Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[lilpixieofterror]

Imagine if the police and the government operated within the worldview that supernatural beings can and do perform acts in our world that violate the laws of nature. Life would be chaos!

Here is an example: This past weekend the employees of Citizens Bank locked the bank vault and left for the weekend. On Monday, they opened the vault and found that $500,000 was missing. The police were called who performed a thorough investigation but could find no trace of a break in or of anything unusual in the vault. They next interviewed the employees. One by one the employees were cleared of any involvement in the disappearance of the money. Lastly, the police interviewed the bank manager. The bank manager is a devout Christian with a sterling reputation for honesty. The bank manager tells the police that on Sunday morning while driving to church he saw a group of demons escaping through the locked front door of the bank. He is sure that the demons took the $500,000.

Should the police take this claim seriously?

Of course not.

No one today except the most extremely superstitious would accept such an explanation for hundreds of thousands of missing dollars from a bank vault, even when the explanation is coming from a highly respected member of the community. So why is a different standard used for a two thousand year old supernatural explanation for an empty tomb??

That was pretty stupid, got anything else stupid to say?

[lilpixieofterror]

I will make you this promise, Pigster. I will be much more objective than Mr. Keener was when he wrote the book; a book in which he expressly states that his purpose in writing the book is to get scholars to take miracle claims more seriously.

I will be looking for miracle claims that have been investigated by independent experts. Anyone can claim they were "cured" by Jesus, by Allah, by Lord Krishna or a holistic herb. We need evidence.

Ever read how the Catholic Church, confirms miracles, Gary?

[Gary]

That was pretty stupid, got anything else stupid to say?

Would you kindly explain why the analogy is "stupid"?

[Gary]

Ever read how the Catholic Church, confirms miracles, Gary?

I am not interested in how an organization which allegedly authenticated the Holy Foreskin of Jesus "confirms" miracles.


The Holy Foreskin first made an appearance in medieval Europe around 800 ad, when King Charlemagne presented it as a gift to Pope Leo III. Charlemagne said it had been given to him by an angel.

However, rival foreskins soon began to pop up all over Europe. All told, twenty-one different churches claimed to have the Holy Foreskin, often at the same time. Various miraculous powers were attributed to these foreskins. In particular, they were supposed to be able to protect women during childbirth.

Given the glut of Holy Foreskins, churches made efforts to have their foreskin authenticated by Church leaders as the sole genuine article. In the early 12th century, the monks of San Giovanni in Laterano, Rome asked Pope Innocent III to rule on the authenticity of their foreskin, but he declined to do so. Later, the monks of Charroux claimed their foreskin to be the only real one, pointing out that it apparently yielded drops of blood. This convinced Pope Clement VII (1523-1534) who declared theirs to be the authentic thing.

Source: http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_holy_foreskin

[Gary]

That was pretty stupid, got anything else stupid to say?

See, Pixie, it is easy to say that an analogy is stupid. It is a little tougher to actually explain why.

[Gary]

Ok, folks. I just received Keener's two volume work, "Miracles" in the mail. I will start reading today. Here is a statement by JP Moreland, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, Los Angeles, on the inside front cover of the book:

"...The uniqueness of Keener's treatment lies in his location of the biblical miracles in the trajectory of ongoing, documented miracles in the name of Jesus and his kingdom throughout church history, up to and including the present. From now on, no one who deals with the credibility of biblical miracles can do so responsibly without interacting with this book."

And as we all know, Nick agrees with this statement wholeheartedly.

Let me be clear. I can be objective. If this book presents a case of a miracle that has good evidence to support it, I will say so. I may not agree that a miracle is the only possible cause, but I will admit that the evidence could certainly be interpreted that way. However, the evidence for such a claim must be verifiable and non-biased. What I will be looking for in particular is the location of the miracles. If the majority of the "best" miracles occur in locations for which we have poor access to the evidence and poor access to independent verification, I will suggest that we should be very suspicious of such claims. For instance, if all the best miracle claims are in the rural areas of China and India, and very few if any in North America or Europe, I will suggest that we should all be suspicious. I do not buy the argument that Jesus only performs the best miracles in China and India because the people there have more faith. To me, that is pure spin.

