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

Re: [XTalk] on refuting bad apologetic

Expand Messages
  • Zeba Crook
    Dear Leon, With your lengthy attempt to refute the four irrefutable facts of Craig, methinks you bark up the wrong tree. J. of A. can have burried Jesus, the
    Message 1 of 19 , Jan 20, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Leon,

      With your lengthy attempt to refute the four "irrefutable facts" of
      Craig, methinks you bark up the wrong tree.

      J. of A. can have burried Jesus, the tomb could have been found empty,
      people could have "experienced" the risen Jesus, and the disciples
      could have believed him resurrected, but NONE of these mean the
      resurrection happened. The problem with the argument is that it's a
      logical non-sequitur to claim those premises prove that conclusion.
      "Resurrection" is also not even the most concise way to explain each of
      the these facts. It might be an interesting scholarly debate to look
      into each premise, as you have done, but I think it's unnecessary work
      for refuting Craig's attempt to prove the resurrection.

      I find these debates puzzling for a different reason than you, I think:
      I find it strange when Christians (by no means all), who so emphasise
      *faith*, work so hard to *prove* these things truly happened. It
      strikes me as an absence of faith when people try to prove that what
      they believe is perfectly rational (that goes for any religion)! Where
      is the value of having faith in the resurrection if it can be proved
      beyond the shadow of a doubt that the resurrection happened? I'm not a
      person of great faith because I believe the earth is spherical.

      Cheers,

      Zeb

      león wrote:


      >Hello everyone;
      >
      >I have been a regular reader here for a few years. It is an invaluable
      >resource for me. Many thanks to the many contributors to this lively
      >group.
      >
      >I seldom post, but I just finished writing a piece which I have posted
      >on a little personal blog that I keep (I would post it here, but it is
      >of considerable length)
      >
      >http://leoquix.blogspot.com
      >
      >It is basically a refutation of the apology for the historicity of
      >literal physical resurrection as presented by Dr. Wm Craig (and
      >others). I wrote it mainly because it has always perplexed me that no
      >one seems to want to examine with any real depth the evidence he
      >presents in the many
      >debates that he has taken part in that I have followed.
      >
      >I would welcome and appreciate any feedback or critique from any of
      >the members of this group.
      >
      >very respectfully,
      >
      >Peace
      >
      >Ã"
      >
      >r. león santiago
      >Tempe, AZ
      >
      >

      -----------------------------
      Z.A. Crook
      Assistant Professor, Religion
      Carleton University
      1125 Colonel By Drive
      Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6
      613-520-2600, ext. 2276
      www.carleton.ca/~zcrook
    • Horace Jeffery Hodges
      When you say faith, do you mean doctrine or trust ? Even if the resurrection were proven, faith would still have a role to play. Any number of beliefs
      Message 2 of 19 , Jan 20, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        When you say "faith," do you mean "doctrine" or "trust"?

        Even if the resurrection were proven, faith would still have a role to play. Any number of beliefs about or various degrees of trust in Jesus could follow from his resurrection -- and many have. The same would be true of miracles. One could witness them and yet draw any of various, conflicting conclusions or result in any of various, consequences.

        Of course, you could always ask Craig about this point.

        Jeffery Hodges

        Zeba Crook <zeba_crook@...> wrote:
        Dear Leon,

        With your lengthy attempt to refute the four "irrefutable facts" of
        Craig, methinks you bark up the wrong tree.

        J. of A. can have burried Jesus, the tomb could have been found empty,
        people could have "experienced" the risen Jesus, and the disciples
        could have believed him resurrected, but NONE of these mean the
        resurrection happened. The problem with the argument is that it's a
        logical non-sequitur to claim those premises prove that conclusion.
        "Resurrection" is also not even the most concise way to explain each of
        the these facts. It might be an interesting scholarly debate to look
        into each premise, as you have done, but I think it's unnecessary work
        for refuting Craig's attempt to prove the resurrection.

        I find these debates puzzling for a different reason than you, I think:
        I find it strange when Christians (by no means all), who so emphasise
        *faith*, work so hard to *prove* these things truly happened. It
        strikes me as an absence of faith when people try to prove that what
        they believe is perfectly rational (that goes for any religion)! Where
        is the value of having faith in the resurrection if it can be proved
        beyond the shadow of a doubt that the resurrection happened? I'm not a
        person of great faith because I believe the earth is spherical.

        Cheers,

        Zeb

        University Degrees:

        Ph.D., History, U.C. Berkeley
        (Doctoral Thesis: "Food as Synecdoche in John's Gospel and Gnostic Texts")
        M.A., History of Science, U.C. Berkeley
        B.A., English Language and Literature, Baylor University

        Email Address:

        jefferyhodges@...

        Blog:

        http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/

        Office Address:

        Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
        Department of English Language and Literature
        Korea University
        136-701 Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu
        Seoul
        South Korea

        Home Address:

        Dr. Sun-Ae Hwang and Dr. Horace Jeffery Hodges
        Sehan Apt. 102-2302
        Sinnae-dong 795
        Jungrang-gu
        Seoul 131-770
        South Korea

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Rikk Watts
        Zeb wrote.. ... With respect, I m not sure your definition of faith would be regarded as all that Christian, just as I would very much doubt that Craig (or any
        Message 3 of 19 , Jan 20, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Zeb wrote..
          > I find these debates puzzling for a different reason than you, I think:
          > I find it strange when Christians (by no means all), who so emphasise
          > *faith*, work so hard to *prove* these things truly happened. It
          > strikes me as an absence of faith when people try to prove that what
          > they believe is perfectly rational (that goes for any religion)! Where
          > is the value of having faith in the resurrection if it can be proved
          > beyond the shadow of a doubt that the resurrection happened? I'm not a
          > person of great faith because I believe the earth is spherical.
          >
          With respect, I'm not sure your definition of faith would be regarded as all
          that Christian, just as I would very much doubt that Craig (or any other
          half-thoughtful Christian for that matter) imagined he was proving anything
          beyond a shadow of a doubt.

