PhilVaz

cynic << Man, that "Evidence for the Resurrection" site is pathetic. >>

OKAY, what do you consider a non-pathetic absolutely best non-theist book on the non-resurrection of Jesus that totally annihilates the reliability of the Gospels, and especially eviscerates, obliterates, demolishes and crushes the combined arguments of Craig, Habermas, and Kreeft? Give me a few titles. Easter is coming up. I'm wondering if I should celebrate the darn thing again this year? :wave: :rolling:

Phil P

Amaleq13

I don't think there is such a book but Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle and Price's The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man should be sufficient to generate doubt about the certainty with which historicity is frequently asserted.

PhilVaz

Jesus Puzzle I've heard of, I'll look into it. Thanks. It's too depressing reading this board. I can't stay long, I get a headache. I enjoy the creation/evolution stuff though, what I can understand of it.

Phil P

Peter Kirby

Hi Phil,

You asked for books; I will give you two good ones. For what it matters, I am not convinced that Jesus didn't exist. But I have never heard either described as a dull read or without value.

Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition? by Robert Price

Doesn't necessarily prove Jesus doesn't exist; the book exercises itself on discrediting the gospel stories.

The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty

Attempts a coherent theory of Christian origins, without a historical Jesus.

If you want a third book, the writer "G. A. Wells" has about a half dozen books to his name on this subject.

How much space does Kreeft give to establishing the historical nature of Jesus as a person? I am always on the lookout for writers who focus on that (instead of on the resurrection, etc.).

Dang, Amaleq13 beat me to it. But use my link for Doherty; Amazon has issues with stocking the book.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

I've decided to start a new thread on the Evidence for Resurrection. A howler, that one is.

PhilVaz

Kirby << How much space does Kreeft give to establishing the historical nature of Jesus as a person? I am always on the lookout for writers who focus on that (instead of on the resurrection, etc.). >>

Well, Kreeft's book is an apologetics book, so it doesn't have a zillion footnotes. It's not a scholarly work, but I'm sure it stacks up pretty well against the Doherty and Price books. I'll look into them. Kreeft basically summarizes the arguments of Craig and Habermas. There is one chapter on the resurrection (my article above includes the best points), and one chapter on the Bible and interpretation. It's better than McDowell or Strobel, but may be too "dumbed down" for you if you are interested in "scholarly" books. Kreeft writes to a popular audience.

BTW, has Doherty or Price ever debated publicly the merit of their books? What about online reviews? What are the best Christian or Catholic apologetic rebuttals that you've seen to their books? And do Doherty or Price interact in their books with the best Christian defenses of the Gospels, such as Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Intervarsity, 1987) ?

I'm pretty much settled on the whole creation-evolution issue in favor of evolution. Now I want to settle this whole "inerrancy" business, and maybe this whole "Jesus exists" and "resurrection" business. :thumbs: I only have a few non-theist books in my library, here are all my books, what am I missing? :devil3:

Phil P

Vorkosigan

Actually, I only did that because your comment was farcical, and deserved an equally off-the-wall reply . Of course I knew what you meant.

Hmmm...well, one cannot read just one book. But if you like, I take the Gospel of Mark apart piece by piece in my Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark with copious references. Peter and Amaleq have already put up a couple of good books. The problem for you is that you must read many in order to understand why your arguments are superficial. Hence, the problem for us is that it is not easy to answer them without explaining a great deal, a tedious process.

For example, one of your arguments for the Resurrection you referred to "the Jews." This is an anachronism, but explaining the complexities of Jewish belief in the first century is a book-length task -- even if I understood a lot of it, which I don't.

This website

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/

contain numerous papers that outline some of the issues. See especially the Barker piece on Temple worship and the roots of Xtianity for an example of what I mean.

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/roots

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Well, almost everything that is scholarly on the history and background of the New Testament. Take my reference page for my GMark site as a starting point. Most of the stuff you have looks like it was written for the popular consumption of the educated, and addresses believers and their needs. You've gone haring off in the wrong direction, if you want to stick around here.

Vorkosigan

Diogenes the Cynic

If there was a Jesus, he had a mother. there was no "virgin birth," of course.
He was nit an apostle but yes, the authentic letters of Paul had an author.
A definite maybe.
To Peter? I don't dismiss the possibility that there was a Peter, but I haven't seen any good proof of him either.
Doubt it.
Depends on how you define "followers." There have certainly been devotees of the myth. As to whether there was a historical group of disciples around a HJ? That's a definite maybe.
There is a certain kind of kryptonite which works very well against skeptics. It's called "proof." have you got any?
Why does it have to be a non-theist?

If you want something specifically abbout the resurrection, here's a nice Catholic boy for you.The Birth of Christianity : Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus by John Crossan.

But pretty much any education at all in these matters will inform you that no proof exists for the resurrection. You've got your burden backwards when you ask for disproof of a miracle.

Incidentally, your list of hack apologists is not exactly scary to us, they are child's play to destroy and they do not represent anything close to mainstream scholarship. Nevertheless, if you think they have anything particularly compelling to say, then why don't you cite what you believe to be the strongest argument from your toughest apologist? We'll see how it stands up in the IIDB cuisinart (it's probably nothing that hasn't been shredded here before).

Peter Kirby

Wow, I didn't get the impression that this was about "the resurrection debate," so to speak. I wouldn't throw it at someone who is looking for a is-Christianity-true-or-false fix. Was there something about the book that I missed?

best,
Peter Kirby