So here we go...

Introduction:

Keener lists the primary theses of his book:

1. Eyewitnesses do offer miracle claims.
2. Supernatural explanations, while not suitable in every case, should be welcome on the scholarly table along with other explanations often discussed.

I have no issue with either of these points. I believe that all claims should be taken seriously...if...good, verifiable evidence exists to support the claim.

Keener: While eyewitness claims do not constitute indisputable proof, they do constitute evidence that may be considered rather than a priori dismissed.

Gary: I agree. This is an important point, however. Just because twelve people say they all saw a Martian spaceship does not mean we must believe their testimony. But neither should we dismiss it a priori. Their claim is evidence and should not be dismissed a priori. It is possible that they did see something.

[One Bad Pig]

I will make you this promise, Pigster. I will be much more objective than Mr. Keener was when he wrote the book; a book in which he expressly states that his purpose in writing the book is to get scholars to take miracle claims more seriously.

You're confusing "objective" with "critical."

I will be looking for miracle claims that have been investigated by independent experts. Anyone can claim they were "cured" by Jesus, by Allah, by Lord Krishna or a holistic herb. We need evidence.

And the way you've pre-defined evidence means that it's unlikely you'll find any. Evidence, even the normal sort, is almost never produced by an unbiased independent observer. You should know that, as a doctor. You should also know that, by your definition of evidence, pretty much every medical trial ever would fail to meet your criteria - there are far too many variables which might have affected the outcome. But go ahead, keep on pretending you're being "objective."

[Gary]

You're confusing "objective" with "critical."

And the way you've pre-defined evidence means that it's unlikely you'll find any. Evidence, even the normal sort, is almost never produced by an unbiased independent observer. You should know that, as a doctor. You should also know that, by your definition of evidence, pretty much every medical trial ever would fail to meet your criteria - there are far too many variables which might have affected the outcome. But go ahead, keep on pretending you're being "objective."

Let's see.

[Gary]

Introduction to "Miracles", page 4, last paragraph:

"...I failed to find many (scholarly) works academically cataloging such (miracle) claims, and even fewer that offered medical documentation along with the many testimonies (regarding miracle claims). Because I lack medical training, I defer the latter interest to those more qualified to provide it. Those who reject all modern evidence apart from such documentation will need to look mostly to other works produced by those more qualified to offer and evaluate it, and that is an important area where further discussion must turn."

Page 5, first paragraph

"...Despite my initial embarrassment that many of those (miracle) claims I first found appeared in popular sources, I eventually recognized that such sources are most comparable to what my historical quest involved: the Gospels and Acts offer popular claims, not medical documentation.

...while I could not reach most of these popular authors to check their own sources, in time far more information than I had initially anticipated came my way. Eventually I uncovered a wealth of eyewitness material and even some sources that offered some medical documentation."

Gary: This does not sound good, folks. It appears that Keener is going to present most of his evidence based on "eyewitness" claims, not on medical documentation.

Here is something for us all to think about: How strong of evidence is eyewitness claims of miracle healings by supernatural causation? I agree with Keener that these claims should not be dismissed a priori, but is it possible that Keener is giving too much weight to the strength of this evidence? Just because thousands, and maybe hundreds of thousands, of human beings living today believe they have witnessed a supernatural act of healing, is that strong evidence?

What if we lived a couple of centuries ago and took a poll regarding the popular opinion regarding the cause of disease. How strongly should we take the popular consensus that disease is caused by some sort of evil spirits?? See, popular opinion can be wrong. Isn't it possible that there are so many claims of supernatural healings today, not because they are true, but because people are not sufficiently educated??

[lilpixieofterror]

Would you kindly explain why the analogy is "stupid"?

You mean like how you're using strawman of what Christians really believe because you don't actually know what Christians believe? Can you actually find where the Bible or Christian theology states that if something can't be explained, it must be a miracle?

[lilpixieofterror]

See, Pixie, it is easy to say that an analogy is stupid. It is a little tougher to actually explain why.