          Orthodox Christianity has always claimed that its faith was based on
          historical events as per the early Church fathers adamant claim that they
          were not creating something but responding to it. And if something happened
          then one should be able to establish a reasonable historical chain of
          evidential explanation (which is what IMHO NT Wright has done so well in his
          RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD). That being so and history being history,
          "beyond a shadow of a doubt" cases are going to be very very rare indeed,
          and consequently barely of interest in most historical questions. Further,
          not that you've suggested this, but again IMHO what has tended to muddy the
          waters are: a) individuals trying to do history in the same way as they did
          science (but surely that's long passé), and b) thinking that science was the
          fundamental paradigm for understanding whereas in fact it is much more
          likely to be history (i.e. experience) of which science (and indeed
          philosophy) is a subset.

          Regards
          Rikk
        • Zeba Crook
          Dear Horace, I think I mean trust, in (if I understand it) the Lutheran sense: one is saved by faith, definitely not by knowledge. *Proving* the resurrection
          Message 4 of 19 , Jan 20, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Horace,

            I think I mean trust, in (if I understand it) the Lutheran sense: one
            is saved by faith, definitely not by knowledge. *Proving* the
            resurrection (or other miracles) happened is knowledge; so as I said,
            because it can be proved that the earth spherical, it does not mean I
            have faith because I believe it to be so (because in truth, I have not
            with my own eyes seen proof that it is anything other than round).

            Zeb

            Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:


            >When you say "faith," do you mean "doctrine" or "trust"?
            >
            > Even if the resurrection were proven, faith would still have a role
            to play. Any number of beliefs about or various degrees of trust in
            Jesus could follow from his resurrection -- and many have. The same
            would be true of miracles. One could witness them and yet draw any of
            various, conflicting conclusions or result in any of various,
            consequences.
            >
            > Of course, you could always ask Craig about this point.
            >
            > Jeffery Hodges
            >
            >Zeba Crook <zeba_crook@...> wrote:
            > Dear Leon,
            >
            >With your lengthy attempt to refute the four "irrefutable facts" of
            >Craig, methinks you bark up the wrong tree.
            >
            >J. of A. can have burried Jesus, the tomb could have been found empty,
            >people could have "experienced" the risen Jesus, and the disciples
            >could have believed him resurrected, but NONE of these mean the
            >resurrection happened. The problem with the argument is that it's a
            >logical non-sequitur to claim those premises prove that conclusion.
            >"Resurrection" is also not even the most concise way to explain each of
            >the these facts. It might be an interesting scholarly debate to look
            >into each premise, as you have done, but I think it's unnecessary work
            >for refuting Craig's attempt to prove the resurrection.
            >
            >I find these debates puzzling for a different reason than you, I think:
            >I find it strange when Christians (by no means all), who so emphasise
            >*faith*, work so hard to *prove* these things truly happened. It
            >strikes me as an absence of faith when people try to prove that what
            >they believe is perfectly rational (that goes for any religion)! Where
            >is the value of having faith in the resurrection if it can be proved
            >beyond the shadow of a doubt that the resurrection happened? I'm not a
            >person of great faith because I believe the earth is spherical.
            >
            >Cheers,
            >
            >Zeb
            >
            >University Degrees:
            >
            >Ph.D., History, U.C. Berkeley
            >(Doctoral Thesis: "Food as Synecdoche in John's Gospel and Gnostic
            Texts")
            >M.A., History of Science, U.C. Berkeley
            >B.A., English Language and Literature, Baylor University
            >
            >Email Address:
            >
            >jefferyhodges@...
            >
            >Blog:
            >
            >http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/
            >
            >Office Address:
            >
            >Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
            >Department of English Language and Literature
            >Korea University
            >136-701 Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu
            >Seoul
            >South Korea
            >
            >Home Address:
            >
            >Dr. Sun-Ae Hwang and Dr. Horace Jeffery Hodges
            >Sehan Apt. 102-2302
            >Sinnae-dong 795
            >Jungrang-gu
            >Seoul 131-770
            >South Korea
            >
            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >

            -----------------------------
            Z.A. Crook
            Assistant Professor, Religion
            Carleton University
            1125 Colonel By Drive
            Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6
            613-520-2600, ext. 2276
            www.carleton.ca/~zcrook
          • Zeba Crook
            Dear Rikk, ... as all ... anything ... they ... happened ... in his ... history, ... indeed, ... Further, ... the ... did ... was the ... The church fathers
            Message 5 of 19 , Jan 20, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Rikk,


              Rikk Watts wrote:

