arrian of Nicomedia does in his history of Alexander the Great Arrian was a real ancient historian and tells us all these things. His history of Alexander is rightly considered the best one we have from antiquity.
By contrast, the author of Acts does none of this. He is a religious sectarian with a theological and polemical agenda, also trying to defend his superstitious belief.
He is not a historian merely interested in what happened in the past.
I would reply that point 2) commits the “Historian’s Fallacy” defined as:
“Historian’s Fallacy Also Known as: Hindsight Fallacy Description: This fallacy, which is credited to David Hackett Fischer, occurs when it is assumed that people in the past viewed events with the same information or perspective as those analyzing these past events from a (relative) future.
LaBossiere, Michael (2012-07-17). 76 Fallacies (Kindle Locations 2845-2851). . Kindle Edition. ”
This “argument” applies the standards and ideas of how historians throughout history should conduct themselves from a 21st century perspective; specifically to a writer who had a primary profession, according to the biblical account, as a physician.
Were all historians as accurate as Arrian of Nicomedia? If all historians did not follow Arrian doe this make everything they write inaccurate?
As to point 1 I will repeat by previous rebuttal when shown Carrier.
Burke (2011) concludes:
“Current scholarly attitudes towards the historicity of Acts remain mixed, with extremist views expressed at both ends of the spectrum. However attitudes have generally become more positive since the publication of influential works by writers such as Hemer and Hengel, and historians of Rome have renewed their interest in the use of Acts as a valid source of information on the social, legal and political milieu of the empire in the first century. A number of objections to the historicity of specific events in Acts have now been dismissed conclusively, and a new consensus has emerged concerning the relationship of the ‘we’ passages to the question of authorship. ” from http://www.academia.edu/454431/Studies_In_The_Historicity_of_Acts
“Were all historians as accurate as Arrian of Nicomedia? If all historians did not follow Arrian doe this make everything they write inaccurate?”
In the case of Acts, we have no good reason to think it is highly accurate history, just because the author says so.
I repeat: the author of Acts is a religious sectarian with a theological and polemical agenda, also trying to defend his superstitious belief.
Another clear contradiction between Acts and Paul:
Acts has Paul go back to Jerusalem after he is converted in Damascus (Acts 9:23-26) but Paul tells us he went off to Arabia after his conversion
then back to Damascus and then **only after 3 years** did he go up to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:15-18).
Again, somebody is lying or mistaken.
Probably Acts.
Your reasoning:
“I repeat: the author of Acts is a religious sectarian with a theological and polemical agenda, also trying to defend his superstitious belief. ”
commits the genetic fallacy:
“A Genetic Fallacy is a line of “reasoning” in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself.
LaBossiere, Michael (2012-07-17). 76 Fallacies (Kindle Locations 2665-2666). . Kindle Edition. ”
Let’s look at the passages in Acts and Galatians. There is not necessarily a contradiction. Gal. 1:17 states, “I [Paul] went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.” Acts 9:23 states, “When many days had elapsed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him…” and then his disciples helped him escape and he came to Jerusalem. Gal. 1:18 “Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem …” So the question is how long was the “many days” mentioned in Acts 9:23? On basis of this reasoning it is at least plausible that there is no contradiction, and Paul met Cephas (Peter) and James in Jerusalem.
Acts 9:25-27
22. But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ.
23. When many days had elapsed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him,
24. but their plot became known to Saul. They were also watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death;
25. but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a large basket.
26. When he came to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple.
27. But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus.
Galatians 1:15-18
15. But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased
16. to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood,
17. nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
18. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.
Question, if many years elapsed between Paul’s conversion and his leaving Damascus and returning to Jerusalem, then Acts would say “after a few years” or “after several years” or “after 3 years”.
You are engaged in desperate and irrational harmonisation.
A plausible reason for the differences in wording between Galatians “three years” and Acts “many days” is that they were written by two different human authors in the autographs. Paul in the case of Galatians and Luke in regards to Acts.
How does anything he wrote make his writing proof against later interpolation?
LK: “They are inconsistent because one has been interpolated later. Someone else added that bit.”
Q: “That’s not possible. The author took care to say he was being careful. ”
Hmmmm. It looks to me like you are trying to strengthen LK’s case.
