Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[JonathanL]

"In a bibliographical

Are you being dense on purpose?

[Gary]

Are you being dense on purpose?

http://christianapologeticstraining....-tomb-of-jesus

Misleading!

It should say, "75% of scholars who have written on the subject of the Resurrection between 1975-2005, and have expressed an opinion on the historicity of the Empty Tomb, accept its historicity."

How many lay persons understand that a "literature search", a "bibliographical review" or a "survey of the works of biblical scholars" is NOT the same as surveying all relevant experts themselves?

More proof that Christian apologists are purposefully misconstruing the findings of Habermas' research or they themselves do not understand it:

"The consensus amongst Biblical scholars is that the Disciples had a powerful experience of the risen Christ. 75% of the surveyed scholars accept one or more arguments for the historicity of the empty tomb. "

Source: http://www.slideshare.net/jmorris376...the-empty-tomb

There was no survey of scholars! It was a literature search!

[DesertBerean]

....did he just move the goal posts?

[Adrift]

....did he just move the goal posts?

Yeah, but it doesn't matter. He thought he dropped a bomb, and it turned out to be a dud, so he's scrambling for a way to make something of it. It's pathetic, but none of us expected better.

[JonathanL]

http://christianapologeticstraining....-tomb-of-jesus

Misleading!

It should say, "75% of scholars who have written on the subject of the Resurrection between 1975-2005, and have expressed an opinion on the historicity of the Empty Tomb, accept its historicity."

Why are you hitting yourself?

[Gary]

Yeah, but it doesn't matter. He thought he dropped a bomb, and it turned out to be a dud, so he's scrambling for a way to make something of it. It's pathetic, but none of us expected better.

Look at this quote from Adrift here on TW:

Oh brother. Your "most non-Christians scholars..."shpeel is something you pulled out of your butt. Habermas says nothing about "most non-Christian scholars".


Source: Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying? by Gary R. Habermas, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 3.2, pp. 135-153

"A second research area concerns those scholars who address the subject of the empty tomb. It has been said that the majority of contemporary researchers accepts the historicity of this event.[39]http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post318718

Gary: The emphasis above is mine. Note how even Habermas himself is trying to push the idea that the majority of scholars support the historicity of the Empty Tomb by using his literature search. And Drifty is guilty of peddling this distortion here on TW.

[Gary]

http://www.toughquestionsanswered.or...-resurrection/

Gary: Which scholars? Answer: Only the scholars who have bothered to publish an opinion on the historicity of the Empty Tomb! Pratt's comment above is not false, it just doesn't tell the entire truth. It is misleading. And with so many Christian apologists making misleading or even false statements about this research, no wonder many lay Christians believe that "75% of scholars" believe in the Empty Tomb.

[Adrift]

Are you on something Gary? I'm serious. You either have to be on some very good meds, or off your meds completely if you think you're making some sort of valid points here. Also, your quoting of post #42 is really strange. This is the post in context,

My position if fully inline with most non-Christian scholars who doubt the historicity of the Empty Tomb (25% of NT scholarship, if Habermas' numbers are correct).

Oh brother. Your "most non-Christians scholars..."shpeel is something you pulled out of your butt. Habermas says nothing about "most non-Christian scholars".

Nothing that you've said or thought you have discovered in the last 2 months has rebutted my post #42. Habermas said nothing about non-Christian scholars making up the 25% who do not accept the empty tomb.

I think maybe you took one too many lumps on your way out last time.

[Gary]

Are you on something Gary? I'm serious. You either have to be on some very good meds, or off your meds completely if you think you're making some sort of valid points here. Also, your quoting of post #42 is really strange. This is the post in context,



Nothing that you've said or thought you have discovered in the last 2 months has rebutted my post #42. Habermas said nothing about non-Christian scholars making up the 25% who do not accept the empty tomb.

I think maybe you took one too many lumps on your way out last time.

The Case for the Real Jesus p. 123

Source: http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.c...timate-of.html

[Gary]

Yeah, but it doesn't matter. He thought he dropped a bomb, and it turned out to be a dud, so he's scrambling for a way to make something of it. It's pathetic, but none of us expected better.