              >With respect, I'm not sure your definition of faith would be regarded
              as all
              >that Christian, just as I would very much doubt that Craig (or any other
              >half-thoughtful Christian for that matter) imagined he was proving
              anything
              >beyond a shadow of a doubt.
              >
              >Orthodox Christianity has always claimed that its faith was based on
              >historical events as per the early Church fathers adamant claim that
              they
              >were not creating something but responding to it. And if something
              happened
              >then one should be able to establish a reasonable historical chain of
              >evidential explanation (which is what IMHO NT Wright has done so well
              in his
              >RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD). That being so and history being
              history,
              >"beyond a shadow of a doubt" cases are going to be very very rare
              indeed,
              >and consequently barely of interest in most historical questions.
              Further,
              >not that you've suggested this, but again IMHO what has tended to muddy
              the
              >waters are: a) individuals trying to do history in the same way as they
              did
              >science (but surely that's long passé), and b) thinking that science
              was the
              >fundamental paradigm for understanding whereas in fact it is much more
              >likely to be history (i.e. experience) of which science (and indeed
              >philosophy) is a subset.
              >

              The church fathers and the disciples *believed* the resurrection and
              the other miracles were historical events, so in that we agree (i.e.,
              they didn't think they were creating anything). But the key here, I
              think, is that they believed these things, they did not know them, and
              believing something does not make it historical. What we believe makes
              things feel real, but it does not make them real. And I'm not
              denigrating faith here, but suggesting that faith that works so hard to
              prove itself as rational, logical, historical, what have you, confuses
              itself (to its detriment) with science and history.

              And I'm sorry about the "shadow of a doubt" phrase. I didn't mean it
              to sound that stark. Nonetheless, I think it fair to say he thinks his
              case is very sound.

              Cheers,

              Zeb



              -----------------------------
              Z.A. Crook
              Assistant Professor, Religion
              Carleton University
              1125 Colonel By Drive
              Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6
              613-520-2600, ext. 2276
              www.carleton.ca/~zcrook
            • Rikk Watts
              Hi Zeb, Very sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you were denigrating faith (= trust). That s not what I meant to say. But surely no one s suggesting
              Message 6 of 19 , Jan 20, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Zeb,

                Very sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you were denigrating
                faith (= trust). That's not what I meant to say.

                But surely no one's suggesting that believing something makes it real. Nor
                could this be said of the church fathers, who as I'm sure you'd be the first
                to admit were not dolts. Many of them, as Weltin, ATHENS AND JERUSALEM,
                dryly observes were more than capable of holding their own against the best
                of Graeco-Roman philosophy, not least because they'd been schooled in it
                (they know their Aristotle et al; see also Wilken,THE SPIRIT OF EARLY
                CHRISTIAN THOUGHT). As well-educated first century men they believed in the
                resurrection because they believed the historical evidence, which in their
                case was at least the compelling veracity of the eyewitnesses (perhaps the
                most important source in terms of ancient historiography, see Byrskog, STORY
                AS HISTORY, HISTORY AS STORY; and now Bauckham, JESUS AND THE EYEWITNESSES).
                I find it particularly impressive that the idea of Jesus' resurrection
                gained traction in the first human culture that took what we might call
                modern Western epistemology seriously (I'm assuming something along the
                lines of Rubenstein's THE CHILDREN OF ARISTOTLE who argues it was the
                regaining of Aristotle in the 12th cent. Spanish church that was the
                catalyst which eventually resulted in the modern project).

                So, I agree that an element of trust is required‹not unexpectedly when one
                is speaking of eyewitness reports. But it wasn't only trust. Given their
                tendencies toward sometimes pugnacious and often detailed argument, it ought
                to be obvious that they didn't just believe anything anyone said.

                Re shadow of a doubt: no problem. But then I think the evidence for
                something like the resurrection is pretty strong too. :)

                Take care, Rikk


                On 20/1/07 4:11 PM, "Zeba Crook" <zeba_crook@...> wrote:

                > Dear Rikk,
                >
                >
                > Rikk Watts wrote:
                >
                >> With respect, I'm not sure your definition of faith would be regarded
                > as all
                >> that Christian, just as I would very much doubt that Craig (or any other
                >> half-thoughtful Christian for that matter) imagined he was proving
                > anything
                >> beyond a shadow of a doubt.
                >>
                >> Orthodox Christianity has always claimed that its faith was based on
                >> historical events as per the early Church fathers adamant claim that
                > they
                >> were not creating something but responding to it. And if something
                > happened
                >> then one should be able to establish a reasonable historical chain of
                >> evidential explanation (which is what IMHO NT Wright has done so well
                > in his
                >> RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD). That being so and history being
                > history,
                >> "beyond a shadow of a doubt" cases are going to be very very rare
                > indeed,
                >> and consequently barely of interest in most historical questions.
                > Further,
                >> not that you've suggested this, but again IMHO what has tended to muddy
                > the
                >> waters are: a) individuals trying to do history in the same way as they
                > did
                >> science (but surely that's long passé), and b) thinking that science
                > was the
                >> fundamental paradigm for understanding whereas in fact it is much more
                >> likely to be history (i.e. experience) of which science (and indeed
                >> philosophy) is a subset.
                >>
                >
                > The church fathers and the disciples *believed* the resurrection and
                > the other miracles were historical events, so in that we agree (i.e.,
                > they didn't think they were creating anything). But the key here, I
                > think, is that they believed these things, they did not know them, and
                > believing something does not make it historical. What we believe makes
                > things feel real, but it does not make them real. And I'm not
                > denigrating faith here, but suggesting that faith that works so hard to
                > prove itself as rational, logical, historical, what have you, confuses
                > itself (to its detriment) with science and history.
                >
                > And I'm sorry about the "shadow of a doubt" phrase. I didn't mean it
                > to sound that stark. Nonetheless, I think it fair to say he thinks his
                > case is very sound.
                >
                > Cheers,
                >
                > Zeb
                >
                >
                >
                > -----------------------------
                > Z.A. Crook
                > Assistant Professor, Religion
                > Carleton University
                > 1125 Colonel By Drive
                > Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6
                > 613-520-2600, ext. 2276
                > www.carleton.ca/~zcrook
                >
                >
                > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                >
                > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
              • Rikk Watts
                Zeb... my mistake here too: obviously the church fathers can hardly all be first cent. :) (That ll teach me to mark papers and reply to posts at the same
                Message 7 of 19 , Jan 20, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Zeb... my mistake here too: obviously the church fathers can hardly all be
                  first cent. :) (That'll teach me to mark papers and reply to posts at the
                  same time... )
                  Cheers
                  Rikk