The burden of proof is upon those to show later interpolation. If someone says “I gave an accurate account”. It is up to someone else to prove it is false. The passage in Luke 1 is not considered absent from the autographs, along with much of Luke and Acts. As I have previously cited:
Burke (2011) concludes:
“Current scholarly attitudes towards the historicity of Acts remain mixed, with extremist views expressed at both ends of the spectrum. However attitudes have generally become more positive since the publication of influential works by writers such as Hemer and Hengel, and historians of Rome have renewed their interest in the use of Acts as a valid source of information on the social, legal and political milieu of the empire in the first century. A number of objections to the historicity of specific events in Acts have now been dismissed conclusively, and a new consensus has emerged concerning the relationship of the ‘we’ passages to the question of authorship. ” from http://www.academia.edu/454431/Studies_In_The_Historicity_of_Acts
1. That kind of historicity discussion does not include flaming heads.
2. Yes the burden of proof is on those claiming interpolation. I am not an expert but that burden has certainly been met for some manuscripts for some portions. I believe it has been met for some sections of Acts but won’t argue it as I do not know Acts well or the issues.
Note that believers show no reticence about claiming they KNOW the answer.
That Acts and the Gospel of Luke were written by the same person does not refute anything I said.
The statement about an “appearance” to 500 in **1 Corinthians** is probably a later interpolation: possibly it is just a crazy embellishment of the Pentecost story in Acts 2:1-4.
But the Pentecost story in Acts 2:1-13 is just a mass hysterical, ecstatic experience where a group of Christians claimed to see flames on each others’ heads. Maybe they “felt” Jesus’s presence. But nobody saw a walking talking corpse, or even had a vision of a human figure of Jesus.
If 500 people all at the same time really saw Jesus as a walking taking corpse and that was an early tradition, then somebody tell me why none of the gospels thought it was worthy of mentioning.
The exact number is not mentioned but more than the eleven disciples is shown in Luke’s gospel.
Luke 24:33-36
“33. And they got up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found gathered together the eleven and those who were with them,
34. saying, “The Lord has really risen and has appeared to Simon.”
35. They began to relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.
36. While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and *said to them, “Peace be to you.” ”
There is no number to given to “those who were with them”. It is just more than the apostles. Then the writer provides evidence that Jesus was physically alive in verses 42-43:
“42. They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish;
43. and He took it and ate it before them.”
One can also look in John 20:30-31
“30. Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
31. but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”
Here it depends on what the writer meant by “disciples” in verse 30. Only the apostles or does this include others? In Luke chapter 10 70 (or 72) are sent out, it does not call them disciples initially but after they return verse 23 says:
“23. Turning to the disciples, He said privately, “Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see,”
Not conclusive as to how many people disciples referred to; however, t it is clear from John 20:31 that the writer thought enough evidence existed to believe in Jesus and this was the purpose of the writing.
If you change your “If 500 people all at the same time really saw Jesus …” to instead “If numerous people all at the same time really saw Jesus …” then clearly this is mentioned in at least one gospel.
Quetsion,
The passage does not need to refer to 500 for the early Christians to make up wild fantasies.
I am doing the same thing, and as one who believes in evidence and argument feel some obligation to do so, but I am curious LK. Do you ever succeed with Believers like Bob or Question?
The best I ever hope for is to help unbiased readers see what folly gets peddled regularly by the believers.
Rarely. But you do make progress sometimes. I mean just getting them to recognise that there *are* blatant contradictions in the NT texts, and forcing them to explain them is a kind of progress.
E.g, Jesus supposedly declares all foods clean in Mark 7:1-23 (though admittedly this is a parenthetical interpretation by Mark), but in Matthew Jesus says nothing in the law will be abolished:
“For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Matthew 5:18.
———–
This is a blatant, glaring contradiction.
Indeed He is risen! Happy Easter!
Um, for goodness sake, it’s Easter. Why not wait till Monday to criticize people’s personally held religious beliefs?
Because the special exemption from criticism for religious beliefs is part of what we object to.
How far do you think we should go here? Would you say, for goodness sake, it’s Ramadan, don’t criticize Iran for stoning gay men until next month?
Ken B, I suspect John was being ironic, considering whom he was responding to.
I assume, as a relative newcomer, he hit the wrong reply button. Fetz still does with regularity.
Its okay John, I enjoy watching Ken and lK fight so passionately against something they are convinced does not exist.
Oh Gamble really. I know full well error, confusion, special pleading, name-calling, moral and intellectual blindness all exist.
Okay Ken,
Keep yelling at the non- existent.
Ken is yelling at the existent, as he pointed out.
And Ken isn’t yelling. Ken is generally mordant and sardonic. Those are detached and cool modes. You want yelling, rub Bob the wrong way.
The consensus at the conference this morning was he lives. It’s just settled science.
Wonderful article by Laurence M. Vance on raising taxes on the poor while giving the wealthy a tax cut. He has risen!
