Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Gary]

I also amen'd that particular post for the reasons he stated. Your arguments have historical issues, only some of which I can see, but enough to think it's "Historically impossible". Maybe theoretically possible, to a limited extent (inasmuch as you're explaining a limited set of the evidence only), but all things considered, still to be dismissed.

You could make a hobby out of composing alternate Resurrection theses and publishing them somewhere. They'd make a fun read once in a while :P

And every one of them is more probable in the world view of the overwhelming majority of the world's non-Christians, non-theists and theists, than your supernatural explanation. You just can't see it because you are so heavily indoctrinated.

[Gary]

I don't recall giving my opinion either which way as to whether or not there is a possibility of natural explanation for the resurrection.

I did state why I believe miracles can and do occur (my sister being healed), and I pointed out that your "just so" story had a rather large assumption in it that doesn't line up with the historical information we have.


For the record, I do agree mostly with Adrift, but with a slight difference: under the heading of "anything is possible" I agree there could be a naturalistic explanation. However, based on the historical information we do have, the naturalistic explanation is so incredibly unlikely I would term it an absurdity. Based on the evidence, the only logical, rational conclusion is that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead.

And to say that this conclusion is extreme and on the fringe of Christianity means you don't have a clue about Christianity.
The only fundamentalist thing about it is that it is a foundational belief to being a Christian.

If you believe that a natural explanation for the early Christian belief is possible, even though you find it highly improbable (almost absurd), you are not a fundamentalist, at least on this issue. Only someone who says it is "impossible" is a fundamentalist.

I included you in my comment because you "amen'd" Adrift's comment.

[Gary]

Briefly:

1. Christian prayer - not all types of it, only prayers asking God for certain things - is not a "dodge" for getting what one wants. All Christian prayer - adoration, confession, thanksgiving, supplication - is a means of growing in knowledge and love of God, of appreciation of God.

2. "Yes" is one answer to prayer. There are others, including "No", "Not yet", "Not in the sense you ask for".

3. God is totally free to "answer" prayer as He wills.

4. What we may want, is nowhere near as important as what God wants from us, and for us.

5. Our requests should always be made through and for Our Lord Jesus Christ - not without reference to Him.

6. Christians do not belong to themselves - we are meant to be slaves of Christ, and dependent entirely on His Providence and Faithfulness.

7. All creation, without the least exception, is ruled by the Providence of God - Planck lengths to galaxies, angels to atoms, whatever exists and is not God is completely ruled by God. So there are no co-incidences. No entity, however insignificant or God-free it may seem, is outside the scope of Divine Providence.

8. If by being sick we can glorify God, more than by being well, so much the better. Health is good only in so far as it does not keep us from God. No evil is fit to be called evil, if it does not separate us from God. The only evil worthy of the name is sin, for that, and nothing else, separates us from God. Whatever brings us to God, keeps us with Him, and stops us straying from Him, is good - whatever draws us away from Him, keeps us from Him, and stops us returning to Him, is bad.

9. One of the difficulties of this debate, is that the Christian standard of what is valuable, is not the "good pagan" standard of values. A further problem: there is ground on which they co-incide. A third: this difference in standards is easily over-looked. A fourth: the "good pagan" is more Christian than he realises - and the Christian is more "good pagan" than he realises.

I think that a more likely explanation for the randomness of answered prayer for healing is this: coincidence.

[Gary]

I don't recall giving my opinion either which way as to whether or not there is a possibility of natural explanation for the resurrection.

I did state why I believe miracles can and do occur (my sister being healed), and I pointed out that your "just so" story had a rather large assumption in it that doesn't line up with the historical information we have.


For the record, I do agree mostly with Adrift, but with a slight difference: under the heading of "anything is possible" I agree there could be a naturalistic explanation. However, based on the historical information we do have, the naturalistic explanation is so incredibly unlikely I would term it an absurdity. Based on the evidence, the only logical, rational conclusion is that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead.