                  On 20/1/07 5:02 PM, "Rikk Watts" <rwatts@...> wrote:

                  > Hi Zeb,
                  >
                  > Very sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you were denigrating
                  > faith (= trust). That's not what I meant to say.
                  >
                  > But surely no one's suggesting that believing something makes it real. Nor
                  > could this be said of the church fathers, who as I'm sure you'd be the first
                  > to admit were not dolts. Many of them, as Weltin, ATHENS AND JERUSALEM,
                  > dryly observes were more than capable of holding their own against the best
                  > of Graeco-Roman philosophy, not least because they'd been schooled in it
                  > (they know their Aristotle et al; see also Wilken,THE SPIRIT OF EARLY
                  > CHRISTIAN THOUGHT). As well-educated first century men they believed in the
                  > resurrection because they believed the historical evidence, which in their
                  > case was at least the compelling veracity of the eyewitnesses (perhaps the
                  > most important source in terms of ancient historiography, see Byrskog, STORY
                  > AS HISTORY, HISTORY AS STORY; and now Bauckham, JESUS AND THE EYEWITNESSES).
                  > I find it particularly impressive that the idea of Jesus' resurrection
                  > gained traction in the first human culture that took what we might call
                  > modern Western epistemology seriously (I'm assuming something along the
                  > lines of Rubenstein's THE CHILDREN OF ARISTOTLE who argues it was the
                  > regaining of Aristotle in the 12th cent. Spanish church that was the
                  > catalyst which eventually resulted in the modern project).
                  >
                  > So, I agree that an element of trust is required‹not unexpectedly when one
                  > is speaking of eyewitness reports. But it wasn't only trust. Given their
                  > tendencies toward sometimes pugnacious and often detailed argument, it ought
                  > to be obvious that they didn't just believe anything anyone said.
                  >
                  > Re shadow of a doubt: no problem. But then I think the evidence for
                  > something like the resurrection is pretty strong too. :)
                  >
                  > Take care, Rikk
                  >
                  >
                  > On 20/1/07 4:11 PM, "Zeba Crook" <zeba_crook@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >> Dear Rikk,
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Rikk Watts wrote:
                  >>
                  >>> With respect, I'm not sure your definition of faith would be regarded
                  >> as all
                  >>> that Christian, just as I would very much doubt that Craig (or any other
                  >>> half-thoughtful Christian for that matter) imagined he was proving
                  >> anything
                  >>> beyond a shadow of a doubt.
                  >>>
                  >>> Orthodox Christianity has always claimed that its faith was based on
                  >>> historical events as per the early Church fathers adamant claim that
                  >> they
                  >>> were not creating something but responding to it. And if something
                  >> happened
                  >>> then one should be able to establish a reasonable historical chain of
                  >>> evidential explanation (which is what IMHO NT Wright has done so well
                  >> in his
                  >>> RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD). That being so and history being
                  >> history,
                  >>> "beyond a shadow of a doubt" cases are going to be very very rare
                  >> indeed,
                  >>> and consequently barely of interest in most historical questions.
                  >> Further,
                  >>> not that you've suggested this, but again IMHO what has tended to muddy
                  >> the
                  >>> waters are: a) individuals trying to do history in the same way as they
                  >> did
                  >>> science (but surely that's long passé), and b) thinking that science
                  >> was the
                  >>> fundamental paradigm for understanding whereas in fact it is much more
                  >>> likely to be history (i.e. experience) of which science (and indeed
                  >>> philosophy) is a subset.
                  >>>
                  >>
                  >> The church fathers and the disciples *believed* the resurrection and
                  >> the other miracles were historical events, so in that we agree (i.e.,
                  >> they didn't think they were creating anything). But the key here, I
                  >> think, is that they believed these things, they did not know them, and
                  >> believing something does not make it historical. What we believe makes
                  >> things feel real, but it does not make them real. And I'm not
                  >> denigrating faith here, but suggesting that faith that works so hard to
                  >> prove itself as rational, logical, historical, what have you, confuses
                  >> itself (to its detriment) with science and history.
                  >>
                  >> And I'm sorry about the "shadow of a doubt" phrase. I didn't mean it
                  >> to sound that stark. Nonetheless, I think it fair to say he thinks his
                  >> case is very sound.
                  >>
                  >> Cheers,
                  >>
                  >> Zeb
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> -----------------------------
                  >> Z.A. Crook
                  >> Assistant Professor, Religion
                  >> Carleton University
                  >> 1125 Colonel By Drive
                  >> Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6
                  >> 613-520-2600, ext. 2276
                  >> www.carleton.ca/~zcrook
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                  >>
                  >> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                  >> crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >>
                  >> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >>
                  >> List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                  >
                  > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • león
                  Thank you, Zeba . . . I d like to stress that my aim in writing the piece was not to argue for or against the resurrection. My aim was to point out to people
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jan 20, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thank you, Zeba . . .

