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

Re: [XTalk] on refuting bad apologetic

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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.