Taxes: Are the Poor Paying Their Fair Share?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/18040-taxes-are-the-poor-paying-their-fair-share
Hi Joe,
NOBODY pays their fare share of taxes. You know why? Because taxes lack economical calculation therefore can never be fair.
There is no fair method of taxation.
Do poor people pay enough? Considering they don’t have any money I am not sure what Vance or anybody else expects from them?
Taxes are a mess. Rather than wade into what is fair, I simply say all tax rates should be cut by 1/2.
Markets are the preferred method.
Incidentally, just so newcomers can know how much credibility “joe” has, here is what Laurence Vance actually says in the article:
The solution to this disparity is not to make “the poor” pay their “fair share.” The solution is to substantially reduce the tax burden of those who are paying the taxes now.
If you substantially reduced the tax rate paid by, say, the top 50%, without reducing the tax rate paid by the bottom 50%, you would end up with a situation in which the bottom 50% paid a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the top 50%.
(The same is true if you substantially reduced the tax rate paid by the top 40%, 30%, 20%, 10% or 1%)
http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2014/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america_in_2014.php#.U1Qi9eBy_FI
“If you substantially reduced the tax rate paid by, say, the top 50%, without reducing the tax rate paid by the bottom 50%”
Perhaps you only speak in Boldese.
Let’s try again:
The solution to this disparity is not to make “the poor” pay their “fair share.” The solution is to substantially reduce the tax burden of those who are paying the taxes now.
Last time I checked, there were poor people who paid taxes.
MF,
“The solution to this disparity is not to make “the poor” pay their “fair share.” The solution is to substantially reduce the tax burden of those who are paying the taxes now.”
His argument is that ‘the poor’ aren’t paying their fair share. His solution is to reduce the taxes paid by wealthier individuals to make things ‘fairer’.
One of the many problems with his analysis is that he only focuses on the federal income tax. This is mainly paid by wealthier people overall, but it serves to balance out the rest of the tax system, which is barely ‘progressive’ overall. If you substantially reduced the federal income tax rate that would make the tax system ‘regressive’ overall.
He also ignores all the other issues, such as lower effective tax rates for investors, tax arbitrage etc.
And he ignores the real elephant in the room, which is the large increases in wealth and income inequality. If wealth and income were more equally distributed, then the amount of taxes paid (not the tax rate) would also be more equally distributed (this would of course be true even with a flat tax rate).
Phil wrote:”If wealth and income were more equally distributed, then the amount of taxes paid (not the tax rate) would also be more equally distributed (this would of course be true even with a flat tax rate).”
Other than tax policy, regulation, crony, fraud and other market deformations, income is distributed equal.
Income is distributed equal to your ability to serve fellow mankind…
“Income is distributed equal to your ability to serve fellow mankind”
I find it amazing that anyone would be naive enough to actually believe that.
Okay Phillipe,
You wrote”I find it amazing that anyone would be naive enough to actually believe that.”
If wealth and income are not distributed based on the ability to serve your fellow man, then how is income and wealth distributed? You do have to recognize I said income and wealth is not distributed like this 100% of the time. Tax policy, regulation, crony, fraud and other market deformations tend to destroy wealth based on serving your fellow man.
Philippe please correct my naïve ways.
Excellent. then reduce the taxes for the poor even more.
And he ignores the real elephant in the room, which is the large increases in wealth and income inequality.
Wealth and income inequality, per se, is not a problem at all.
If you supply what people want, then people are going to patron your business. If you don’t, then they won’t.
You’re not supposed to make a similar amount of income, or have the same amount of wealth, as someone else simply because you’re human or because you are “similarly situated” as someone else.
Your income and wealth, to the extent they are supplied by trading, is dependent on other people’s perception of what you can supply them (and vice versa), unless the government is providing you favors:
The Birth of the Austrian School | Joseph T. Salerno
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZRZKX5zAD4
“Wealth and income inequality, per se, is not a problem at all.”
I don’t think that wealth and income inequality is a problem in itself. I think extreme inequality can be a problem. Also it depends on what causes the difference in wealth and income.
“unless the government is providing you favors”
it’s naive and pretty ridiculous to blame all unearned differences in wealth and income on ‘the government’.
Also, if you argue that government has been used to unjustly create or exacerbate wealth and income inequality, or to unjustly benefit certain groups, it doesn’t follow that therefore there should be (or indeed could be) no government.
Furthermore, if wealth and income has been unjustly distributed in the past, this will effect how it is distributed in the present and the future. It will affect market processes and outcomes, for example.
I think extreme inequality can be a problem.