                    I'd like to stress that my aim in writing the piece was not to argue
                    for or against the resurrection.

                    My aim was to point out to people like Dr Craig that what they present
                    as a "scientific" approach to defending the historicity is not as
                    "slam dunk" as they imagine. Also, it just amazes me that scholars
                    don't just demolish those type of arguments in such debates, when even
                    a lay autodidact such as myself can.

                    thank you for the responses so far .. i will continue to read on.

                    peace

                    r. leon santiago
                    pretty good cook
                    Tempe, AZ
                  • Tony Buglass
                    Zeb wrote: Where is the value of having faith in the resurrection if it can be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the resurrection happened? As has
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jan 21, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Zeb wrote:
                      Where is the value of having faith in the resurrection if it can be proved
                      beyond the shadow of a doubt that the resurrection happened?

                      As has already been discussed, faith is not about knowledge, but about trust. Faith in the resurrection is less to do with whether or not it happened, but about our response to its significance.

                      There is an argument about the contingency of history and faith because the Christian faith is allegedly based on historical events. The issue of proofs and the resurrection has often been argued in a negative sense: if it could be demonstrated that Jesus was not in fact raised from the dead, then Christian faith as we understand it would arguably have been falsified. If the matter can be so discussed from a negative aspect, why can it not be approached ffrom a positive aspect? Is it not possible to set out the evidence for the resurrection in order to support the case? Whether or not this amounts to "proving" the resurrection, it does not negate the Christian faith response because it is not about the same question. It would be in principle possible to 'prove' that the resurrection of Jesus happened, yet not respond in faith because it makes no difference to you. "Good news for him, perhaps, but nobody else has managed it, so I'm not holding out many hopes for my getting up again!" (I can't remember now who it was, but I seem to remember a Jewish scholar concluding that the tomb was definitely empty, but not therefore becoming a Christian - was it Pinchas Lapide? Geza Vermes certainly concluded that the tomb was empty - Jesus the Jew, p.41.) So the negative relationship of faith to knowledge could be a big "so what?" "Knowing" doesn't preclude "not believing."

                      In terms of the issue of historical proof - is this only a problem because it's about the resurrection? Would anyone worry if I tried to prove that Josephus was right, and Vespasian did begin a successful campaign at Jerusalem in 69 but left part-way through? Of course not - except that we probably wouldn't discuss it in terms of proof, but of evidence allowing for degrees of probability and therefore certainty. So why is there such a fuss when scholars try to gather evidence to support the knowledge of the historical events to which their faith-claims relate? For my money, when it's all in place, it is not possible to prove the resurrection, but given the shape of the hole in the centre of the jigsaw puzzle, that's the piece which fits best.

                      Cheers,
                      Rev Tony Buglass
                      Superintendent Minister
                      Upper Calder Methodist Circuit

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Zeba Crook
                      ... the Christian faith is allegedly based on historical events. The issue of proofs and the resurrection has often been argued in a negative sense: if it
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jan 21, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Tony Buglass wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        >There is an argument about the contingency of history and faith because
                        the Christian faith is allegedly based on historical events. The issue
                        of proofs and the resurrection has often been argued in a negative
                        sense: if it could be demonstrated that Jesus was not in fact raised
                        from the dead, then Christian faith as we understand it would arguably
                        have been falsified. If the matter can be so discussed from a negative
                        aspect, why can it not be approached ffrom a positive aspect? >>

                        Dear Tony,

                        This is an excellent point. I should know by now that all others do
                        not think as I do. I do not that think claiming the resurrection did
                        not happen (at least if this is synonymous with resuscitation)
                        falsifies faith, and it's nothing other than polemic to make that claim
                        (hate both polemics and apologetics!). So, I understand the motivation
                        to prove, but I think it should be unnecessary).

                        >For my money, when it's all in place, it is not possible to prove the
                        >resurrection, but given the shape of the hole in the centre of the
                        jigsaw >puzzle, that's the piece which fits best.

                        That depends: if by resurrection you mean resuscitation, then I
                        disagree as to whether that's the easiest way to explain the hole in
                        the puzzle (I don't accept as the easiest explanation one that requires
                        God to contravene the basic laws of nature). If by resurrection you
                        mean something other than resuscitation, then we're in agreement: it
                        fits perfectly!

                        Cheers,

                        Zeb

                        -----------------------------
                        Z.A. Crook
                        Assistant Professor, Religion
                        Carleton University
                        1125 Colonel By Drive
                        Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6
                        613-520-2600, ext. 2276
                        www.carleton.ca/~zcrook
                      • Jacob Knee
                        Question to moderators - is this on topic for crosstalk? If so, I’m happy to join in but it seems to be about issues of Christian faith and theology (and
                        Message 11 of 19 , Jan 21, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Question to moderators - is this on topic for crosstalk? If so, I’m happy to join in but it seems to be about issues of Christian faith and theology (and their relation to history) which has often been seen as falling outside crosstalk’s remit.