So I did drop a bomb, Drifter. You just don't like getting caught. You, Nick, and others here on TW have been trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, claiming that "75% of scholars accept the historicity of the Empty Tomb" when you obviously knew that it is a distortion of Habermas' findings. You have blasted me and other skeptics for not accepting the "majority scholarly consensus" on the Empty Tomb. What a joke.

Shame on you.

[DesertBerean]

So I did drop a bomb, Drifter. You just don't like getting caught. You, Nick, and others here on TW have been trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, claiming that "75% of scholars accept the historicity of the Empty Tomb" when you obviously knew that it is a distortion of Habermas' findings. You have blasted me and other skeptics for not accepting the "majority scholarly consensus" on the Empty Tomb. What a joke.

Shame on you.

But you moved the goal posts.

[psstein]

I'm not sure if you've ever interacted with Doug, but just a heads-up, he's about three steps past Jesus Mythicism into the realm of almost complete ahistoricism. His brand of super-skepticism for anything any ancient historian might be able to relay to a non-expert through their years of hands-on exhaustive research, is practically impenetrable. He's skeptical of the entire enterprise of NT scholarship from the ground up. Unless he dug it out of the sand himself, or unless it's presented by folks like Carrier or Doherty (who Doug gives a pass for some reason) he's unlikely to accept it, offering instead his catch-phrases "So you say", "on your say so?", and "Why should I believe that?", to which the answer would normally include something like a detailed course in historical and textual criticism, and the history of NT scholarship (that he'd still probably shrug off as "just someone's say so").

Thanks. Yeah, I noticed that in his "response." A bunch of "well, that's what the NT says, but we have no independent testimony."

He doesn't seem to realize that the NT isn't one unitary book written by the same author.

[psstein]

That's exactly what your cite of Craig says, "...the majority of New Testament scholars who have written on this subject..." Also, no one expects people who have not written on the subject to voice their opinion on anything, so you're making a fuss over something no one is really arguing, or cares about.

As you likely know, NT scholarship is very specialized. Dissertations have been devoted to two lines in John, and papers have been dedicated to the meaning of εγειρε in 1 Cor 15.

Here's a concrete example, so Gary's main thrust can be answered.

Douglas Campbell is a leading scholar of the Pauline Epistles, probably the most renowned American scholar of them. He focuses on Paul's theology and life. Why would he bother discussing the empty tomb?

On the other hand, Craig Evans is a leading scholar of the historical Jesus and 1st century Palestinian archeology (I use "Palestine" because it encompasses a larger area than just Israel). Naturally, he would discuss the empty tomb.

Habermas also makes a bit of a misleading statement in his paper. The arguments for and against are not necessarily divided among theological lines. Gerd Theissen, a German theologian and NT scholar, provides about 10 reasons against the historicity of the empty tomb in his The Historical Jesus, while also providing 13 or so reasons in support.

[Raphael]

....did he just move the goal posts?

Gary's goal posts are completely automated and tend to wander around randomly on their own.

[Adrift]

As you likely know, NT scholarship is very specialized. Dissertations have been devoted to two lines in John, and papers have been dedicated to the meaning of εγειρε in 1 Cor 15.

Here's a concrete example, so Gary's main thrust can be answered.

Douglas Campbell is a leading scholar of the Pauline Epistles, probably the most renowned American scholar of them. He focuses on Paul's theology and life. Why would he bother discussing the empty tomb?

On the other hand, Craig Evans is a leading scholar of the historical Jesus and 1st century Palestinian archeology (I use "Palestine" because it encompasses a larger area than just Israel). Naturally, he would discuss the empty tomb.

Habermas also makes a bit of a misleading statement in his paper. The arguments for and against are not necessarily divided among theological lines. Gerd Theissen, a German theologian and NT scholar, provides about 10 reasons against the historicity of the empty tomb in his The Historical Jesus, while also providing 13 or so reasons in support.

Well I think a little wiggle room is offered when he qualifies that with the word "Generally". Also, as Habermas then points out in the next paragraph, critical scholars who hold to the empty tomb "still comprise a fairly strong majority". Also, the theological party lines he has in mind include skeptical, moderate, and conservative, and for the purposes of that paper the phrase "more critical" seems somewhat synonymous with "skeptical".