There’s no such thing as “too much wealth”. The problems only come from the government preventing competition by imposing anti-trust laws, regulations, minimum wages, etc.
… it doesn’t follow that therefore there should be (or indeed could be) no government.
Right. I’m not anti-government.
But the only form of legitimate government is one which is voluntarily and individually agreed to, and from which each individual may individually secede.
Furthermore, if wealth and income has been unjustly distributed in the past, this will effect how it is distributed in the present and the future.
True. But since finding each and every criminal to make restitution to every victim is impossible, any attempt by government – or at least a state government – to justly redistribute unjustly earned wealth would have to be arbitrary, and therefore net destructive.
This is also complicated by the fact that government regulations, themselves, unjustly redistribute wealth. The very act of trying to make wealth distribution more equal requires cronyism:
Anti-Trust and Monopoly (with Ron Paul)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C4gRRk2i-M
Only a free market can take unjustly earned wealth and redistribute it justly. For example, if the government is propping up certain corporations, then to take away that protection would force the corporation to better serve consumers (“better” as defined by the paying consumers, of course).
“There’s no such thing as “too much wealth”.”
I didn’t say there is. I said I think extreme wealth and income inequality can be a problem. It depends on the circumstances however.
“There’s no such thing as “too much wealth”.”
I didn’t say there is. I said I think extreme wealth and income inequality can be a problem. It depends on the circumstances though.
Phil I think you missed an important variable.
Slash government spending.
In some cases wealthy people also pay a lower effective tax rate than people with less wealth and lower incomes, as they receive most of their income through dividends and capital gains rather than wages.
then there are issues such as tax avoidance and evasion, and tax arbitrage.
The real problem is the concentration of wealth, which is actually protected by high income taxes, let me explain. According to the Federal Reserve, the top 20% of the population controls 85% of the wealth. This same group earns only 47% (2008) of the income. Obviously the remaining 80% of the population earns 53% of the income while controlling only 15% of the wealth. As a measure of productivity of wealth, the bottom 80% is six times more productive. To clarify; Bill Gates, a real rich guy, a few years ago paid $19 million income tax on $59 million of earnings but at the same times had a net worth of $5.8 BILLION. He paid .03 percent of his net worth in income tax. (I saw someplace he was worth 80 billion today?) Theresa Heinz Kerry in 2004 paid $660,000 in income tax on a net worth of $200 million or .3 percent. I am a Bitter Clinger who owns his own home and has a 401k and last year I paid 3% of my net worth in income taxes. My daughter and her husband, who are just starting out, paid a stunning 30% of their net worth in income taxes and my son in LA is underwater and has a negative net worth. The question is who should pay to support the status quo? Since my son has nothing why should he be forced to pay anything? For the last hundred years the government has tinkered with the tax rates in the income tax to get the wealthy to pay more but as I have pointed it just can’t be done. When you raise rates on high-income earners you essentially destroy the ability for people to move from class to class. Both the Tea Party and OWS see the problem but because they cannot discriminate between income (actually productivity) and wealth are unable to see any feasible solutions. Let us do a quick calculation of what the wealth tax to replace the income tax and corporate tax would be. If all wealth (based upon the Federal Reserve’s 2008 estimate) were taxed, the rate would be 1.2%; amazingly similar to property taxes I pay. But let us say since 95% of the population has assets (home and 401K) less than half a million dollars you only tax above the half million. Then the rate has to be 1.5% per year. Less than the management fees on many mutual funds. If you are allowed to deduct a million dollars (my preferred) the tax rate would only have to be 1.7% and only paid by the hated 1%. If a corporation’s stock (even if owned by people with net worth less than a million) on average is worth more than the stockholder equity and the good will of the corporation, then the corporation would not have to pay any taxes. People who “forget” to declare their assets would be subject to the forfeiting of the asset plus a fine of five times the value of the asset; i.e. if the IRS finds a million dollar account in Morocco, they say “Who is paying the wealth tax on this?” If no one steps up, they take it. If in the future they find out who owned it (and no wealth tax had been paid), they fine them five million dollars. I read where someone asked Bruce Bartlett about this concept and he said, as a paid shill of the establishment banksters, that assets are too hard to track. What a bunch of crap, the IRS tracks the “flows” of money, you don’t think they can’t track the money? Good Luck Guys, Happy Easter.
Hey Bitter,
Tax policy does make it nearly impossible to break through.
If you file honestly, most of your wealth goes to the guv when it should really be going is establishing some security. Pay off your mortgage, school loans, etc. Set the ground work for some really powerful entrepreneurship..
I have a small business but it is not the correct timing to go huge. I am still trying to build up/recover from a child hood of real poverty. No more gubement cheese for me.