                          Best wishes,

                          Jacob Knee

                          (Cam, Glos.)



                          From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Zeba Crook
                          Sent: 21 January 2007 23:01
                          To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [XTalk] on refuting bad apologetic



                          Tony Buglass wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >There is an argument about the contingency of history and faith because
                          the Christian faith is allegedly based on historical events. The issue
                          of proofs and the resurrection has often been argued in a negative
                          sense: if it could be demonstrated that Jesus was not in fact raised
                          from the dead, then Christian faith as we understand it would arguably
                          have been falsified. If the matter can be so discussed from a negative
                          aspect, why can it not be approached ffrom a positive aspect? >>

                          Dear Tony,

                          This is an excellent point. I should know by now that all others do
                          not think as I do. I do not that think claiming the resurrection did
                          not happen (at least if this is synonymous with resuscitation)
                          falsifies faith, and it's nothing other than polemic to make that claim
                          (hate both polemics and apologetics!). So, I understand the motivation
                          to prove, but I think it should be unnecessary).

                          >For my money, when it's all in place, it is not possible to prove the
                          >resurrection, but given the shape of the hole in the centre of the
                          jigsaw >puzzle, that's the piece which fits best.

                          That depends: if by resurrection you mean resuscitation, then I
                          disagree as to whether that's the easiest way to explain the hole in
                          the puzzle (I don't accept as the easiest explanation one that requires
                          God to contravene the basic laws of nature). If by resurrection you
                          mean something other than resuscitation, then we're in agreement: it
                          fits perfectly!

                          Cheers,

                          Zeb

                          -----------------------------
                          Z.A. Crook
                          Assistant Professor, Religion
                          Carleton University
                          1125 Colonel By Drive
                          Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6
                          613-520-2600, ext. 2276
                          www.carleton.ca/~zcrook





                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Zeba Crook
                          Tattle Tale!! Actually, I think it is on-topic, in the sense that what s being debated is whether the resurrection needs to be proved historically, and
                          Message 12 of 19 , Jan 21, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Tattle Tale!!

                            Actually, I think it is on-topic, in the sense that what's being
                            debated is whether the resurrection needs to be proved historically,
                            and questions of how one defines resurrection.

                            Quick, fire away before we get told to stop!

                            Zeb

                            Jacob Knee wrote:

                            >Question to moderators - is this on topic for crosstalk? If so, I’m
                            happy to join in but it seems to be about issues of Christian faith and
                            theology (and their relation to history) which has often been seen as
                            falling outside crosstalk’s remit.
                            >
                            >

                            -----------------------------
                            Z.A. Crook
                            Assistant Professor, Religion
                            Carleton University
                            1125 Colonel By Drive
                            Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6
                            613-520-2600, ext. 2276
                            www.carleton.ca/~zcrook
                          • Rikk Watts
                            As far as I can see the primary question deals concerns the historicity of the resurrection and what s involved in discussing same. Not sure if there s a real
                            Message 13 of 19 , Jan 21, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              As far as I can see the primary question deals concerns the historicity of
                              the resurrection and what's involved in discussing same. Not sure if there's
                              a real problem here. I suppose it moves off that topic too much then we'll
                              need to deal with it.

                              Rikk


                              On 21/1/07 6:22 PM, "Jacob Knee" <zen20458@...> wrote:

                              > Question to moderators - is this on topic for crosstalk? If so, I¹m happy to
                              > join in but it seems to be about issues of Christian faith and theology (and
                              > their relation to history) which has often been seen as falling outside
                              > crosstalk¹s remit.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Best wishes,
                              >
                              > Jacob Knee
                              >
                              > (Cam, Glos.)
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                              > Of Zeba Crook
                              > Sent: 21 January 2007 23:01
                              > To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                              > Subject: Re: [XTalk] on refuting bad apologetic
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Tony Buglass wrote:
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> There is an argument about the contingency of history and faith because
                              > the Christian faith is allegedly based on historical events. The issue
                              > of proofs and the resurrection has often been argued in a negative
                              > sense: if it could be demonstrated that Jesus was not in fact raised
                              > from the dead, then Christian faith as we understand it would arguably
                              > have been falsified. If the matter can be so discussed from a negative
                              > aspect, why can it not be approached ffrom a positive aspect? >>
                              >
                              > Dear Tony,
                              >
                              > This is an excellent point. I should know by now that all others do
                              > not think as I do. I do not that think claiming the resurrection did
                              > not happen (at least if this is synonymous with resuscitation)
                              > falsifies faith, and it's nothing other than polemic to make that claim
                              > (hate both polemics and apologetics!). So, I understand the motivation
                              > to prove, but I think it should be unnecessary).
                              >
                              >> For my money, when it's all in place, it is not possible to prove the
                              >> resurrection, but given the shape of the hole in the centre of the
                              > jigsaw >puzzle, that's the piece which fits best.
                              >
                              > That depends: if by resurrection you mean resuscitation, then I
                              > disagree as to whether that's the easiest way to explain the hole in
                              > the puzzle (I don't accept as the easiest explanation one that requires
                              > God to contravene the basic laws of nature). If by resurrection you
                              > mean something other than resuscitation, then we're in agreement: it
                              > fits perfectly!
                              >
                              > Cheers,
                              >
                              > Zeb
                              >
                              > -----------------------------
                              > Z.A. Crook
                              > Assistant Professor, Religion
                              > Carleton University
                              > 1125 Colonel By Drive
                              > Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6
                              > 613-520-2600, ext. 2276
                              > www.carleton.ca/~zcrook
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                              >
                              > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              >
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • Jacob Knee
                              I want to be clear - it’s within Crosstalk’s remit to discuss whether the resurrection happening or not happening falsifies Christian faith? That seems an
                              Message 14 of 19 , Jan 21, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I want to be clear - it’s within Crosstalk’s remit to discuss whether the
                                resurrection happening or not happening falsifies Christian faith? That
                                seems an explicitly theological (rather than historical) discussion.



