KrisK10

Hi folks,

I’d like to introduce a book that I just published on the topic of Christian Origins. It is titled: Doubting Jesus’ Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box? The book has already received several reviews on Amazon.com (here), including one by prominent preacher turned atheist John W. Loftus. The book also has one back cover scholar endorsement (with hopefully a second soon to follow) by one of the founders of the FaithFutures Foundation, Dr. Gregory C. Jenks. I think many of you who are interested in the topic of Christian Origins would find the book intriguing and worth your time. The book can be browsed at the above link. Thank you for letting me introduce my book!

KrisK10


If the above link doesn't work, try the one below or just copy the title into the search bar at Amazon.com.

Doubting Jesus’ Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box? (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Toto

This looks like an interesting intellectual exercise, given those assumptions.

Two apparent Christians give it 4 stars.

John Kesler

Here's betting that another Christian won't be so charitable.

John W. Loftus

I'm so sorry, but who cares what that hack Holding thinks? In my opinion skeptics should marginalize him by ignoring him. That's what I've decided to do with that juvenile. Please join me until he comes up to the adult world of discussion.

KrisK10

John,

Thanks for bringing up Holding's reactions to my book before he read it. However, I'd be more interested in any critical comments he (or anyone else) might have after they have read it. At the very least I can already say that the person who posted immediately after Holding -- "The old Paul canard can be simply demolished by his use in 1 Cor 15 of the Greek words egeiro and anastasis or anastasin... (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh....php?p=2664951)" -- is making a completely wrong assumption about how I use Paul's silence on the discovered empty tomb.

That's it for me, and again thanks for letting me introduce my book.

KrisK10

spin

A lot of the weak-brained young christians John W. would like to reach.

The way to deal with Holding is to hammer him every time he sticks his head out of the safe nest of his protected christian environment. You need to leave him holding the bag for all the crap apologetics he represents. When he is seen outside his comfort zone not performing well, his cadres should waver a little.

John W. participated in an internet debate not long ago, siding with Holding as to the existence of Jesus! This is part of his principle of conceding the difficult bits in order to challenge the easier ones.

Radical skepticism acknowledges that there are things that we don't have the evidence to be conclusive about. Yet it doesn't mean that we should concede issues because we cannot be conclusive enough for bunnies trained on pat answers. They have to be weaned from simplicity, rather than redirected into some other simplicity.

Holding can't hold his own (except in private).


spin

Steven Carr

So do you think Christians used to gather in groups of 500+, and this is where the tradition in 1 Cor. 15 came from?

Or did it come from somewhere else?

Steven Carr

Why do you think the Christian converts in Corinth doubted that Jesus was still alive?

On page 11, isn't the language of Paul intended to show that their beliefs were inconsistent ie that they believed Jesus was resurrected, but doubted the general resurrection?

An analogy. A group of people believe the Steelers are the best football team, but will not win the Superbowl next year.

Somebody writes to them and says 'If the Steelers are not going to win the Superbowl, why are we saying that they are the best team?'

The obvious implication is that if the Steelers are not going to win the Superbowl, then they are not the best team.

But that argument would only carry weight with people who *do* already believe that the Steelers are the best team.

You write 'Paul even states the obvious implication of the Corinthian's doubts 'If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised''

Yes, that's right. One implies the other. So the non-resurrection of Jesus is an *implication* of the Corinthian's beliefs. It is not the *starting point* of their beliefs. It is not a belief they already have, or else Paul would not have to say it was an *implication* of their other beliefs.

Paul is saying that the Christian converts beliefs are inconsistent - they believe Jesus was resurrected, but do not believe in the general resurrection.

Hence his harping on about their faith would have been in vain if Christ had not been resurrected. He is telling them that their beliefs are inconsistent.

Paul is telling them that they have faith in Jesus, but because they do not believe in a general resurrection their beliefs are inconsistent. Because lack of belief in a general resurrection would then imply that Jesus had not been resurrected, and then their faith in Jesus would have been in vain.

But they do have faith in Jesus, so Jesus must have been resurrected (or else their faith would have been in vain), so there must be a general resurrection, because without a general resurrection, Jesus himself would not have been resurrected.

If these Christian converts really had believed that Jesus was as dead as a doornail, Paul would have denounced them as non-Christians in totally different ways.

If they had believed Jesus was dead, Paul would have said *outright* that they believed Jesus was dead, and not say that this was an implication of their other beliefs. (An implication that they had not yet realised followed from their other beliefs)

Jayrok

Kris,

Do you honestly think you'll get objective feedback from Holding? You'll get lots of pithy snipes and will be nominated for a screwball award and then his fans will dismiss you as just another hack. Good luck with all that.

Johnny Skeptic

Well, for instance, Richard Carrier, Robert Price, and thousands of Christians. If we discount Holding's rudeness, he obviously has a lot of knowledge about the Bible, and is very clever. You must be aware that all of Holding's many articles are not easy to refute. His and his buddy Glenn Miller's websites are impressive, and took years of research. In my opinion, Holding would make an excellent skeptic if he gave up religion.

Sure, Holding makes lots of invalid arguments, but many of his arguments are not easy to refute. The fact that he has a lot of influence with a lot of people is a good reason for people to study and debate his writings.

Regarding the word "hack," consider the following:

Do you have any evidence that Holding's only motivation for writing and debating is to make money?