Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[One Bad Pig]

For some strange reason, Christians make all sorts of inviolable generalizations about first century Jews. One such inviolable generalization is: No first century Jew would EVER confuse a vivid dream with reality.
<snip>
Gary: There are thousands more of these stories, folks. And this is not a recent phenomenon. People have believed that they have been "visited" by the dead for all of human history. WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT FIRST CENTURY JEWS WERE ANY DIFFERENT???

For some strange reason, Gary thinks these are comparable to what people experienced when encountering the risen Jesus, even though they are not at all similar. For starters, no one thought the people they encountered again were alive after death, even though they were very attached to them. The encounters generally happen in sleep or on the edge of sleep, and they all happened to one person who was asleep and/or alone at the time. None of them are anything like encountering someone in a group, while everyone is awake, who is sensible by all 5 senses, who eats food to prove his fleshly existence.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm shocked, shocked, that the top google hit for this quote is Wikipedia, and the book itself is not viewable online. You have no idea what the context for this quote is, or what else EP Sanders has written on the topic.

[Gary]

Okay, okay. I'll move forward through the same chapter.



Satisfied?

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articl...spective-paul/

Maybe I have been too generous. Instead of asking for ONE scholar, I should have asked for the majority consensus, as Nick and Stein insist should be the standard.

[Gary]

For some strange reason, Gary thinks these are comparable to what people experienced when encountering the risen Jesus, even though they are not at all similar. For starters, no one thought the people they encountered again were alive after death, even though they were very attached to them. The encounters generally happen in sleep or on the edge of sleep, and they all happened to one person who was asleep and/or alone at the time. None of them are anything like encountering someone in a group, while everyone is awake, who is sensible by all 5 senses, who eats food to prove his fleshly existence.

Many, many assumptions, Piggy.

I just came across an interesting book: The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and NT Wright in Dialogue.

I glanced through the introduction by Robert B. Stewart, a Baptist theologian, and noticed that he (Stewart) did a study where he found that three-fourths of all NT scholars believe in some form of a supernatural event as the explanation for the early Christian Resurrection belief, this would include NT Wright. Crossan, as does Bart Ehrman, believes that Jesus' body was most likely disposed of in the usual Roman custom: tossed unceremoniously into an unmarked hole in the ground and forgotten.

This is a book I intend to read. Here is a link to an excerpt on the current positions on the Resurrection by NT scholars. To me Stewart's study points out the very serious bias in NT scholarship: At least 3/4 of scholars are believers.

https://books.google.com/books?id=5Z...0death&f=false

I just read the reviews. Not good. Oh well...

[Adrift]

Yes, I'm satisfied.

However, is NT Wright a "mainstream" NT scholar? I would bet that most would consider him very far to the right.

I'd take you up on that bet. Wright is considered well within the mainstream of NT scholarship. In fact, he's considered, along with Dunn and Sanders, one of the top scholars on the new perspective on Paul, and among the top scholars on the historical Jesus. Everyone in NT scholarship is familiar with his work, and cite him or reference his works prodigiously.

You just can not stop putting your foot in your mouth, can you? Every time you move the goal post, or throw up another red herring, it gets slammed back in your face. I'd be embarrassed to continue posting here if I were you. You are so out of your element it's not even funny anymore. And there's absolutely no way you've read Wright as you previously claimed you have.

[psstein]

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articl...spective-paul/

Maybe I have been too generous. Instead of asking for ONE scholar, I should have asked for the majority consensus, as Nick and Stein insist should be the standard.

Yes, Wright is a mainstream scholar. He teaches at University of St. Andrews, which is far from a seminary of any type. If memory serves, he took over for Richard Bauckham.

Being conservative and being a mainstream scholar are not mutually exclusive events. Craig Evans is the leading Canadian NT scholar and is well-respected in mainstream scholarship. Richard Bauckham, while reaching conservative conclusions, is very well-respected. John P. Meier, who's a NT scholar and a Catholic Priest, is a well respected, center-right scholar. Being a fundamentalist and being a mainstream scholar are mutually exclusive (e.g. K.A. Kitchen when he talks about the OT).

So to answer your question, yes, Wright is a mainstream scholar. There are a handful of issues that he doesn't adhere to the consensus on, but he's largely center-right.

[psstein]

I'd take you up on that bet. Wright is considered well within the mainstream of NT scholarship. In fact, he's considered, along with Dunn and Sanders, one of the top scholars on the new perspective on Paul, and among the top scholars on the historical Jesus. Everyone in NT scholarship is familiar with his work, and cite him or reference his works prodigiously.

I think he's better known for his Pauline work, as he's been extremely influential in Pauline studies. His latest book is, in my opinion at least, his life's work. But outside of that, yes, I agree. He's extremely well known in the field and at least one of his books has had an entire journal volume dedicated to it.

His historical Jesus stuff I'm beginning to read more of, but I don't think it's as good. I strongly disagree with his interpretation of Jewish eschatological belief.

