One of our commenters has repeatedly charged that the followers of Jesus chose to keep soldiering on after the crucifixion because of the desire for some material gain. In other words, they somehow cynically endured persecution in hopes of getting the big score and I don't mean heaven.
I decided to end the dime store atheist crap by looking a little deeper. Reading Gary Habermas, who is intensively engaged in this issue and famously debated the former atheist (now plain theist) Anthony Flew, I found the following statement which would seem to end this particular line of hazing:
It is the substantially unanimous verdict of contemporary critical scholars that Jesus' early disciples at least thought that they had seen the risen Jesus.
Since we now have the opinion of people who actually study the matter, rather than that of those who line their parrot cages with the latest issue of Skeptic magazine, we can put the cynical religious charlatans argument to rest.
14 comments:
I love Skeptic. It's much more absorbent than Harper's.
I couldn't agree more. But when I really want something "fatuous" I read Richard Dawkins.
"Except that those who study the matter in this case are almost universally those who also happen to be adherents. The list of atheist Jesus scholars is naturally vanishingly small. That means that just like you these people are HEAVILY prejudiced in their reactions to the evidence."
T, I am astonished at your willingness to speak on matters about which you so obviously know nothing. We would all benefit if you would adopt a modicum of care before airing views on every topic under the sun. There are certainly topics about which you know something, but this is not one of them.
I am not a Jesus scholar or a theologian or an NT critic, but I am a rocket scientist in this area compared to you. Get a clue. Jesus scholars and NT critics do not exactly have a reputation for orthodoxy or even for being Christians. Have you ever read about the Jesus Seminar (just for a start)?
Withdraw and wait for a topic where you have something intelligent to say.
"Okay Hunter answer one simple question:
Is it in any way possible the ressurection could have been faked?"
I appreciate that you are asking a relevant question without a lot of B.S. attached.
People can do some amazing things. Some of the scholarship focuses on exactly this question of whether a spectacular fraud could have occurred. This is why we get theories in the literature like the "swoon theory" which claims Jesus wasn't actually killed, but rather appeared to die on the cross.
I have seen some of these attempts to account for the evidence for the resurrection. If you are a thoroughgoing naturalist, you will likely prefer one of them. I have not found one of them convincing at this time, but I recognize that there IS a conversation ongoing, which is why I presented the issue as one of evidence for a proposition rather than as a slam dunk how-could-anyone-be-so-stupid- as-not-to-get-this sort of thing.
tbmbuzz>> Well, JC, technically the New Testament - at least its first four books - is all hearsay based on third person accounts. Hardly evidence that would stand up in a scientific or legal forum.
Then, technically, all history is hearsay.
tbmbuzz>> There are plenty of Resurrection myths in the mythologies of the world; the Christ one is not unique.
The others do not include an empty tomb and an account of the events before and after. There's a lot more 'there' there.
Heck, there are two resurrections just in the New Testament itself (Lazarus anyone?)!
I believe the term used for Lazarus is resuscitation since he eventually dies again. The resurrection of Jesus goes quite a bit further than Lazarus.
Let's be absolutely clear- NO ONE CAN SAY WITH ANY VERACITY WHAT ANY DISCIPLE BELIEVED.
You can go this route, but then you have to deny yourself much of the rest of history as factual as well. I mean, how can we really know what Hitler or Joan of Arc or anyone else really believed.
There is nothing wrong with basing your faith on a good story regardless of whether the story is "true."
I'm sure James Frey would not have a problem with that. However, if you're going to ask someone to deny themself - in some cases to the point of death - my guess is that truth is going to come into the conversation.
Did you really have to bring up the gospel of Thomas? OK, time to get out of the way, the Catholics can't be too far off...
TBM, the document is Catholic in the sense that members of the early church referred to the church as Catholic (universal), but not in the sense of being institutionally identical with the Catholic church we have today.
On the matter of how many witnesses there were, Paul refers at one point to some five hundred people who could confirm having seen the risen Jesus.
At some point, isn't it patently ridiculous to be taking the word of a movement leader interested in making converts as an objective source? It's kind of the same with the other books: They're letters, written to potential converts, with the goal of converting them! And given how close to identical they are, they're clearly cribbed from either one another or another source lost to antiquity - especially when they "bear witness" to events they could not possibly have witnessed!
The point is that Paul is making a claim that can be debunked. It is in his interest not to do so, but instead to make the kind of hazy mystical references that we get with something like Buddhism. Christianity's strong point and greatest controversiality is that it is grounded in history. As is Judaism.
Christianity's strong point and greatest controversiality is that it is grounded in history. As is Judaism.
This is both true and also not true. And applies equally well to Islam and Sikhism. Both religions are tied to the histories of societies, cultures, and ethnicities we happen to have a strong historical record for. That said, there is, in fact, no historical evidence for things like the exodus from Egypt, etc. Much as the Greek myths roil around oral histories, so too with Judaism and, consequently, Christianity.
Jesus existed. So did Buddha. So did Confucius. Lots of insights and philosophies worth living one's life by. Doesn't make them divine, just really cool.
Post a Comment