|
Post by Josh on Jul 27, 2009 19:43:28 GMT -8
Philosophers/Theologians Gary Habermas and Michael Licona have an apologetic for the resurrection of Christ known as the "minimal facts approach". Basically, the idea is to demonstrate that the resurrection is a valid historical conclusion about the events of Easter Sunday using facts that are virtually undisputed by all stripes of scholars. The facts they base their case on are: 1) Jesus died by crucifixion 2) The disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them 3) The Church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed into a believer 4) The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed into a believer 5) J esus' tomb was empty* Before I proceed with an explanation of how these facts can point to the resurrection, is anyone in doubt that these are virtually undisputed facts? Furthermore, I'd like to add to this list several other important details related to the beginning of the Christiainity that are virtually undisputed: Jesus... 6. was considered a 'prophet' in Israel, even by those indifferent or even hotile to his message 7. was considered a worker of miracles in his day, even among those hostile to his ministry 8. made religious claims that upset many of the religious leaders of his day 9. preached, as his central message, repentance and the announcement of a new kingdom 10.was apocalyptic in his preaching (focused on the fulfillment of Jewish prophecies) 11.was eventually arrested and charged with blasphemy (probably and sedition against Rome 12.was executed at the instigation of Jewish religious leaders and by the authority of the Roman procurator (Pontius Pilate) and that... 13. most (or at least many) of Jesus’ disciples plus many other followers ended up dying for their belief in Jesus' resurrection, even though recanting their belief would have saved their lives. Again, feel free to challenge any of these statements and we can discuss the details. * I failed to note initially that Habermas and Licona list this point separately than the other 4, pointing out the empty tomb is held as a historical reliability by about 75% of Jesus scholars, so this point is a somewhat more debatable than the other four.
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Jul 27, 2009 20:29:35 GMT -8
The problem with these facts (assumptions) is that they assume that the New Testament account is true. Further, they assume that the words of Christ as we know them in the NT are indeed the words of Christ.
My point is that this does not lead to a "valid historical conclusion", because I could claim the following: 1. the disciples, Paul, James et al were crazy. 2. The tomb being empty could be explained by some sort of conspiracy.
These "minimal facts" require prior belief, therefore this line of apologetic is begging the question. And I would hardly say that these are "virtually undisputed".
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 27, 2009 20:44:37 GMT -8
The whole point of the minimal facts approach is these facts are not contested by most skeptical scholars. These facts do not rely on the supposed authority of Scripture.
Pick one and we'll discuss how "disputed" it is.
Neither of these statements disproves any of these facts:
3) The Church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed into a believer 4) The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed into a believer 5) Jesus' tomb was empty
What you're providing is an explanation for these facts-- explanations which accept these points as facts.
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Jul 27, 2009 21:07:07 GMT -8
You are right, I was providing an explanation, but I still fail to see how those facts lead to a valid historical conclusion that the resurection happened. My point is that whole argument is based on assumptions, not facts. I.E. if Jesus did not even exist, how could he be crucified? or do any preaching? I realize that there are threads on here that deal with these issues, but these facts as presented assume that Jesus existed and the NT is not mythological. I do not wish to debate the above issues here, but simply claim that this approach to the resurrection is begging the question. Those are assumptions, not facts.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 27, 2009 21:14:31 GMT -8
Haven't gotten to that yet, but it's coming.... The argument above is based on the fact that virtually all scholars (even skeptical ones) acknowledge that Jesus existed. If that's a particular question of yours, it can be discussed: aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=reliable&action=display&thread=411For discussion about whether or not the NT is mythological: aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=reliable&action=display&thread=412 This is a more complicated subject, but even those that hold that the NT contains mythology don't tend to deny the existence of Jesus or the fact of an empty tomb. Historical facts are different than scientific facts. In history, something is generally considered a "historical fact" if most scholars believe that there is more evidence in support of that "fact" than against it. To play this out a bit, in your opinion, is my belief that Julius Caesar was assassinated more of an assumption or a fact?
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Jul 27, 2009 22:09:27 GMT -8
My short, yet HOT commute home allowed good time to contemplate further:
Certainly historical fact and scientific fact are different. Scientifically, we cannot prove the resurrection or the assassination of Julius Caeser since it is neither observable (at least by us), measureable, or repeatable. History, though, is interpreted by those who experienced it. Historians are often influenced by by many factors: personal belief, the society they live in, and the like. I'm sure you would not dispute this. I'll agree that with history, the best we have is the agreement of scholars, but I still hold that the above points make assumptions. Paul, James, disciples claimed to be believers, but that does not make them believers. Perhaps they had some kind of political agendas that would make claims of belief necessary. You assume they were believers because the evidence states that they said so, and this can not be held as historical fact in the same sense as the existence of Jesus.