Don't have a life, beyond trolling Christians all day, so you assume the rest of us don't have a life either? Sorry that real life obligations get in the way of me answering your trolling, in what you consider a timely manner.

[lilpixieofterror]

I am not interested in how an organization which allegedly authenticated the Holy Foreskin of Jesus "confirms" miracles.


The Holy Foreskin first made an appearance in medieval Europe around 800 ad, when King Charlemagne presented it as a gift to Pope Leo III. Charlemagne said it had been given to him by an angel.

However, rival foreskins soon began to pop up all over Europe. All told, twenty-one different churches claimed to have the Holy Foreskin, often at the same time. Various miraculous powers were attributed to these foreskins. In particular, they were supposed to be able to protect women during childbirth.

Given the glut of Holy Foreskins, churches made efforts to have their foreskin authenticated by Church leaders as the sole genuine article. In the early 12th century, the monks of San Giovanni in Laterano, Rome asked Pope Innocent III to rule on the authenticity of their foreskin, but he declined to do so. Later, the monks of Charroux claimed their foreskin to be the only real one, pointing out that it apparently yielded drops of blood. This convinced Pope Clement VII (1523-1534) who declared theirs to be the authentic thing.

Source: http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_holy_foreskin

Apparently, you couldn't have been bothered to read the rest of the article where it specifically says that the church separated itself from it centuries ago. Do you always have problems with basic reading comprehension Gary or does your quest not including reading entire articles?

[Adam]

Please, Gary,
Don't divert from your responsibility at hand to analyze Keener. Arguing with LPOT is as useless as sticking your hand into tar.

[Gary]

Apparently, you couldn't have been bothered to read the rest of the article where it specifically says that the church separated itself from it centuries ago. Do you always have problems with basic reading comprehension Gary or does your quest not including reading entire articles?

Ok, you're not nice.

Done talking with you.

[Gary]

Here is my review of the introduction and first three chapters of Keener's "Miracles":


In the introduction to the book, Keener makes no apologies for having an agenda: to demonstrate that the bias against the supernatural by western academia is unfounded and that western scholars should not dismiss miracles a priori as he asserts they currently do. The purpose of the book is to demonstrate the "massive" number of miracle claims all over the world and that based on such a large quantity of claims, the possibility of divine intervention in the world must be considered. Ultimately, it is Keener's goal to demonstrate that the miracle claims of the Gospels are not the far-fetched claims of wild-eyed, ancient, superstitious people, but serious claims by serious, devout people whose world view should be taken seriously.

Keener goes on to admit that he is not a medical expert and that detailed medical confirmation of the medical cure claims in his book are limited. He admits that he had no research assistants and no research funds.

Chapter One

In this opening chapter, Keener reviews the miracles attributed to Jesus. I agree that most NT scholars believe that Jesus was viewed by both Christians and Jews as a healer. However, Keener's choice of language in describing this view is disturbing and frankly very biased. Instead of making the statement I have just made; that Jesus was viewed/believed to be a healer, Keener makes these statements of fact and repeats them frequently:

"Most scholars today working on the subject thus accept the claim that Jesus was a healer and an exorcist." p. 23

"It is thus not surprising that most scholars publishing historical research about Jesus today grant that Jesus was a miracle worker." p. 25

If the claim that Jesus was a healer and an exorcist is a fact...why write the book? The truth is, we have no proof that Jesus truly healed anyone or truly exorcised any demons out of anyone (if such beings even exist)! All we can say is that many people in first century Palestine believed he performed such supernatural acts.

Mr. Keener is making an assumption.

And here is another assumption that is extremely common among Christians, repeated by Mr. Keener:

"Writing within the lifetime of some witnesses and some who knew them, Mark' portrait of Jesus as a miracle worker makes sense only if those who knew him believed him to be such." pp. 32-33

Most scholars date Mark's Gospel to circa 70 AD. What proof does any Christian have that even one witness to any of Jesus' alleged miracles, or to the alleged Resurrection, was still alive in 70 AD? Answer: None.