Instead of allowing me to get my feet under me, the Feds come in a snatch it before I can use it.
Sure they will let me keep it ONLY if I dump it all back into my business. Then I have a bunch of idle assets that eventually become a liability.
Yes tax policy is straight from hell.
I would argue that taxing income is more stupid than taxing wealth. When you tax income you are directly discouraging people from working at all. That must surely be the worst thing to do to an economy, discourage anyone from working.
Tel you make a great point. Income is NOT wealth. A persons liability’s may far exceed income. So you really should not tax this income.
American tax code can easily tax a persons income at 39%, all the while this person and zero wealth, probably debt.
Income tax is slavery. Lincoln was a joke.
There is some logic behind a wealth tax. Government is a protection racket, they (ideally) protect:
* your life
* your property
People with more assets are proportionally getting more service from government protection (i.e. they have more to lose). It also automatically obeys Willie Sutton’s law which is a necessary part of all taxation.
A lot of wealth in today’s society is difficult to value because it doesn’t change hands regularly. If you think of a company like Apple, what are their Patents and Copyrights worth? Very difficult to put a dollar figure on it. However the shares of Apple do trade so it would be quite easy to tax the shareholders based on the current market capitalisation.
Of course valuation of land and buildings is reasonably well understood so that’s no problem.
Things like Bitcoin might be more of a problem, but since you are buying government protection, just say that Bitcoin is not taxed and it also gets no protection. This works for anything too difficult, or too hidden to tax. This means you cannot go to court and make a claim about any Bitcoin transaction, the court just terminates the case as soon as you bring up an asset class that isn’t covered by tax.
Gold bars would have to be individually identified somehow and declared for tax purposes. If you have undeclared bars then you can’t claim insurance, nor will the police take an interest when they are stolen, etc.
Begs the question. Does government protect property or is it a threat?
I think both. One’s property is, on average, certainly safer in Somaliland than in Somalia, but it may be just as safe in Somalia as in Eritrea, Venezuela, or regime-held Syria.
It’s a protection racket, I already said that.
The question comes down to whether it runs a good quality efficient protection racket, or a clumsy disorganised and wasteful protection racket.
By the way, I think the best idea with a wealth tax is that the rate be the same for everyone top to bottom. Silly “progressive” tax systems are designed to create class warfare and encourage one group of people to believe they can vote for wealth transfer from another group of people. Generally a recipe for disaster.
There’s a logic in not bothering to tax very small wealth where the cost of collection is higher than the tax you collect.
People voting for higher tax should themselves be facing the outcome of their own decisions.
“Government is a protection racket”
According to the US’s founding document, it’s supposed to be a bit more than that:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
You still reading those old notes?
You don’t think anyone in your government still looks at them.
… promote the general Welfare …
The Federalist No. 41
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; …
…
For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity …
Obviously there’s some disagreement regarding the use of the term ‘general welfare’. I see you quote Alexander Hamilton below. Here’s his view on the subject:
“A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority “To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare” with no other qualifications than that “all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that “no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.” These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and “general Welfare.” The terms “general Welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou’d have been restricted within narrower limits than the “General Welfare” and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.
The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this–That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.”
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s21.html
This (from James Madison)…:
For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?
… certainly contradicts this (from Alexander Hamilton):
The terms “general Welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded;
And Tom Woods has noted that Hamilton said one thing when he was trying to get the Constitution ratified, but then said another, afterward.
So, I understand Hamilton to be a statist who WAS actually trying to socialize the colonies, but for the benefit of the mercantilists.
Here’s a video about Hamilton which I think will make you shudder, since I believe you are, at least in principle, against cronyism:
Alexander Hamilton: The Bad Guy Everyone Loves
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCeqbkCDQ80
“I understand Hamilton to be a statist who WAS actually trying to socialize the colonies”
So why do you quote Hamilton below, in support of your statement that “The point was not to make the states more socialist” ?
Your definition of ‘socialism’ seems to be any system which has a state which does stuff.
Government does not need a constitution to grant themselves infinite scope, size and influence as this is their natural progressions.
Why the Constitution as you interpret? Not needed. Redundant. Power begets power.
The only reason to have a constitution is to limit size scope and power. All powerful governments don’t need no stinking paper…
“The only reason to have a constitution is to limit size scope and power.”
That’s not correct. Constitutions create or grant legal powers.
guest,
I listened to some of the Tom Woods/ Tom DiLorenzo video you linked to, and responded at the bottom of this page.
