Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[One Bad Pig]

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.

What is the probability that someone who heard Jesus speak or saw miracles he performed was still alive 40 years later? That's not an implausible scenario by any means.

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??

You're rather stretching the truth here, Gary; some scholars think (a far cry from "we know") that the description of the angel stirring the waters was added to the story later, but that does not include the element that the waters were stirred, and sick people gathered in hopes of getting into the pool first when it happened. It also happened at the Pool of Bethesda (Bethsaida was a village, not a pool), and is recounted in the gospel of John, not Mark. And it has pretty much nothing in common with the purported healings at pagan shrines.

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.

It is not a major assumption. It is reasonable to assume that eyewitnesses (and especially hearers of direct witnesses) would still have remained in that timeframe, the Didache shows that there were a lot of itinerant preachers who would have been rejected if their stories didn't add up, and the evidence used to postulate when the gospels were written is exceedingly thin (and critical scholars are motivated to date them as late as possible).

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!

Um, duh? Jesus was Jewish, after all (and irrespective of his divinity, used power from the same alleged source).

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.

There's a whole host of assumptions in here, Gary, not least of which is the assumption that any healing is coincidental.

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??

Gary, the gospels were not written in order to convince outsiders. They were written as a record for those who already believed. Further, readers of Mark would have been well aware of Jesus' predicted resurrection (8:31), the angel's pronouncement that he had risen from the dead (16:6), and the post-resurrection appearances would probably have been known already (from the preaching of the apostles and e.g., Paul's creed-like recitation in 1 Cor 15, written about AD 55).

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.

You're, um, stretching things again, Gary.

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!

Keener says no such thing; he is reporting what some scholars say. AFAIK, collective fantasies are psychologically impossible, misrepresentation of celestial phenomena due to being new to the region is exceedingly improbable, as is the sun playing tricks on the eyes at dusk; and given the actions of the Jews recorded by Josephus, such propaganda would be entirely superfluous.

[Gary]

What is the probability that someone who heard Jesus speak or saw miracles he performed was still alive 40 years later? That's not an implausible scenario by any means.

You're rather stretching the truth here, Gary; some scholars think (a far cry from "we know") that the description of the angel stirring the waters was added to the story later, but that does not include the element that the waters were stirred, and sick people gathered in hopes of getting into the pool first when it happened. It also happened at the Pool of Bethesda (Bethsaida was a village, not a pool), and is recounted in the gospel of John, not Mark. And it has pretty much nothing in common with the purported healings at pagan shrines.

It is not a major assumption. It is reasonable to assume that eyewitnesses (and especially hearers of direct witnesses) would still have remained in that timeframe, the Didache shows that there were a lot of itinerant preachers who would have been rejected if their stories didn't add up, and the evidence used to postulate when the gospels were written is exceedingly thin (and critical scholars are motivated to date them as late as possible).

Um, duh? Jesus was Jewish, after all (and irrespective of his divinity, used power from the same alleged source).

There's a whole host of assumptions in here, Gary, not least of which is the assumption that any healing is coincidental.

Gary, the gospels were not written in order to convince outsiders. They were written as a record for those who already believed. Further, readers of Mark would have been well aware of Jesus' predicted resurrection (8:31), the angel's pronouncement that he had risen from the dead (16:6), and the post-resurrection appearances would probably have been known already (from the preaching of the apostles and e.g., Paul's creed-like recitation in 1 Cor 15, written about AD 55).

You're, um, stretching things again, Gary.


Keener says no such thing; he is reporting what some scholars say. AFAIK, collective fantasies are psychologically impossible, misrepresentation of celestial phenomena due to being new to the region is exceedingly improbable, as is the sun playing tricks on the eyes at dusk; and given the actions of the Jews recorded by Josephus, such propaganda would be entirely superfluous.

"What is the probability that someone who heard Jesus speak or saw miracles he performed was still alive 40 years later? That's not an implausible scenario by any means."

I never said it was implausible, only that there is no evidence to prove it.

"Bethesda" is what I meant to write. I apologize for the typo.

"Gary, the gospels were not written in order to convince outsiders. They were written as a record for those who already believed. Further, readers of Mark would have been well aware of Jesus' predicted resurrection (8:31), the angel's pronouncement that he had risen from the dead (16:6), and the post-resurrection appearances would probably have been known already (from the preaching of the apostles and e.g., Paul's creed-like recitation in 1 Cor 15, written about AD 55)."

Readers of Mark would have been aware of Jesus predicted resurrection? Not according to Stein and his scholars. And you are making another major assumption that the apostles and Paul taught the same resurrection stories as are stated in the Gospels. For all we know, the Early Creed is based on individual vivid dreams and visions, and, group false sightings or tricks of nature (a bright light) just as Keener claims may have happened for the group claims of seeing armies in the heavens mentioned by Josephus and Tacitus.

