Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Gary]

This is so stupid I can't even know where to start.

Here's a clue: critical NT scholars (from people like Crossley to conservatives like Craig Evans) do not make apologetical arguments for or against the empty tomb. Gerd Theissen, a notable German scholar, has an entire chapter in his The Historical Jesus about arguments for and against the empty tomb. He says at the end that the evidence is slightly tilted in favor of the empty tomb.

I can't believe doctors because most of them think alternative medicine is idiocy. They have a bias.

I happen to actively be engaged in the field (don't yet have a PhD, however). If you actually talk to scholars, you'll find that a huge number of them have idiosyncratic beliefs. Critical scholarship has a way of making the grounds on which you hold your beliefs change.

Why are you pursuing Biblical scholarship?

I would bet that even those Biblical scholars who are not currently Christians were raised Christian, or at some point in their life were professing Christians. They are now trying to prove their former beliefs wrong. Scholars like Lapide are a true rarity, and there is some explanation for him and the few other Jewish NT scholars: early Christianity WAS Jewish.

[psstein]

Why are you pursuing Biblical scholarship?

I would bet that even those Biblical scholars who are not currently Christians were raised Christian, or at some point in their life were professing Christians. They are now trying to prove their former beliefs wrong. Scholars like Lapide are a true rarity, and there is some explanation for him and the few other Jewish NT scholars: early Christianity WAS Jewish.

Because I find the Bible interesting as an academic subject and historical topic. Regardless of whether or not it's true, it's fascinating to try to understand how the early Christians came to understand a man who was little more than an itinerant Jewish preacher and how that preacher changed the course of human history. My Catholic beliefs have little to do with my scholarship, though some of them have changed as a result. There's more than one reason I hold to the virgin birth in a fideistic way.

Very few atheist/agnostic scholars are actively trying to disprove Christianity. The only one I can readily think of is Ludemann, and he has an axe to grind for other reasons.

Jewish NT scholars tend to be more focused on the relationship of Jesus to Judaism, which is a field that was sadly neglected for a very long time.

[Gary]

Because I find the Bible interesting as an academic subject and historical topic. Regardless of whether or not it's true, it's fascinating to try to understand how the early Christians came to understand a man who was little more than an itinerant Jewish preacher and how that preacher changed the course of human history. My Catholic beliefs have little to do with my scholarship, though some of them have changed as a result. There's more than one reason I hold to the virgin birth in a fideistic way.

Very few atheist/agnostic scholars are actively trying to disprove Christianity. The only one I can readily think of is Ludemann, and he has an axe to grind for other reasons.

Jewish NT scholars tend to be more focused on the relationship of Jesus to Judaism, which is a field that was sadly neglected for a very long time.

There are many, many interesting topics in ancient history. Why pick early Christianity? My bet is your subconscious picked it not only because it is interesting (which it very much is) but also to confirm the correctness of your decision to leave Judaism, the religion of your ancestors.

My assertion is that very few people pick a career in Biblical studies because it is a high paying field or because it is the avant garde career choice of the decade. People pick it for personal reasons: to confirm/strengthen their faith...or their non-faith.

[Gary]

Okay, we can play this game:

Rudolf Bultmann was a liberal Christian who didn't believe in the empty tomb or a bodily resurrection. He also didn't think we could know anything about the historical Jesus.
Maurice Casey was an agnostic/atheist.
John Dominic Crossan is a liberal Christian who doesn't think Jesus was buried or bodily resurrected.
Alfred Loisy was a Roman Catholic who got into trouble with the church and denied the empty tomb.
Robert Funk was an atheist.
Burton Mack was non-Christian.
I think Andre Gagne is an atheist.
Bart Ehrman is agnostic.
Marcus Borg was a liberal Christian who denied the historicity of the empty tomb and the bodily resurrection.
David Strauss was something in between very liberal Christian and deist.

That list is far from complete. People like Geza Vermes, Gerd Ludemann, Amy Jill-Levine, etc. are completely unmentioned. Believe it or not, there's a sizable number of non-Christian NT scholars. Also, critical NT scholarship tends to be far from apologetic, but why actually read when you can make up nonsense?