Philippe,
For next time. http://www.amazon.com/Swallow-Antinauseant-VOMITING-DIZZINESS-SICKNESS/dp/B009ZYJG9S/ref=sr_1_1?s=hpc&ie=UTF8&qid=1398101567&sr=1-1&keywords=gravol
Philippe wrote:”
That’s not correct. Constitutions create or grant legal powers.
Government uses force to self designate power. Constitutions are written in attempt to temper the inherent, nature of government.
“Government uses force to self designate power. Constitutions are written in attempt to temper the inherent, nature of government.”
The US federal government was legally created with the Constitution, which created its legal powers.
… form a more perfect Union …
Key word “more perfect”, as a Union was already in existence at the time.
The Constitution was intended to form a more perfect Union AS COMPARED TO the Union that existed under the Articles of Confederation.
The point was not to make the states more socialist:
The Federalist No. 32
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa32.htm
An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.
Happy Easter Bob!
Question for Question: Are you Anonymous?
No
guest,
I listened to a few minutes of the Tom Woods/ Tom DiLorenzo conversation, but there were so many falsehoods and half-truths coming out of DiLorenzo’s mouth that after a while I just had to stop listening.
I decided to deal with one falsehood in particular which caught my attention. I don’t particularly want to spend more time dealing with all the others, as there were so many:
At 4:40, Tom Woods says: “Can you explain why Hamilton or anybody else would view the national debt as a, quote, “national blessing”?
Tom DiLorenzo replies: … “Hamilton understood that the debt would be owned by the wealthier people of the country, and he very explicitly said, in a very Machiavellian way, that if the wealthier people of the country owned the debt, they would become a political force for bigger government and higher taxes forever, because they would want to make sure that there was enough money in the Treasury always to pay off their bonds, and so he was very Machiavellian about that. He didn’t think, he didn’t say that the public debt would be good for the country, be good for the consumer, good for the taxpayer; he said it would be good for growing the government far beyond what the constitution would allow it to be”
Now either DiLorenzo is completely ignorant and an incompetent historian, or else he is simply lying. There is no other possible explanation for this statement by him.
In his Report on Manufactures (1791), Hamilton explains very clearly why he thinks the public debt was, and would be, beneficial for the country as a whole.
On page 10 he discusses the issue of an inadequate supply of capital, which was needed to finance the development of manufactures (i.e. industry and commerce):
“The supposed want of Capital for the prosecution of manufactures in the United States is the most indefinite of the objections which are usually opposed to it….
“it is manifest that our immense tracts of land occupied and unoccupied are capable of giving employment to more capital than is actually bestowed upon them. It is certain, that the United States offer a vast field for the advantageous employment of Capital; but it does not follow, that there will not be found, in one way or another, a sufficient fund for the successful prosecution of any species of industry which is likely to prove truly beneficial.
The following considerations are of a nature to remove all inquietude on the score of want of Capital.”
He then goes on to describe different ways in which the supply of capital could be increased. These include the further development of banking, and borrowing capital from abroad:
“The introduction of Banks, as has been shewn on another occasion has a powerful tendency to extend the active Capital of a Country. Experience of the Utility of these Institutions is multiplying them in the United States. It is probable that they will be established wherever they can exist with advantage; and wherever, they can be supported, if administered with prudence, they will add new energies to all pecuniary operations. The aid of foreign Capital may safely, and, with considerable latitude be taken into calculation. Its instrumentality has been long experienced in our external commerce; and it has begun to be felt in various other modes. Not only our funds, but our Agriculture and other internal improvements have been animated by it. It has already in a few instances extended even to our manufactures.”
Then explains how the US can develop another source of domestic capital, to finance the development of industry and commerce. This other source of domestic capital is the public debt:
“But while there are Circumstances sufficiently strong to authorise a considerable degree of reliance on the aid of foreign Capital towards the attainment of the object in view, it is satisfactory to have good grounds of assurance, that there are domestic resources of themselves adequate to it. It happens, that there is a species of Capital actually existing within the United States, which relieves from all inquietude on the score of want of Capital — This is the funded Debt [the public debt]. The effect of a funded debt, as a species of Capital, has been Noticed upon a former Occasion; but a more particular elucidation of the point seems to be required by the stress which is here laid upon it. This shall accordingly be attempted.”
