Freethought & Rationalism Archive

05-06-2002, 02:15 PM

The Christian Research Institute recently posted an article by none other than Gary R. Habermas that claims to debunk the hallucination hypothesis. It can be found here:

<a href="http://www.equip.org/free/DJ923.htm" target="_blank">Habermas' article</a>

Anybody have any thoughts on this article?

Kevin

Vorkosigan · 05-06-2002, 02:19 PM

What's to say? It's your basic apologist approach. What's your particular praise or condemnation for the article?

Vorkosigan

Toto · 05-06-2002, 02:36 PM

Habermas doesn't actually debunk the hallucination hypthesis. He puts forth a few arguments against it, but none are decisive.

I notice that one of his arguments is to reject the comparison between sightings of Jesus in the first century, and apparitions of the Virgin Mary, which are commonplace in the 20th, and are widely assumed to be mass hysteria or something similar. How can this prove that the sightings of Jesus were hallucinations, he asks? Maybe the sightings of the Virgin are real. Sure.

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

05-06-2002, 04:20 PM

I don't have any conclusive thoughts about the article yet....I would like to see what others think.....

Kevin

Toto · 05-06-2002, 11:00 PM

The easiest, neatest way to not believe in the gospel stories of the resurrection is to decide that it is all fable, and none of it happened. Paul and the disciples may have experienced something, but it was some kind of internal experience. It is misleading to call it a hallucination, but it is a familiar phenomenon. Even in today's supposedly rational scientific culture, you have people like John Edwards who convince others that they can talk to the spirits of the departed. Should we assume that Paul has more credibility than John Edwards?

Vorkosigan · 05-06-2002, 11:23 PM

I'm with Toto. I don't believe Paul's comments about "the five hundred," they smack of the usual missionary exaggeration and lies that one encounters in all stories of this nature. The story as we have it is about 99% legend. Ordinary sociological processes can easily produce events of this nature. Highly stressed societies churn out Messiahs like McDonalds making Big Macs, and the stories are usually lies. Simply study the history of any colonized or economically devastated society, and you'll read about many similar figures. Or if you want a modern version, read about the Lubovitcher Messiah, which is happening right in NY city.

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr · 05-07-2002, 01:43 AM

Paul was asked in 1 Corinthians 15 to describe what a resurrected body was like. He could not do it.

All he did was waffle from first principles and theological reasoning. If any of the disciples or any of these 500 or even Paul himself had actually seen a resurrected body, Paul would have simply described what they saw (with wounds, not a ghost, ate fish, hard to recognise etc)

Even the very fact that he was asked by Christians what a resurrected body was like shows that Christians at that time did not know any of the Gospel resurrection stories.

Steven Carr · 05-07-2002, 01:49 AM

Habermas writes ' Critics acknowledge that Jesus’ disciples were transformed even to the point of being willing to die for their faith. No early text reports that any of them ever recanted.'

It is amazing the double standards and hypocrisy of apologists. 'No early text reports that any of them ever recanted', yet apologists scream in other contexts 'Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence'

No early text reports that the disciples were willing to die for their faith that they had seen a resurrected body. Reports of martyrdoms are much later.

Indeed, Acts loses the disciples with startling speed. Paul only mentions 3. Matthew 28:17 says that some of them still doubted.

It seems clear many early Christians packed it all in, and Matthew 28:17 is an apologists excuse to get around this awkward fact.

Atticus_Finch · 05-07-2002, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr:
<strong>Habermas writes ' Critics acknowledge that Jesus’ disciples were transformed even to the point of being willing to die for their faith. No early text reports that any of them ever recanted.'

It is amazing the double standards and hypocrisy of apologists. 'No early text reports that any of them ever recanted', yet apologists scream in other contexts 'Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence'

No early text reports that the disciples were willing to die for their faith that they had seen a resurrected body. Reports of martyrdoms are much later.

Indeed, Acts loses the disciples with startling speed. Paul only mentions 3. Matthew 28:17 says that some of them still doubted.

It seems clear many early Christians packed it all in, and Matthew 28:17 is an apologists excuse to get around this awkward fact.</strong>

Acts 1:13 reports that all the 11 remaining disciples "continued together in prayer with one mind" after the resurrection.