So to recap: My point is not that all NT scholars believe in the bodily Resurrection. My point is that the majority of NT scholars are believers in this supernatural tale in one form or another. Even most very liberal Christian scholars believe that Jesus was (a supernatural) God in some sense. The majority, and I would bet the overwhelming majority, of NT scholars are theists and supernaturalists. Therefore, they have a bias "to root" for at least SOME of this supernatural tale to be true.

Do scholars of ancient Greek and Roman cultures care whether or not the modern public believes in the plausibility of the supernatural claims of those ancient cultures? I highly doubt it. But ask Mike Licona, Gary Habermas, or the late Catholic scholar, Joseph Brown, if they care if the modern public believes in the plausibility of the supernatural beliefs of the ancient Christian culture, of which they are experts, and I guarantee you their attempt to convince you of the plausibility of these supernatural claims will be passionate and intense. And I assert that even the most liberal of Christian NT scholars will "root" for some form of supernaturalism to remain plausible in the psyche of the modern educated masses.

[Apologiaphoenix]

And the claim that most NT scholars are Christians has not been backed. How about the Society of Biblical Literature who one year elected John Dominic Crossan as their president? Hardly a representative of orthodox evangelical Christianity. How about the Jesus Seminar? You show a list of 249 scholars? The SBL numbers into the thousands. I'd wager the number of believers and unbelievers in the field is about even, but if I had to error on one side, I'd say it could be more likely dominated by unbelievers.



Oh yeah. That whole thing about my being gullible because I believe in XYZ? That assumes that XYZ is nonsense because those things don't happen and those things don't happen because a naturalist interpretation of reality is true. What has not been shown is that that naturalist interpretation of reality is true. No evidence has been presented and counter-evidence to that claim has been presented and yet it has not been dealt with other than to say it must be nonsense because it goes against the presupposition.

[Adrift]

There are many, many interesting topics in ancient history. Why pick early Christianity?

He just told you why. Because it changed the course of human (and especially Western) history.

My assertion is that very few people pick a career in Biblical studies because it is a high paying field or because it is the avant garde career choice of the decade. People pick it for personal reasons: to confirm/strengthen their faith...or their non-faith.

What we can learn from this line is that you didn't become a physician because you cared about people, not because you wanted to become a healer, but because it pays well. I suppose that's not so surprising coming from someone who endorses the medical woo scam.

[Gary]

And the claim that most NT scholars are Christians has not been backed. How about the Society of Biblical Literature who one year elected John Dominic Crossan as their president? Hardly a representative of orthodox evangelical Christianity. How about the Jesus Seminar? You show a list of 249 scholars? The SBL numbers into the thousands. I'd wager the number of believers and unbelievers in the field is about even, but if I had to error on one side, I'd say it could be more likely dominated by unbelievers.



Oh yeah. That whole thing about my being gullible because I believe in XYZ? That assumes that XYZ is nonsense because those things don't happen and those things don't happen because a naturalist interpretation of reality is true. What has not been shown is that that naturalist interpretation of reality is true. No evidence has been presented and counter-evidence to that claim has been presented and yet it has not been dealt with other than to say it must be nonsense because it goes against the presupposition.

You are guessing. I gave you a list and demonstrated that one can randomly select ten scholars out of the 249 and most will be believers. Your statement that the majority of NT scholars may be non-believers in based on....an assumption.

Yet another in a long list of assumptions; the glue that holds your supernatural belief system together.

If someone says that they believe in fairies, most people would say that they are gullible and superstitious. And the same goes for someone who believes in leprechauns, goblins, Santa Claus, and reanimated, dead Jewish preachers with superhero powers.

There is no evidence for the supernatural claims of your belief system, Nick. There is only evidence of a small group of mostly uneducated, superstitious first century peasants who claim to have seen a ghost. That is all your scholars can confirm for you. They cannot confirm the reality or non-reality of supernatural events. And the problem for you is that your belief system rests entirely upon the reality of multiple supernatural events.

[Gary]

He just told you why. Because it changed the course of human (and especially Western) history.



What we can learn from this line is that you didn't become a physician because you cared about people, not because you wanted to become a healer, but because it pays well. I suppose that's not so surprising coming from someone who endorses the medical woo scam.

Fundamentalist idiot.

Ignore.

[Adrift]

Fundamentalist idiot.

Ignore.