He then explains how the public debt can serve as capital, to finance development:
“Public Funds answer the purpose of Capital, from the estimation in which they are usually held by Monied men; and consequently from the Ease and dispatch with which they can be turned into money. This capacity of prompt convertibility into money causes a transfer of stock to be in a great number of cases equivalent to a payment in coin. And where it does not happen to suit the party who is to receive, to accept a transfer of Stock, the party who is to pay, is never at a loss to find elsewhere a purchaser of his Stock, who will furnish him in lieu of it, with the Coin of which he stands in need. Hence in a sound and settled state of the public funds, a man possessed of a sum in them can embrace any scheme of business, which offers, with as much confidence as if he were possessed of an equal sum in Coin. This operation of public funds as capital is too obvious to be denied.”
“There are however some differences in the ultimate operation of the part of the debt, which is purchased by foreigners, and that which remains in the hands of citizens. But the general effect in each case, though in different degrees, is to add to the active capital of the Country.
He then explains this in more detail, with reference to the experience of Great Britain:
“The sum of the debt in circulation is continually at the Command, of any useful enterprise — the coin itself which circulates it, is never more than momentarily suspended from its ordinary functions. It experiences an incessant and rapid flux and reflux to and from the Channels of industry to those of speculations in the funds. There are strong circumstances in confirmation of this Theory. The force of Monied Capital which has been displayed in Great Britain, and the height to which every species of industry has grown up under it, defy a solution from the quantity of coin which that kingdom has ever possessed. Accordingly it has been Coeval with its funding system, the prevailing opinion of the men of business, and of the generality of the most sagacious theorists of that country, that the operation of the public funds as capital has contributed to the effect in question. Among
ourselves appearances thus far favour the same Conclusion.
Then he elaborates on the difference between, and relationship between, real and financial capital:
“In the question under discussion, it is important to distinguish between an absolute increase of Capital, or an accession of real wealth, and an artificial increase of Capital, as an engine of business, or as an instrument of industry and Commerce. In the first sense, a funded debt has no pretensions to being deemed an increase of Capital; in the last, it has pretensions which are not easy to be controverted. Of a similar nature is bank credit and in an inferior degree, every species of private credit. But though a funded debt is not in the first instance, an absolute increase of Capital, or an augmentation of real wealth; yet by serving as a New power in the operation of industry, it has within certain bounds a tendency to increase the real wealth of a Community, in like manner as money borrowed by a thrifty farmer, to be laid out in the improvement of his farm may, in the end, add to his Stock of real riches.”
He then discusses the potential problems of excessive debt, before concluding:
“there appears to be satisfactory ground for a belief, that the public funds operate as a resource of capital to the Citizens of the United States, and, if they are a resource at all, it is an extensive one….”
So DiLorenzo is simply wrong. Hamilton did not support public debt for some stupid and pointless “Machiavellian” reason. His argument is logical and reasonable. He argued that the public debt would serve as financial capital which would enable the development of real capital, in the form of industry, agriculture, and commerce, thereby increasing the real wealth and wellbeing of the citizens of the United States.
http://www.constitution.org/ah/rpt_manufactures.pdf
Not just DiLorenzo. Woods’s question is a put-up job. But even I know about Hamilton’s arguments for assuming the debt. This is not arcane stuff, it’s just about the most well known fact about Hamilton after the duel. So Woods, who has a PhD from Princeton I believe knows this.
the ignorance and dishonesty of some of these people is breathtaking.
Yep. I am routinely abused here for pointing out even the most blatant examples. The word of chois is “troll” but Bob also like “liar”, “pontificating”, and a few others.Several of the sane commenters who used to be pretty regular are now infrequent visitors, I expect partly becuase of but also contributing to the low standards.
Philippe wrote:
the ignorance and dishonesty of some of these people is breathtaking”
Phil we get it, you are a collectivist who thinks the only way, is a central command/control economy and society.
How about the Hamilton stuff?
I suppose you think Alexander Hamilton was a “collectivist” who wanted a “central command/control economy and society”.
I bet you believe every single ignorant and dishonest word spouted by pretend-academic clowns like DiLorenzo, don’t you.
Booo Hamilton!
First, you can be our Hamiltonian Devil’s Advocate.
Second, it indeed seems, from the arguments offered here, that Hamilton was a True Believer, rather than a Machiavellian.
But, third, he is definitely, whether he knows it or not, advocating cronyism – and in fact it seems like he was almost in a place to “get it”.
He says that the Public Debt is not real capital, yet he senses a power in it to “activ[ate] capital” (Keynesian “Circular Flow” / “Aggregate Demand”).
Well, when you have the government stealing wealth from people to stimulate certain businesses, of course that’s going to be a “New power in the operation of industry” – crony power.
As to the “thrifty farmer” allegory, borrowing from someone who is voluntarily lending his own capital is very different from borrowing someone who only has the capital to lend because he steals it.