"Keener says no such thing; he is reporting what some scholars say. AFAIK, collective fantasies are psychologically impossible, misrepresentation of celestial phenomena due to being new to the region is exceedingly improbable, as is the sun playing tricks on the eyes at dusk; and given the actions of the Jews recorded by Josephus, such propaganda would be entirely superfluous."

Assumptions, assumptions, and more assumptions!

[Gary]

What is the probability that someone who heard Jesus speak or saw miracles he performed was still alive 40 years later? That's not an implausible scenario by any means.

You're rather stretching the truth here, Gary; some scholars think (a far cry from "we know") that the description of the angel stirring the waters was added to the story later, but that does not include the element that the waters were stirred, and sick people gathered in hopes of getting into the pool first when it happened. It also happened at the Pool of Bethesda (Bethsaida was a village, not a pool), and is recounted in the gospel of John, not Mark. And it has pretty much nothing in common with the purported healings at pagan shrines.

It is not a major assumption. It is reasonable to assume that eyewitnesses (and especially hearers of direct witnesses) would still have remained in that timeframe, the Didache shows that there were a lot of itinerant preachers who would have been rejected if their stories didn't add up, and the evidence used to postulate when the gospels were written is exceedingly thin (and critical scholars are motivated to date them as late as possible).

Um, duh? Jesus was Jewish, after all (and irrespective of his divinity, used power from the same alleged source).

There's a whole host of assumptions in here, Gary, not least of which is the assumption that any healing is coincidental.

Gary, the gospels were not written in order to convince outsiders. They were written as a record for those who already believed. Further, readers of Mark would have been well aware of Jesus' predicted resurrection (8:31), the angel's pronouncement that he had risen from the dead (16:6), and the post-resurrection appearances would probably have been known already (from the preaching of the apostles and e.g., Paul's creed-like recitation in 1 Cor 15, written about AD 55).

You're, um, stretching things again, Gary.


Keener says no such thing; he is reporting what some scholars say. AFAIK, collective fantasies are psychologically impossible, misrepresentation of celestial phenomena due to being new to the region is exceedingly improbable, as is the sun playing tricks on the eyes at dusk; and given the actions of the Jews recorded by Josephus, such propaganda would be entirely superfluous.

Gary: 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.

OBP: You're, um, stretching things again, Gary.

Please explain, Piggy.

[Gary]

Here is another issue I will be looking for from Mr. Keener:

Keener desires that scholars entertain the possibility of miracles and supernatural acts in the world. But does Mr. Keener give a standard in his book by which scholars can determine whether a miracle claim is worthy of consideration? Should we accept all miracle claims as equally probable? If so, imagine the chaos for any textbook publisher and editor. There are dozens if not hundreds of Creation stories on the earth among the different major religions and among the many cultures of primitive peoples. Should science textbooks include every Creation story from every culture on the planet just because we should consider them all equally probable? And how about the age of the Universe? The origin of species? The cause of disease? If a primitive culture still believes that invisible evil spirits cause diseases, must we list this probable cause in our medical textbooks?

I certainly hope that Mr. Keener will give us a uniform standard for measuring the probability of any miracle claim's veracity.

[Gary]

My review of Chapter Fourhttps://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/201...radical-light/

Keener goes on to discuss the literary genres of the early centuries of the common era. He notes that many authors of the upper echelons of society frowned on supernatural claims in literary works but others did not. Many authors of the upper crust of society mocked the lower classes as being superstitious and gullible.

On page 101, Keener suggests that "...academic intolerance (of supernatural claims) functions as a sort of uncritical "fundamentalism". Is there not something inconsistent about (in some academic circles) stifling dissent by refusing to give alternative positions a hearing, all the while claiming to uphold academic "objectivity". "

I would be curious to know if Keener is suggesting that academia give "a hearing" to all supernatural claims in the world...or just his? Imagine if scientists and medical experts were required to investigate every supernatural claim in the world before constructing an hypothesis for the most plausible explanation for an event in our world or a disease! What chaos!

Keener closes the chapter with two statements that I find telling:

"I shall suggest that thinkers like Hume, alongside his hypothetical Indian prince, ought to be wise enough to accept sufficient testimony."

Is alleged eyewitness testimony alone a valid method of determining truth? If we go back in time a few centuries we would find thousands if not tens of thousands of eyewitness claims of alleged demon possession; cases which doctors today know to be...seizure disorders...readily treatable with medications...not exorcisms! Eyewitness testimony can be wrong, especially if the eye witnesses are poorly educated.