                                Best wishes,

                                Jacob Knee

                                (Cam, Glos.)



                                From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com] On
                                Behalf Of Rikk Watts
                                Sent: 22 January 2007 02:38
                                To: xtalk
                                Subject: Re: [XTalk] on refuting bad apologetic



                                As far as I can see the primary question deals concerns the historicity of
                                the resurrection and what's involved in discussing same. Not sure if there's
                                a real problem here. I suppose it moves off that topic too much then we'll
                                need to deal with it.

                                Rikk

                                On 21/1/07 6:22 PM, "Jacob Knee" <zen20458@...
                                <mailto:zen20458%40zen.co.uk> > wrote:

                                > Question to moderators - is this on topic for crosstalk? If so, I¹m happy
                                to
                                > join in but it seems to be about issues of Christian faith and theology
                                (and
                                > their relation to history) which has often been seen as falling outside
                                > crosstalk¹s remit.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Best wishes,
                                >
                                > Jacob Knee
                                >
                                > (Cam, Glos.)
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:crosstalk2%40yahoogroups.com>
                                [mailto:crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:crosstalk2%40yahoogroups.com> ]
                                On Behalf
                                > Of Zeba Crook
                                > Sent: 21 January 2007 23:01
                                > To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:crosstalk2%40yahoogroups.com>
                                > Subject: Re: [XTalk] on refuting bad apologetic
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Tony Buglass wrote:
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> There is an argument about the contingency of history and faith because
                                > the Christian faith is allegedly based on historical events. The issue
                                > of proofs and the resurrection has often been argued in a negative
                                > sense: if it could be demonstrated that Jesus was not in fact raised
                                > from the dead, then Christian faith as we understand it would arguably
                                > have been falsified. If the matter can be so discussed from a negative
                                > aspect, why can it not be approached ffrom a positive aspect? >>
                                >
                                > Dear Tony,
                                >
                                > This is an excellent point. I should know by now that all others do
                                > not think as I do. I do not that think claiming the resurrection did
                                > not happen (at least if this is synonymous with resuscitation)
                                > falsifies faith, and it's nothing other than polemic to make that claim
                                > (hate both polemics and apologetics!). So, I understand the motivation
                                > to prove, but I think it should be unnecessary).
                                >
                                >> For my money, when it's all in place, it is not possible to prove the
                                >> resurrection, but given the shape of the hole in the centre of the
                                > jigsaw >puzzle, that's the piece which fits best.
                                >
                                > That depends: if by resurrection you mean resuscitation, then I
                                > disagree as to whether that's the easiest way to explain the hole in
                                > the puzzle (I don't accept as the easiest explanation one that requires
                                > God to contravene the basic laws of nature). If by resurrection you
                                > mean something other than resuscitation, then we're in agreement: it
                                > fits perfectly!
                                >
                                > Cheers,
                                >
                                > Zeb
                                >
                                > -----------------------------
                                > Z.A. Crook
                                > Assistant Professor, Religion
                                > Carleton University
                                > 1125 Colonel By Drive
                                > Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6
                                > 613-520-2600, ext. 2276
                                > www.carleton.ca/~zcrook
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                                >
                                > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                                crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                <mailto:crosstalk2-subscribe%40yahoogroups.com>
                                >
                                > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                <mailto:crosstalk2-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>
                                >
                                > List managers may be contacted directly at:
                                crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                                <mailto:crosstalk2-owners%40yahoogroups.com>
                                >
                                >
                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                >
                                >





                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                ... Would you define what you mean by resurrection and happening , please? And what do you mean by Christian faith ? And would all participant please take
                                Message 15 of 19 , Jan 21, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Jacob Knee wrote:

                                  > I want to be clear - it’s within Crosstalk’s remit to discuss whether the
                                  > resurrection happening or not happening falsifies Christian faith? That
                                  > seems an explicitly theological (rather than historical) discussion.

                                  Would you define what you mean by "resurrection" and "happening", please?

                                  And what do you mean by "Christian faith"?

                                  And would all participant please take care to snip messages so that we don't have
                                  all of the various layers of the thread reproduced and then added to when someone
                                  posts a reply?

                                  Jeffrey
                                  --
                                  Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                                  1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                                  Chicago, Illinois
                                  e-mail jgibson000@...
                                • Bob Schacht
                                  ... Seems to me that there are several issues that are being confused here. * One is the historicity (or not) of the Resurrection. * Another is what people in
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Jan 21, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At 04:47 PM 1/21/2007, Jacob Knee wrote:
                                    >I want to be clear - it's within Crosstalk's remit to discuss whether the
                                    >resurrection happening or not happening falsifies Christian faith? That
                                    >seems an explicitly theological (rather than historical) discussion.