[Apologiaphoenix]

No. My belief is based on interacting with and reading New Testament scholarship. You should try it sometime. When you read a book, you might actually learn something.

[One Bad Pig]

It's becoming clear that a shot goes home when Gary resorts to spewing wildly inapt insults.

[Gary]

No. My belief is based on interacting with and reading New Testament scholarship. You should try it sometime. When you read a book, you might actually learn something.

Wrong, Nick. Your scholars have ZERO evidence to confirm that a dead body magically exited his mausoleum tomb. The only thing your scholars can tell you is that a small group of first century peasants truly BELIEVED that they had seen a dead person, and, your scholars can tell you about the beliefs and practices of those first century dead-person-seeing peasants.

That's it.

You have ZERO evidence for a resurrection, Nick, only the BELIEF in a resurrection.

Big difference.

I am in 100% agreement that a small group of first century peasants believed that they saw a dead person. I am in 100% agreement that their new religious sect was shameful and unheard of. I am in full agreement with your scholars related to all the beliefs and practices of these first century peasants. BUT YOUR SCHOLARS HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR THE SUPERNATURAL CLAIMS OF YOUR SUPERNATURAL BELIEF SYSTEM.

None.

Face the facts, Nick. You are basing your entire life on a baseless superstition.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Wrong, Nick. Your scholars have ZERO evidence to confirm that a dead body magically exited his mausoleum tomb.

I know you're really slow and all, but the topic was whether NT scholars are Christians or not. Do you not remember your own argument?

The only thing your scholars can tell you is that a small group of first century peasants truly BELIEVED that they had seen a dead person, and, your scholars can tell you about the beliefs and practices of those first century dead-person-seeing peasants.

That's it.

Precisely. So why did they believe that?

You have ZERO evidence for a resurrection, Nick, only the BELIEF in a resurrection.

I presented a list of all the data we have several posts ago. Do you have a response to it?

Big difference.

I am in 100% agreement that a small group of first century peasants believed that they saw a dead person. I am in 100% agreement that their new religious sect was shameful and unheard of. I am in full agreement with your scholars related to all the beliefs and practices of these first century peasants. BUT YOUR SCHOLARS HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR THE SUPERNATURAL CLAIMS OF YOUR SUPERNATURAL BELIEF SYSTEM.

None.

Face the facts, Nick. You are basing your entire life on a baseless superstition.

Okay. Give an explanation.

btw, you've taken one argument and made it about something entirely different. Please pay attention to your own argument. It's very sad when I have to correct you on what you're trying to argue.

[Gary]

I know you're really slow and all, but the topic was whether NT scholars are Christians or not. Do you not remember your own argument?



Precisely. So why did they believe that?



I presented a list of all the data we have several posts ago. Do you have a response to it?



Okay. Give an explanation.

btw, you've taken one argument and made it about something entirely different. Please pay attention to your own argument. It's very sad when I have to correct you on what you're trying to argue.

The topic of this post is...THE RESURRECTION...not the faith status of NT scholars.

I responded to your claim that the majority of NT scholars are non-believers by asking you for evidence. You cannot provide it other than to make an assumption. Therefore since you cannot provide evidence for your claim I consider this issue closed and am returning to the topic of the thread: Can Christians prove the Resurrection?

Try to keep up, Nick.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Okay dum dum. Let me show how this works.

And the claim that most NT scholars are Christians has not been backed. How about the Society of Biblical Literature who one year elected John Dominic Crossan as their president? Hardly a representative of orthodox evangelical Christianity. How about the Jesus Seminar? You show a list of 249 scholars? The SBL numbers into the thousands. I'd wager the number of believers and unbelievers in the field is about even, but if I had to error on one side, I'd say it could be more likely dominated by unbelievers.

That was me. You said in response

You are guessing. I gave you a list and demonstrated that one can randomly select ten scholars out of the 249 and most will be believers. Your statement that the majority of NT scholars may be non-believers in based on....an assumption.

Yet another in a long list of assumptions; the glue that holds your supernatural belief system together.

My response to this?

No. My belief is based on interacting with and reading New Testament scholarship. You should try it sometime. When you read a book, you might actually learn something.

You instead then changed the topic back to something else.

Try to keep up child. This is an area where we actually read books and not just color in them.