"The Radical Enlightenment perspective on miracles has its own cultural and historical context that is not even the context of current Western scientific discovery."

Really?? If that is so, why then, Mr. Keener, are you claiming that todays scientists and medical experts, the people doing the "discovery" in western civilization...currently...are biased?

[Gary]

Think about this, folks: Keener argues that eye witness testimony for miracles should be taken as sufficient evidence for experts to accept these claims as valid. But imagine this scenario:

Ten people, for reasons unknown to you, accuse you of last night's horrific murder in your neighborhood. All ten identify you as the person seen fleeing the victims' home. However, there is no physical evidence whatsoever to tie you to the murder. Is it just to convict you of murder based solely on eyewitness testimony?

[psstein]

Bad argument, Gary. There's this great thing called circumstantial evidence.

If 10 people see you fleeing the scene of a murder just after the murder took place, you may have a role. It is possible to win murder cases without much direct evidence; it's not totally unheard of.

[One Bad Pig]

Bad argument, Gary. There's this great thing called circumstantial evidence.

If 10 people see you fleeing the scene of a murder just after the murder took place, you may have a role. It is possible to win murder cases without much direct evidence; it's not totally unheard of.

Yeah, if 10 people finger me, that's good odds I'm guilty.

[Apologiaphoenix]

J Warner Wallace has said most cold cases are solved based on circumstantial evidence. Very few cases today involve direct eyewitness testimony.

[Raphael]

I have multiple eyewitness accounts that when she was 18 months old my sister's legs were so crippled that the doctor had told my parents that she would spend the rest of her life in leg irons and would need a walking frame to walk.
my parents took her to a regular weekly church prayer meeting and at that prayer meeting her legs visibly straightened and she walked for the first time that evening. She is now in her 40's and has no problems walking or running (apart from general laziness).

I did not witness this event myself (I was born 4 and a half years later....this event happened in the mid 70's)
I have reliable eyewitness testimony that I trust of the event occurring.
At the time there was medical evidence (doctor's recommendations before she was healed and his notes after she was healed) unfortunately these were lost after the doctor retired and passed away about 35 years ago.... no pc's back then and his widow had his patient records burnt so they would remain confidential (I asked my parents about it, and they did not think to ask for a copy of the notes).

Now while I don't in the slightest think for a second that this should convince you that God is more than capable of acting supernaturally (and I am not suggesting it should), it does convince me.

I can talk to the eyewitnesses (who are still alive) and get the information from them as to exactly what happened.
The eyewitnesses have been truthful on all other matters regarding that time, as well as being truthful about later events that I was part of, so I trust their testimony about that time. This includes one of my brothers who is now an atheist, so a hostile witness who also affirms the event happened as described (although he can provide no explanation for it).
There was no motivation for the eyewitnesses to have made up the event.

Even though the documentation of the physical evidence is no longer available, I can still come to the conclusion that the event happened as described.

This is similar to the situation that Paul and the gospel writers were in. There were still people alive who could be questioned about what they had witnessed and people could decide whether or not their testimony was reliable or not. And don't forget that Paul had people following him from town to town trying to dispute everything he said. This means he was not presenting things into a vacuum unchallenged.

[JimL]

Book Plunge: Can Cristians prove The Resurrection?

No, they can't!

[One Bad Pig]

Gary: 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.

OBP: You're, um, stretching things again, Gary.

Please explain, Piggy.

Mr. Keener, even going solely by the text you've quoted thus far, gave what he considered to be the criteria for "mythological" - and the NT stories are clearly different from that. Further, you've impugned the character of the accounts you relate with exaggerations not in the text. An expecially egregious case is your mischaracterization of the Devil's powers through analogy with a television show. Your a priori anti-supernaturalism is showing.

[37818]

No, they can't!

Hmm . . .

Question, is the NT claim of the bodily resurrection of Jesus being the Christ a paranormal [super natural] claim?

[Gary]

Bad argument, Gary. There's this great thing called circumstantial evidence.

If 10 people see you fleeing the scene of a murder just after the murder took place, you may have a role. It is possible to win murder cases without much direct evidence; it's not totally unheard of.

It didn't say it was unheard of. There are many cases of men going to the gas chamber, the gallows, etc., based on alleged eyewitness testimony alone. However, there is now DNA evidence that in numerous past murder cases, the eyewitnesses were mistaken.

I am not saying that eyewitness testimony should be ignored. It can be very important evidence. But eyewitness testimony alone, without any physical evidence, can be wrong, and has been in many cases.

[Gary]

Yeah, if 10 people finger me, that's good odds I'm guilty.

Unless you happen to be a minority male, then the chances that you could be falsely accused by white eyewitnesses is much more of a probability.