And to say that this conclusion is extreme and on the fringe of Christianity means you don't have a clue about Christianity.
The only fundamentalist thing about it is that it is a foundational belief to being a Christian.

There are many people who call themselves Christian who do not believe in a literal, bodily resurrection. I have found that many of these people are more Christ-like than those who believe in the literal version.

[Gary]

[14] And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. [15] We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. [16] For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. [17] And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. [18] Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. [19] If in Christ we have hope(1) in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Footnotes

(1) 15:19 Or *None*we have hoped


(1 Corinthians 15:14-19 ESV)

Sorry to break the news to you, but Jesus is dead...just like all the other billions of human beings who have lived and died since the beginning of the human species. Let's honor Jesus as a great man, a great humanitarian; let's put an end to the dangerous, superstitious legends that try to turn him into a supernatural being.

[Bisto]

Let's tackle another angle for variety's sake. It'll be fun.

You speak of making up the "Jesus story/Legend" like it was a trivial, small thing. But would your deluded, "telephone-gamer", mostly unrelated believing communities have the moral and creative genius to invent or develop a morally perfect, all-powerful-yet-un-corrupted, self-giving-since-before-birth, unparalleled character so unlike every other historical and fictional person ever written about, and agree this much in every portrayal of him they came to compose -- all based on an otherwise flawed, normal human being?

Basically it's saying: since you say this happened, and you say this is more probable (in part because the Resurrection claims a once-in-history event): are there any parallels to this? Why should we think the literary composition of Jesus' character isn't incredible on its own? What of the possibility he truly was thus and his life was that way (an outrageous claim for any common human being)?

The argument I'm summarizing very basically is found here: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archive...id=27-03-035-f (interesting read). (Yes, I read it following links in Nick's latest DW post .)

Add it to the unlikelihood of your fantasies :-)

[Gary]

Let's tackle another angle for variety's sake. It'll be fun.

You speak of making up the "Jesus story/Legend" like it was a trivial, small thing. But would your deluded, "telephone-gamer", mostly unrelated believing communities have the moral and creative genius to invent or develop a morally perfect, all-powerful-yet-un-corrupted, self-giving-since-before-birth, unparalleled character so unlike every other historical and fictional person ever written about, and agree this much in every portrayal of him they came to compose -- all based on an otherwise flawed, normal human being?

Basically it's saying: since you say this happened, and you say this is more probable (in part because the Resurrection claims a once-in-history event): are there any parallels to this? Why should we think the literary composition of Jesus' character isn't incredible on its own? What of the possibility he truly was thus and his life was that way (an outrageous claim for any common human being)?

The argument I'm summarizing very basically is found here: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archive...id=27-03-035-f (interesting read). (Yes, I read it following links in Nick's latest DW post .)

Add it to the unlikelihood of your fantasies :-)

The high Christology that Christians accept today as fact developed over several centuries--- a very human phenomenon.

I think I have devised a new consensus statement that hopefully everyone, including my good friend, Adrift, can accept:

Skeptics, such as myself, believe that the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus is a very improbable explanation for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection, so improbable as to be practically absurd, yet we are willing to admit its possibility. Christians believe that a natural explanation for the early Christian resurrection belief is very improbable, so improbable as to be practically absurd, yet are willing to admit its possibility.

Good?

[Bisto]

And every one of them is more probable in the world view of the overwhelming majority of the world's non-Christians, non-theists and theists, than your supernatural explanation.

(I can't edit my previous post anymore.)

Therefore, worldview, and whatever assumptions come with it.

This sounded very Naturalistic from you . Yesterday I was discussing this topic with two classmates (one atheist, one agnostic) and the atheist one isn't even "flat earth" Naturalist the way you seem to be; he had witnessed an atheist friend of his mom be exorcised on her first visit to some Pentecostal church, so he does believe in the "supernatural", just a very weird version of it (with reincarnation, astral projection, alternate dimension "stuff" that can possess people, and other odd bits). This means nothing with respect to non-Christian trends, but it is nonetheless interesting.