The effects of the latter are malinvested resources, since they are based on coercion. Coercion being unsustainable, of course these investments are going to result in a crash.
This is the Austrian analysis of every crash; that they are due to the government doing the kind of stuff that Hamilton advocated.
Then you agree Phil has shown what DiLorenzo says, not as a by the by but as his main claim, repeated, is a crock?
It certainly seems that way.
“He says that the Public Debt is not real capital”
“Real capital” is things like buildings, vehicles, factories, machines, tools, durable goods, etc.
Financial capital is assets like money and bonds.
Hamilton explains that the public debt is an addition to the stock of financial capital, which can finance the creation of real capital, thereby increasing real wealth.
Public debt will finance many twiddling thumbs and feet on desk.
Prosperity for all…
you don’t appear to understand the point.
Public debt is an addition to the stock of privately-held capital, which can be used to finance private investment and commerce.
You don’t understand all the graft, largess and waste that comes along with public debt, all government revenue for that matter.
Government exists and it spends money on things. It can either match that spending dollar-for-dollar with taxes, or it can tax less than it spends, in which case it runs a deficit and issues debt.
This is true whether it spends a lot or a little.
Hamilton’s argument is very clear really. Given that the government exists and that it spends money, It’s a good idea for it to issue some debt as this debt is an addition to the financial capital held by the private sector. This means the private sector has more financial resources with which to finance private investment. In other words, it is not a good idea to eliminate all public debt and constantly run a balanced budget, as this removes private sector financial wealth.
As Hamilton explained in the Report on Manufactures, and also in the Report on Public Credit, trusted public debt is essentially as good as money, and serves much the same purpose for the private sector.
You believe, out of pure prejudice, that all government spending is inherently and necessarily wasteful, bad and pointless. That prejudiced belief is not really relevant to the argument that *given* the government exists, some public debt is better than no public debt.
Hi Phillipe,
IS ther eless capital or more capital because of the debt?
If the debt is used for things that people value and use, then I would ay there I more capital. On the other hand, if the debt is used for things people do not value or use, then I would say there is less capital.
Additionally you must somehow calculate how much extra government spending cost, when compared to private investment. Government has no profit motive and the people bidding the contracts usually live elsewhere and have no real financial interest. They see the taxpayer as a limitless source of revenue therefore thrift is irrelevant. Bottom line, government spending is expensive and not always they best value. 600 dollar toilets come to mind.
To automatically correlate public debt with increased private capital is false logic and circular.
think of it this way:
1. government bonds are a form of money which earns interest.
2. When the government issues bonds, the amount of ‘money’ held by the private sector increases.
3. The private sector now has more money to spend on investment.
“he is definitely, whether he knows it or not, advocating cronyism”
Cronyism is not just “government spending”. Cronyism is a word with a specific meaning. It doesn’t mean whatever you want it to mean. Hamilton was not advocating cronyism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism
“He says that the Public Debt is not real capital, yet he senses a power in it to “activ[ate] capital” (Keynesian “Circular Flow” / “Aggregate Demand”).”
The public debt is an addition to the *stock* of financial capital held by the private sector.
This increase in the stock of financial capital may result in greater investment and demand, but Hamilton is not making a proto-Keynesian argument about the ‘circular flow’ of spending.
“stealing wealth”
I suppose you are referring to taxation. Taxation is not theft, it is a legal obligation, similar to a fee, membership dues, or rent. If you believe taxation is theft you cannot claim to support the Constitution, as it explicitly gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes. Hamilton explains that the amount of tax required to service the debt is far smaller than the net addition to capital which the debt represents.
“crony power”
Government spending is not the same thing as cronyism. Encouraging the development of certain forms of industry is not cronyism.
“borrowing from someone who is voluntarily lending his own capital is very different from borrowing someone who only has the capital to lend because he steals it”
Hamilton was not advocating forcing people to buy government bonds, He was advocating selling government bonds to willing buyers. There is no difference in that respect with voluntarily purchased private bonds.
“The effects of the latter are malinvested resources, since they are based on coercion.”
I assume by coercion you are referring to taxation. Taxation does not necessarily lead the private sector to make bad investments (“malinvestments”).
“Coercion being unsustainable, of course these investments are going to result in a crash.”
I assume by coercion you are referring to taxation. Taxation is not unsustainable. Taxation is not the cause of economic crashes.
“This is the Austrian analysis of every crash”
The austrian theory of crashes is that the banking system (including the central bank and commercial banks), by extending credit, lowers nominal interest rates below an imaginary natural real rate of interest. This supposedly inevitably leads to unsustainable investments because entrepreneurs get confused. The theory is riddled with holes.