TheDiddleyMan

I am curious about people's thoughts on this. I haven't read to many resurrection debates, and am not a believer in it myself, but it seems to me that skeptics keep losing the debates that take place. For example, the three main debate books out there - "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?", "Jesus Resurrection - Fact or Figment?" (both of these with William Lane Craig) and "The Resurrection Debate" with Habermas and Flew, I keep hearing that the skeptics decidedly lost these debates. Does anybody who has read these debates think so? Any comments? It also seems to me that there isn't much skeptical material from recognized scholars that really tackles the apologists claims of people like Craig. What is the reason for this? I mean, I have read Lowder's paper about the Empty Tomb and Kirby's. I highly suspect Lowder's interpretation, as no one else seems to have thought of it, but anyhow....any thoughts on the above stuff?

Kevin

Toto

I attended one of those debates, between Craig and Luedeman, and read the book of essays on a prior debate. The thread on it is still around here. (Unfortunately, it was under uBB and the formatting has fallen apart.)

Craig is a very good debater, but he does not win on logic. He wins if he wins on style and presentation, and by confining his debates to people who lack his style or have some other drawback (Luedemann was operating in his second language, and really didn't engage in a debate. Craig is now refusing to debate Eddie Tabash, although opinions are mixed on who won that debate overall.)

Christians stage theses debates like professional wrestling. The purpose is not to win, but to put over the idea that Christianity is a respectable intellectual stance, and no one needs to feel inferior for what they believe. You only have to think about what is said for two minutes to realize that Craig's case is full of holes.

There is not a lot of counter to Christian apologists from recognized scholars because Christian apologists are not very intellectually respectable in academia, and scholars don't want to stoop to their level. But you will find a lot of counters on the Infidels site. Check out Jeff Lowder's page:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er/index.shtml

Toto

You might also be interested in Contra Craig "a site devoted to dissecting & disemboweling the arguments of Christianity's #1 living apologist: Dr. William Lane Craig."

aikido7

I hold the skeptics lose these debates because either they take the New Testament literally and debate it "factually" with what I would call a "secular fundamentalism," or because most worthwhile scholars--as Toto points out--can't be bothered to show up for such matches.

It is really difficult to get an evangelical, fundamentalist apologist to enter the world of scholarship. Reputable scholars know the ancient languages, are acquainted with the textual and archeological evidence and put their methodology out for peer and public review.

Some, like John Crossan, even have a serious literary bent and an elegant command of the language. BTW, Crossan (who still claims to be a believer) said something like "God never makes anyone, anywhere come back to life after three days dead."
Pretty straightforward. He also said that at Catholic and pagan healing shrines throughout the world, you can see cast-off crutches and empty wheelchairs at the end but you never see piles of artificial limbs.

Peter Kirby

I have read the debate between Luedemann and Craig as well as the one between Habermas and Flew. In the debate with Habermas and Flew, Habermas presented his argument based on "undisputed facts." Flew should have addressed the merits of these "facts" on a historical level. However, Flew is a philosopher. So, instead, throughout the debate, Flew stuck to a philosophical argument that it is impossible to prove a miracle. This reinforced the apologist's claim that the only reason for doubt with regards to the resurrection of Jesus is ideological prejudice.

It is often repeated that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." There is validity to this insight, as I expound in my essay in the Infidels library on Naturalistic Inquiry or methodological naturalism (the kind which everyone, theists included, uses). However, when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, I think it is a mistake to use that as the only line of defense, as a sort of skeptical Maginot Line. After all, every claim requires ordinary evidence, so before we consider whether an event has extraordinary evidence, should we not first look for ordinary evidence as well as possible counter-evidence? I maintain that the alleged resurrection of Jesus does not meet the standards of ordinary evidence. Not the least because there is not a single eyewitness account or a shred of physical evidence. Apologists like to attribute doubt about the resurrection to the hard hearts of godless naturalists, but even a theist who believes that God intervenes in the world sometimes (such as a Native American or Hindu or Jew) would be rational to doubt that the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event.

Congratulations on slogging through my essay! I have been told that it is a bit lengthy.

Scholars have traditionally fenced off the subject of the Resurrection to the domain of apologetics. This is still the position of some, such as John P. Meier, whose well known series on the historical Jesus will not go beyond death and burial. This tradition is being broken by other scholars, such as Theissen, who broaches the subject briefly in A Comprehensive Guide with the position that the evidence on the empty tomb is inconclusive.

A recognized scholar, however, is not likely to make a skeptical treatment of the resurrection a major work. For one thing, as Crossan has experienced, the scholar that treats the subject skeptically will find himself the target of much abuse from the apologetic industry and lay believers. It is a sure way to lose the respect of the largest portion of readers on Christian origins, namely Christians. It is also probably a too negative exercise to attract the attention of an established scholar, who would rather be writing for fellow scholars instead of producing anti-apologetics.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Perhaps you could look at My site specifically, The tomb and the post-resurrection scene. I would appreciate your comments. I designed it when a professor handed me McDowells' book and challenged me to refute chapter nine - Resurrection Hoax or History so most of my arguments refer to the resurrection.

malookiemaloo

I came to the Sec Web through reading Lowder's thesis on the Historicity of the Resurrection. (I think this is a separate work from the Empty Tomb.) It's on the net.

Lowder is, in my view, quite exceptional and I say this as a Christian. However he is agnostic re the resurrection and is therefore able to present both sides of the argument which he does outstandingly well.


m

TheDiddleyMan

Okay, so most historians avoid discussions about the resurrection? Actually it is interesting that both Meier and Brown don't discuss the resurrection in their major works. I know Brown wrote about it in "The virginal conception the the bodily resurrection". Does anybody know why they won't discuss these things (or wouldn't, or won't - I don't know what tense these guys are in now - isn't Brown "in Heaven" now, so to speak?)
I'm pretty sure both believe in the empty tomb, and resurrection.


Kevin

Family Man

Isn't it obvious why scholars avoid discussing the historicity of the resurrection? It is the heart and soul of Christian dogma, but if evaluated like the other aspects of the Jesus story, the conclusion would have to be that it didn't happen. It is very difficult to tell people that the foundation of their faith has no solid basis behind it. So it's avoided.

Give Brown credit though -- he did say that the Resurrection must be taken on faith, that history can not tell us that it did indeed happen. And, yes, I do believe that he has passed on.

Benjamin Franklin

Professor G.A. Wells wrote an article commenting on the debate between Anthony Flew and Gary Habermas

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...urrection.html

BF