Regards,

Finch

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Atticus_Finch ]</p>

krazytamak · 05-07-2002, 02:32 PM

you dont' need to be believe in a collective hallucination to believe that jesus wasn't raised from the dead. gnostic scriptures (just as valid historically as the bible) specifically deny that ressurrection is a physical bodily phenomenon, but rather it is spiritual and something that happens before death, not after death. they basically demote "resurrection" to feeling and becoming spiritual in your life. the gnostic scriptures and the bible both talk about the same events and they both can't be true and it is far easier to believe that the bible is creating an exaggeration than to believe that the gnostics are downplaying a miracle.

05-06-2002, 02:15 PM	#1
TheDiddleyMan Guest Posts: n/a	Hallucination Hypothesis rebuted? The Christian Research Institute recently posted an article by none other than Gary R. Habermas that claims to debunk the hallucination hypothesis. It can be found here: <a href="http://www.equip.org/free/DJ923.htm" target="_blank">Habermas' article</a> Anybody have any thoughts on this article? Kevin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-06-2002, 02:19 PM	#2
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	What's to say? It's your basic apologist approach. What's your particular praise or condemnation for the article? Vorkosigan

05-06-2002, 02:36 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Habermas doesn't actually debunk the hallucination hypthesis. He puts forth a few arguments against it, but none are decisive. I notice that one of his arguments is to reject the comparison between sightings of Jesus in the first century, and apparitions of the Virgin Mary, which are commonplace in the 20th, and are widely assumed to be mass hysteria or something similar. How can this prove that the sightings of Jesus were hallucinations, he asks? Maybe the sightings of the Virgin are real. Sure. [ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

05-06-2002, 04:20 PM	#4
TheDiddleyMan Guest Posts: n/a	I don't have any conclusive thoughts about the article yet....I would like to see what others think..... Kevin

05-06-2002, 11:00 PM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The easiest, neatest way to not believe in the gospel stories of the resurrection is to decide that it is all fable, and none of it happened. Paul and the disciples may have experienced something, but it was some kind of internal experience. It is misleading to call it a hallucination, but it is a familiar phenomenon. Even in today's supposedly rational scientific culture, you have people like John Edwards who convince others that they can talk to the spirits of the departed. Should we assume that Paul has more credibility than John Edwards?

05-06-2002, 11:23 PM	#6
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I'm with Toto. I don't believe Paul's comments about "the five hundred," they smack of the usual missionary exaggeration and lies that one encounters in all stories of this nature. The story as we have it is about 99% legend. Ordinary sociological processes can easily produce events of this nature. Highly stressed societies churn out Messiahs like McDonalds making Big Macs, and the stories are usually lies. Simply study the history of any colonized or economically devastated society, and you'll read about many similar figures. Or if you want a modern version, read about the Lubovitcher Messiah, which is happening right in NY city. Vorkosigan

05-07-2002, 01:43 AM	#7
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Paul was asked in 1 Corinthians 15 to describe what a resurrected body was like. He could not do it. All he did was waffle from first principles and theological reasoning. If any of the disciples or any of these 500 or even Paul himself had actually seen a resurrected body, Paul would have simply described what they saw (with wounds, not a ghost, ate fish, hard to recognise etc) Even the very fact that he was asked by Christians what a resurrected body was like shows that Christians at that time did not know any of the Gospel resurrection stories.

05-07-2002, 01:49 AM	#8
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Habermas writes ' Critics acknowledge that Jesus’ disciples were transformed even to the point of being willing to die for their faith. No early text reports that any of them ever recanted.' It is amazing the double standards and hypocrisy of apologists. 'No early text reports that any of them ever recanted', yet apologists scream in other contexts 'Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence' No early text reports that the disciples were willing to die for their faith that they had seen a resurrected body. Reports of martyrdoms are much later. Indeed, Acts loses the disciples with startling speed. Paul only mentions 3. Matthew 28:17 says that some of them still doubted. It seems clear many early Christians packed it all in, and Matthew 28:17 is an apologists excuse to get around this awkward fact.

05-07-2002, 02:32 PM	#10
krazytamak Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: LA, CA Posts: 26	you dont' need to be believe in a collective hallucination to believe that jesus wasn't raised from the dead. gnostic scriptures (just as valid historically as the bible) specifically deny that ressurrection is a physical bodily phenomenon, but rather it is spiritual and something that happens before death, not after death. they basically demote "resurrection" to feeling and becoming spiritual in your life. the gnostic scriptures and the bible both talk about the same events and they both can't be true and it is far easier to believe that the bible is creating an exaggeration than to believe that the gnostics are downplaying a miracle.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.