Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] Re: XTalk Seminar with Gerd Ludemann

Expand Messages
  • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
    In a message dated 12/4/2004 4:11:11 P.M. Central Standard Time, TonyBuglass@fish.co.uk writes: Ed wrote: If it did happen, it was a miracle. Which means
    Message 1 of 149 , Dec 4, 2004
      In a message dated 12/4/2004 4:11:11 P.M. Central Standard Time,
      TonyBuglass@... writes:

      Ed wrote:
      If it did happen, it was a miracle. Which means that its scientific
      impossibility is irrelevant. But the biochemical changes that occur in the
      cells when deprived of their oxygen supply upon death are positive,
      absolute, and irreversible. You speak of resurrection as if it were a
      phenomenon unto itself that would take place at the level of the organism.
      It is
      not. We area talking about something that place at the atomic level
      (sub-atomic, to be specific) and takes places the way it does because atoms
      work they
      way they do.

      I think you're still talking about resuscitation. As I understand it, the
      NT views the resurrection body as something new created out of the old (the
      significance of the empty tomb?), rather than a repair and revivifying of the
      old. I've already made this point, and you still come back to the question
      of irreversible biochemical changes (which I don't dispute - my only question
      is whether this is somethng at the sub-atomic or molecular level, but I
      haven't done chemistry for decades and I'm sure it would be seriously off-list if
      you tried to re-educate me:)). If we really are talking about real death and
      real resurrection, then yes we are talking about miracle, which may make all
      this stuff tangential to the case *depending* on your view of the state of
      science as a developing field of knowledge and your associated definition of

      Rev Tony Buglass
      Superintendent Minister
      Upper Calder Methodist Circuit
      W Yorks

      Yes, I'd say it's tangential to the issue of whether Jesus was resurrected.
      If it happened it was a miracle (and if on the weird off-shot it happened by
      natural means unknown to present-day science then there's no point in being
      a Christian, at least in the conventional sense). I think we agree on that.

      It is not, however, tangential to the rhetoric with which Gerd Ludemann's
      position has been dismissed. The impossibility of resurrection *is* proven,
      and there are quite sound methodological reasons for dismissing its historicity
      if one wants to undertake a study of the origin and transmission of the
      Resurrection tales. And the metaphysical arguments as to why a historian ought
      to take the possibility of the miraculous into consideration in this case are
      in reality the irrelevancies.

      Ed Tyler

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
      In a message dated 12/7/2004 8:38:17 P.M. Central Standard Time, taurus79@earthlink.net writes: John: Well, I ve explained my issues with Ludemann s
      Message 149 of 149 , Dec 7, 2004
        In a message dated 12/7/2004 8:38:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
        taurus79@... writes:

        Well, I've explained my issues with Ludemann's presuppositions (yes, I'm
        tired of hearing and using that word too) several times (hopefully now for
        the last). Though I don't accept them, I don't have any issue with them in
        and of themselves and I think its quite necessary for all interested parties
        to work out their explanations according to their worldview. There's never
        going to be a set of unanimously accepted metaphysically neutral starting
        points in this area (especially). My issue is with his claim to have
        undercut Christian belief with an argument that rests on presuppositions
        that Christians will so obviously not accept. You don't seem to really see
        that Ludemann is making certain claims that I think he is, but I think
        that's mainly because perhaps you haven't gotten his latest book yet.

        That's right. As I say, I got myself familiar with his thesis on the
        Resurrection accounts, which as you know I have some problems with. While that's
        mostly because I find a different naturalistic explanation more convincing,
        there are some plausibility issues on which I might agree with you. I look
        forward to seeing what you have to say on it when the time comes.

        Given the quotes Loren provided, I must say that I think Ludemann would have
        been well served by an editor with a sharp and merciless blue pencil. My
        personal feelings on the matter aside, if a person like Crossan or Meier finds
        a way to work theology into the conclusions of naturalistic scholarship, then
        it isn't the historical critic's place to judge. It is a different issue
        entirely, and the controversy over Ludemann's theological contentions has
        clearly detracted from the attention his thesis on the texts should receive. But
        judging from the page citations, he's worked it throughout the book.

        As for the meat of Ludemann's argument, as I've said, I find it interesting
        but ultimately implausible, and I'd be glad to give detailed reasoning here.
        I would think it best left for the symposium when Ludemann himself will have
        a chance to respond -- and again, hopefully I will have the time to do the
        legwork with sources and participate.

        I'm glad you found the book fun to read, because getting through the
        argument *auf Deutsche* was no picnic. As far as I can tell, his thesis is
        substantially unchanged from what I read but I expect to be through the English well
        before the seminar starts. I'm interested in what you have to say on it.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.