You just can't see it because you are so heavily indoctrinated.

Friend, do you NEED such psycho-analyzing and disqualifications attempts? If your case is good, whence the need for this?


Have you been able to see the links I sent you? I haven't gotten any reply yet.

The high Christology that Christians accept today as fact developed over several centuries--- a very human phenomenon.
...

Hmmm. No. Let me quote from the introduction of Mr. Hurtado's "Lord Jesus Christ":

Besides, the extreme importance of Jesus appears surprisingly soon in Christian circles. By the first two decades of the Christian movement (that is, between 30 and 50 A.D., to present at this moment of reflection a deliberately modest chronological approach), Jesus was the object of religious devotion and was associated with God in a remarkable way. In fact, as we well see later in this study, it is likely that we must postulate a virtual explosion of devotion to Jesus around the start of that short timespan. I have proposed that in this development we find the equivalent of a new and peculiar "mutation" or variant of the monotheistic praxis which is otherwise characteristic of the Jewish religious matrix from which the Christian movement was born. With this book I pretend to offer a detailed analysis of the origin, development and diversification of Christ devotion in the trascendental two first centuries of the Christian movement (ca. 30-170 A.D.). (Larry Hurtado, "Lord Jesus Christ", p.20 Spanish version)

I remember reading the same in Mr. Bauckham's "God Crucified" but I don't deem it necessary to quote him too.

[Gary]

I have shown by quoting Ludemann, Crossan, and Ehrman, above that my hypothetical natural explanations for the early Christian belief in a resurrection are fully in line with scholarship, maybe not majority scholarship, but still scholarship. Therefore you cannot say that they are completely out of left field. My hypotheticals are therefore possible, jut not probable in the minds of Christians.

Dear Christians: I cannot prove that your view of probability is wrong and you cannot prove that my view of probability is wrong. Our differences lie in your belief that the supernatural (miracles) are very probable. I encourage you to investigate this issue. Read Keener's book as I am. Read it and ask yourself this question: Which is more probable for the fact that science and western medicine ignore/refuse to acknowledge the validity of "hundreds of millions" of miracle claims: a massive conspiracy/cover-up or the evidence that these events are miraculous is so very poor.

[Gary]

(I can't edit my previous post anymore.)

Therefore, worldview, and whatever assumptions come with it.

This sounded very Naturalistic from you . Yesterday I was discussing this topic with two classmates (one atheist, one agnostic) and the atheist one isn't even "flat earth" Naturalist the way you seem to be; he had witnessed an atheist friend of his mom be exorcised on her first visit to some Pentecostal church, so he does believe in the "supernatural", just a very weird version of it (with reincarnation, astral projection, alternate dimension "stuff" that can possess people, and other odd bits). This means nothing with respect to non-Christian trends, but it is nonetheless interesting.


Friend, do you NEED such psycho-analyzing and disqualifications attempts? If your case is good, whence the need for this?


Have you been able to see the links I sent you? I haven't gotten any reply yet.




Hmmm. No. Let me quote from the introduction of Mr. Hurtado's "Lord Jesus Christ":



I remember reading the same in Mr. Bauckham's "God Crucified" but I don't deem it necessary to quote him too.

You have no idea what any Christian believed between 30-50 AD, except perhaps for the Creed in I Corinthians 15, which says nothing about Jesus being Yahweh himself, Creator of the universe.

[Adrift]

The high Christology that Christians accept today as fact developed over several centuries--- a very human phenomenon.

I think I have devised a new consensus statement that hopefully everyone, including my good friend, Adrift, can accept:

Skeptics, such as myself, believe that the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus is a very improbable explanation for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection, so improbable as to be practically absurd, yet we are willing to admit its possibility. Christians believe that a natural explanation for the early Christian resurrection belief is very improbable, so improbable as to be practically absurd, yet are willing to admit its possibility.

Good?

No, I don't agree with it. Stop with the dumb consensus statements.