                                    Seems to me that there are several issues that are being confused here.
                                    * One is the historicity (or not) of the Resurrection.
                                    * Another is what people in the first century meant by "resurrection"
                                    * Another is whether people in the first century believed that Jesus
                                    had 'risen from the dead' (a) literally, (b) figuratively, or (c) not.
                                    * Another quite different question is whether the *act* of trying to
                                    prove the historicity of the resurrection compromises, or does not
                                    compromise, the faith of a modern Christian, or reflects badly on his/her
                                    faith, or related matters. What I am referring to here is speculations of
                                    the kind offered by Zeb, e.g.
                                    > I find it strange when Christians (by no means all), who so emphasise
                                    > *faith*, work so hard to *prove* these things truly happened. It
                                    > strikes me as an absence of faith when people try to prove that what
                                    > they believe is perfectly rational (that goes for any religion)!

                                    Thus, debate of the kind framed by Jacob Knee above and exemplified by
                                    Zeb's comment quoted above is not, IMHO, germane to this list, but
                                    questions of the sort identified by the first 3 bullets above are relevant.

                                    Bob Schacht





                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Tony Buglass
                                    Zeb wrote: I do not that think claiming the resurrection did not happen (at least if this is synonymous with resuscitation) falsifies faith, and it s nothing
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Jan 22, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Zeb wrote:
                                      I do not that think claiming the resurrection did
                                      not happen (at least if this is synonymous with resuscitation)
                                      falsifies faith, and it's nothing other than polemic to make that claim
                                      [snipped] if by resurrection you mean resuscitation, then I
                                      disagree as to whether that's the easiest way to explain the hole in
                                      the puzzle (I don't accept as the easiest explanation one that requires
                                      God to contravene the basic laws of nature). If by resurrection you
                                      mean something other than resuscitation, then we're in agreement: it
                                      fits perfectly!

                                      This could easily become one of those "it depends on what you mean by" discussions. No, I don't mean resuscitation, and I don't think that is what is meant by any of the NT traditions. (Resuscitation is what I learned to do as a first-aider, but I wouldn't attempt it after so long a time. I tell folk I know how to do CPR, but not to worry if I fail - I can do a lovely funeral service...) What happened to Lazarus and what happened to Jesus are understood in quite different terms. Resurrection is clearly understood as something which happened to the body which transformed it (and that I think is the distinction from simple resuscitation). In that sense, I think we are in agreement, but if the corollary is that history is not relevant for faith, I have to disagree. I think there is a contingency: if the NT claims that Jesus was raised from the dead, and he was not raised fom the dead, then the NT faith-claims are wrong. However, that's where we stray into the area which Jacob and Bob are concerned about, and possibly off-topic, and as a moderator of another list, I believe moderators and their decisions shouold be respected. :)

                                      Cheers,
                                      Rev Tony Buglass
                                      Superintendent Minister
                                      Upper Calder Methodist Circuit


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Jacob Knee
                                      I think Bob Schacht has answered my query. Point taken about snipping (it was very late here in t he UK!) As an aside, when the moderators are writing as
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Jan 22, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I think Bob Schacht has answered my query. Point taken about snipping (it
                                        was very late here in t he UK!)



                                        As an aside, when the moderators are writing as moderators could that be
                                        indicated in the sig?



                                        Best wishes,

                                        Jacob Knee

                                        (Cam, Glos.)



                                        From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com] On
                                        Behalf Of Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                        Sent: 22 January 2007 03:01
                                        To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                                        Subject: Re: [XTalk] on refuting bad apologetic





                                        Jacob Knee wrote:

                                        > I want to be clear - it's within Crosstalk's remit to discuss whether the
                                        > resurrection happening or not happening falsifies Christian faith? That
                                        > seems an explicitly theological (rather than historical) discussion.

                                        Would you define what you mean by "resurrection" and "happening", please?

                                        And what do you mean by "Christian faith"?

                                        And would all participant please take care to snip messages so that we don't
                                        have
                                        all of the various layers of the thread reproduced and then added to when
                                        someone
                                        posts a reply?

                                        Jeffrey
                                        --
                                        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                                        1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                                        Chicago, Illinois
                                        e-mail jgibson000@... <mailto:jgibson000%40comcast.net>





                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Jack Kilmon
                                        ... From: Jacob Knee To: Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 8:47 PM Subject: RE: [XTalk] on refuting bad
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Jan 22, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: "Jacob Knee" <zen20458@...>
                                          To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                                          Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 8:47 PM
                                          Subject: RE: [XTalk] on refuting bad apologetic


                                          >I want to be clear - it's within Crosstalk's remit to discuss whether the
                                          > resurrection happening or not happening falsifies Christian faith? That
                                          > seems an explicitly theological (rather than historical) discussion.


                                          Tough question. Whether or not the "resurrection" was an historical
                                          incident...perhaps but not in evidence. How the resurrection was perceived
                                          by the immediate "Jesus people," I would say is pertinent. I would pose
                                          that how "Christian faith" (remembering there are about 30,000 different
                                          forms) would be impacted by a deconstructed resurrection is not within the
                                          scope of the list. Inshort, historical impact yes, faith impact, no.

                                          My opinion.

                                          Jack Kilmon
                                          San Antonio, Texas
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.