Chapter Two

In this chapter, Keener describes the miracle claims in Greco-Roman culture. The evidence Keener presents satisfies me that the miracle claims attributed to Jesus were not based on pagan miracles. But I did find interesting this statement: In Greco-Roman culture healings were usually performed at "healing sanctuaries", often situated near "healthy springs".

Interesting.

We know that the story of healings at the Pool of Bethsaida, which occurred when an angel descended from heaven and stirred the waters, is a scribal addition to the original Gospel. Was this story added to the original text to attract pagans to Christianity??

Hmmm.

Chapter Three

In this chapter, I found this statement by Keener intriguing:

"The Gospels are ancient biography about a recent character for whom many sources remained; they are thus not analogous to collections of mythography or novels. They do not report fictions about exotic lands, do not report internal workings of divine courts, and do not report monsters or other fabulous creatures." p. 69

The first sentence is a repetition of Keener's previously identified major assumption! We have no idea if any witnesses remained in the 70's 80's, and 90's of the first century when the Gospels were written. Secondly, I agree that Jesus' miracle claims show little similarity to pagan mythology, but, even Keener admits that Jesus miracles share a striking resemblance to Jewish mythology...I mean ...alleged history: Jesus' miracles bear a striking resemblance to the miracles of Elijah and Elisha!

I ask Readers to consider this: Isn't it possible that the detailed miracle claims of Jesus developed either during his lifetime or shortly thereafter based on a core truth of actual attempted healings, in which Jesus attempted to emulate Elijah and Elisha? Jesus very sincerely believed that he had been sent from God and sincerely believed that he could heal people by the power bestowed upon him by Yahweh, but any "cures" that occurred were simply coincidence. This happens to Pentecostal preachers today. These Christians hold a healing service where they pray over the sick and some of those sick do get better. It's a miracle! ...or was it? We know that some very sick people do spontaneously get better. But since they were prayed over, Pastor Jones gets the credit. The same could have happened with Jesus.

And what was the purpose of Jesus' miracles? Answer: To verify that Jesus was who he claimed to be: the Messiah. Without Jesus' miracles, no Jew was going to believe that a man preaching non-violence and obedience to Caesar was the Messiah. Therefore, Jesus' miracles were for a Jewish audience, that is why his miracles do not resemble pagan miracles. However, once the overwhelming majority of Jews rejected the executed-resurrected messiah story, attention turned to converting the Gentiles. Isn't it possible that later additions to the original story of Mark, such as a virgin birth and detailed post-death appearances of a god, which Mark never once mentions, were added to the story for the express purpose of convincing Gentiles that Jesus was at least equal if not superior to the Greco-Roman gods??

And the claim that the Gospels do not contain any mythological language or mythological beings is only true if you do not consider angels and demons to be mythological; or that voices of gods speaking out of the clear blue sky (This is my beloved Son...) are non-mythological; or that a "Devil" who can transport a human being from the top of a mountain to the top of the highest point of the temple at the snap of the fingers or wiggle of the nose is not mythological; or dead bodies who can walk out of their tombs with superhero bodies in blinding white garments and later levitate into outer space are not mythological. Only a Christian would consider these events and beings as non-mythological.

Keener:

"People in the ancient Mediterranean world valued prodigies and omens...Among prodigies reported before Jerusalem's fall were armies clashing in the skies and a voice declaring the "gods" departure from the temple. Tacitus follows Joseph, who reports that people saw heavenly chariots moving through the clouds and surrounding cities, and priests heard voices in the temple. Some scholars regard these apparitions as collective fantasies, but in principle they could also be authentic celestial images (which we are tempted to regard as very unlikely); a misrepresentation of celestial phenomena; especially among those new to the region; the sun playing tricks on the eyes at dusk; propaganda to justify Jerusalem's fall after the event, which Josephus has accepted; Josephus' own propaganda (he is the only extant witness concerning witnesses apart from sources dependent on him); or a combination of such elements." pp. 80-90

Wow! These are the exact same arguments that we skeptics put forward for the alleged post-death appearances of Jesus; alleged appearances to individuals and groups, but arguments which Christians, such as Keener, say are implausible...for their supernatural claim!