[Bisto]

You have no idea what any Christian believed between 30-50 AD, except perhaps for the Creed in I Corinthians 15, which says nothing about Jesus being Yahweh himself, Creator of the universe.

On this single point, let me be a little harder.

These are NT scholars talking about what ancient Christians believed based on the documents we have left from that period -- I think their beliefs can be inferred from the earliest epistles and passages (e.g. Galatians, 1 and 2 Thess., the Philippians 2 poem, etc.) (you know, I Cor 15 is not the only tradition Paul ever quotes) and confirmed with the rest. Going by the index, Mr. Hurtado starts his book analyzing that (and anyone who's read it before might confirm it). Meanwhile, Mr. Bauckham analyzed (among other things) early Christian use of Isaiah 40-55 to show how they applied passages and titles from one of the most fiercely monotheistic OT passages to the man Jesus of Nazareth, thereby "putting" him within the divine identity of YHWH.

To dismiss NT scholarship on this particular topic is (and call me a fundamendalist on this particular topic if you want) preposterous. Just as the Resurrection is interwoven all through the NT witness, so too is the notion that Jesus is Lord. In this, the NT is very consistent and speaks with one voice.

A hundred pages ago you wholeheartedly agreed the early Christians believed Jesus was risen. Why do you hesitate to agree they believed he was divine?


...And stop making new posts every 2 minutes! (e.g. posts #1531-1535) A Mod has enlightened you! Do not harden your heart on this day! The creator of this forum hath mercifully granted thee an EDIT button!

[Gary]

No, I don't agree with it. Stop with the dumb consensus statements.

Ok, so the fundamentalists reject even the "absurd possibility" of a natural explanation for the early Christian resurrection belief. How about other more rational Christians?

[Bisto]

The high Christology that Christians accept today as fact developed over several centuries--- a very human phenomenon.

I think I have devised a new consensus statement that hopefully everyone, including my good friend, Adrift, can accept:

Skeptics, such as myself, believe that the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus is a very improbable explanation for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection, so improbable as to be practically absurd, yet we are willing to admit its possibility. Christians believe that a natural explanation for the early Christian resurrection belief is very improbable, so improbable as to be practically absurd, yet are willing to admit its possibility.

Good?

Question:

Let's say I think your alternative theses are "absurd" because they forsake historical study, mistreat the sources, ignore subsequent factors and data, etc.

What makes the Resurrection thesis absurd in your POV -- apart from the fact it contains the miraculous?

[Gary]

On this single point, let me be a little harder.

These are NT scholars talking about what ancient Christians believed based on the documents we have left from that period -- I think their beliefs can be inferred from the earliest epistles and passages (e.g. Galatians, 1 and 2 Thess., the Philippians 2 poem, etc.) (you know, I Cor 15 is not the only tradition Paul ever quotes) and confirmed with the rest. Going by the index, Mr. Hurtado starts his book analyzing that (and anyone who's read it before might confirm it). Meanwhile, Mr. Bauckham analyzed (among other things) early Christian use of Isaiah 40-55 to show how they applied passages and titles from one of the most fiercely monotheistic OT passages to the man Jesus of Nazareth, thereby "putting" him within the divine identity of YHWH.

To dismiss NT scholarship on this particular topic is (and call me a fundamendalist on this particular topic if you want) preposterous. Just as the Resurrection is interwoven all through the NT witness, so too is the notion that Jesus is Lord. In this, the NT is very consistent and speaks with one voice.

A hundred pages ago you wholeheartedly agreed the early Christians believed Jesus was risen. Why do you hesitate to agree they believed he was divine?


...And stop making new posts every 2 minutes! (e.g. posts #1531-1535) A Mod has enlightened you! Do not harden your heart on this day! The creator of this forum hath mercifully granted thee an EDIT button!

Exactly which books were written during 30-50 AD?

As far as my posting: I am allowed to respond to other posters. If four people leave a comment that I wish to respond to I can respond with a reply to each one, and if I choose, I can also leave one new comment.

I suggest you let the moderators do their job and you mind your own business.