[Raphael]

but he's largely center-right.

Exactly. I would put him kinda in the centre rather than Gary's dismissive "far to the right"

[37818]

I and my children have been learning German for the last five years. One of the best ways to improve your vocabulary in a foreign language is to read children's books because the words used in children's stories are basic, common words. When we started learning German five years ago, we were still Christians. At that time, I bought a lot of Bible story books in German to read to my kids.

I still read these stories to my children for several reasons. It is good German practice; the stories are fascinating; and there are good moral lessons in the stories...but not always in the ways we were taught to see them when we were Christians. Tonight we read the story of Yahweh testing Abraham's love and loyalty to him by ordering him to take his son up to a mountain to kill him and then burn his body on an altar.

My young children were horrified.

We had quite an interesting discussion about the morality of any being, god or otherwise, ordering a father to kill his child as a test of loyalty.

I strongly encourage every Christian parent to get out their children's Bible story books and read them. Really read them. Is the morality displayed by Yahweh and his followers the morality you want your children to adopt?

Hmm...

". . . For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise. . . ." -- Galatians 4:22-23.

". . . it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God [was] able to raise [him] up, even from the dead; . . . " -- Hebrews 11:18-19.

[rogue06]

You could hardly pick a better name for a New Testament scholar than NT Wright

[Gary]

Yes, it was an error to ask for only ONE scholar. My bad.

So to restate: Is it the majority consensus of scholars that the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus is the ONLY plausible explanation for the early Christian Resurrection belief?

[Gary]

Can you imagine the reaction of Christians on this site if I quoted a skeptic scholar who stated that a non-natural (a miracle) explanation for the early Christian Resurrection belief is impossible??? You would be outraged and howl about his or her unjust bias. Yet you guys call a scholar who claims that the only plausible explanation for the early Christian Resurrection belief is a supernatural one a "respected and mainstream" scholar.

Your biases, and that of your "scholars", is very telling.

[psstein]

Can you imagine the reaction of Christians on this site if I quoted a skeptic scholar who stated that a non-natural (a miracle) explanation for the early Christian Resurrection belief is impossible??? You would be outraged and howl about his or her unjust bias. Yet you guys call a scholar who claims that the only plausible explanation for the early Christian Resurrection belief is a supernatural one a "respected and mainstream" scholar.

Your biases, and that of your "scholars", is very telling.

Nonsense. John Dominic Crossan is a first-rate scholar. His work has some very bad source-critical errors, but aside from that, it's well done. I think he makes critical errors, but those aren't related to worldview.

The same is true with Gerd Ludemann; I respect his work and he makes some excellent points. However, his errors with regard to the Resurrection are not really related to worldview.

[Gary]

Nonsense. John Dominic Crossan is a first-rate scholar. His work has some very bad source-critical errors, but aside from that, it's well done. I think he makes critical errors, but those aren't related to worldview.

The same is true with Gerd Ludemann; I respect his work and he makes some excellent points. However, his errors with regard to the Resurrection are not really related to worldview.

Do Crossan and Ludemann claim that a supernatural (miracle) explanation for the Resurrection belief is impossible as NT Wright says that a natural explanation is impossible?

Once it is admitted that Jesus was truly risen, all the pieces of the historical puzzle of primitive Christianity fit together perfectly. My affirmation goes beyond: the bodily resurrection of Jesus provides a necessary condition for these things; in other words, that no other explanation served nor could serve. All the efforts to find alternative explanations inevitably fail." (p.871-2, "The Resurrection of the Son of God", ----NT Wright

What an outrageous comment for any "scholar" to say, essentially claiming that a supernatural explanation is the ONLY possible explanation. Christians such as Nick HOWL when I or other skeptics suggest the improbability of the supernatural, but here Christians are praising a "scholar" who goes far beyond "improbable" and says no alternative explanation is possible.

Outrageous.

Educated non-Christians look at such a preposterous claim and think to themselves: "knuckle-dragging religious fundamentalist".

[Apologiaphoenix]

I would have no problem with a non-Christian scholar saying that. In fact, it's funny that you dismiss E.P. Sanders and Sanders as far as I know isn't even arguing for traditional authorship. He's just stating why the works are anonymous and says the word "probably" because that's what we do when we study history. For someone who claims to take scholars seriously, all you do when you get a statement from someone who disagrees is just say "Assumptions! Assumptions!"

That's why most of us don't bother any more. In fact, here's what else Sanders says. He starts by quoting Cicero in 2.28 of De Divinatione.

"For nothing can happen without cause; nothing happens that cannot happen, and when what was capable of happening has happened, it may not be interpreted as a miracle. Consequently, there are no miracles...We therefore draw this conclusion; what was incapable of happening never happened, and what was capable of happening is not a miracle."

And in response to this he says

"The view espoused by Cicero has become dominant in the modern world, and I fully share it." This is on page 143.

And yet we respect him as a scholar.