An assassination is more believeable to most people since they have seen other instances of it. A resurrection though? That requires some element of faith. Sure, there have been other resurrections reported throughout history, and some could even use the same line of reasoning the Minimal Facts Approach use for Christ's, but there is still an element of faith in the miraculous possibility.
Faith, is, in and of itself, somewhat of a logical fallacy. That's the rub. The Minimal Facts Approach tries to use history to prove something that comes down to faith. At the end of the day, even if history proves the assumptions listed above to be true, it still does not explain how someone could die, and then live again. A miracle like that requires faith. Maybe I'll explore this idea further in a thread titled "Spock's Dilemma: Faith and Logic"
Anyway, I do not believe the resurrection could be explained without requiring faith. The Minimal Facts Approach skips this completely, and asks me, the skeptic, to accept a miracle without faith. It can't be done.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 28, 2009 10:27:56 GMT -8
Those are definitely options to consider, as we have elsewhere, but the majority of scholars believe that the early disciples were sincere in their beliefs, whether mistaken or not. And these scholards base their opinion on evidence, not mere speculation.
That is definitely NOT the reason I (along with the majority of scholars) assume they were sincere in their beliefs. That would be circular reasoning. Of course a liar would say they believe. The reasons for believing the disciples were sincere in their beliefs have to do with much more than what they said. Sounds like that might be a good area to dig into.
I'd welcome such an attempt. Can you think of one?
That'd be great. It sounds like we have different definitions of "faith".
No, it doesn't replace faith. It uses reason to demonstrate that one's faith in the resurrection is well placed.
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Jul 28, 2009 11:42:48 GMT -8
We might have different definitions of faith, because to me faith is mutually exclusive of reason. In this case, the points you make are reasonable, but it still involves faith in something we could not fully comprehend. You say that "it uses reason to demonstrate that one's faith in the resurrection is well placed." That may be well and good for someone who already has faith but is questioning the resurrection, as some Christians may, but not a good apologetic for those questioning Biblical or Christian claims in general.
That's the problem I have with debating/discussing theology, it always sounds like begging the question. Can you scientifically or historically prove these things? No, you can only use it to affirm your faith.
Sometimes, I think apologetics is pointless in this regard. If you don't have faith in the miraculous, these arguments mean nothing.
As far as other claims of resurrection, I can not currently think of an exact instance, my point was that the same line of reasoning could be used to prove it. It still would involve faith, though.
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Jul 28, 2009 11:46:50 GMT -8
And, to clear things up, I am not completely faithless. I just can't see a logical explanation for the resurrection without faith in the unknown, which is why I question this approach.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 28, 2009 21:05:27 GMT -8
I definitely don't think faith is exclusive of reason. Let me illustrate why:
Can you prove [scientifically] that George Washington existed? Well, why do you believe he lived if you can't prove it? Well, you believe it on a mixture of evidence [reason] and faith.
The more substantial evidence there is for a truth claim or the reality of a historical event, the more well placed is our faith in that claim or event.
Christian faith is not blind faith. It is faith that leaps off of solid evidence- trust that stems from reason. Faith enables us to be certain of the things we cannot see, but it is only as good as the foundation of the jumping off point.
I can have all the faith possible that if I jump out of a plane without a parachute that I won't die, but there would be no evidence to back me up, and that blind faith would actually be merely a foolish undertaking.
Not so with the Christian faith. The apostles didn't go around telling people just to muster up enough internal, head-in-the-sand, fake it tell you make it, blind faith. They made the rational point that the grave was empty, that Jesus really appeared to them, and that faith in this miracle was well founded and grounded in real history and evidence.
Many have been persuaded by the evidence- some even against their own bias. You're a C.S. Lewis fan, you know his initial resistance to the growing conviction that there was something to the resurrection after all.
I disagree, by experience none the less. One only needs to be open to the possibility of the miraculous for the arguments to mean something.
In my opinion, one can demonstrate that the resurrection is the most likely explanation for the events of Easter Sunday. It's all about weighing evidence. Christianity is the most "testable" religion there is, as the story of the Bible intersects so much with real history.
So, just so I understand better your vantage point, are you saying you do believe the resurrection occurred or not?
Well, even if you think it's pointless, bear with me a little. This can be enjoyable just for the sake of a good conversation, right? I appreciate your thoughts and perspectives. I think only good can come of respectful, honest, and truth-seeking dialogue.
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Jul 29, 2009 12:24:14 GMT -8
George Washington didn't perform miracles, so I don't need faith to believe it. Although it would now be out of historical context, his actions could be repeated.
No, I do not believe in a literal resurrection. As of now, I am more in the Jesus Myth camp. The story is another attempt to bridge man to God, in whom I do believe. Blood, sacrafice, etc are merely symbols to help us begin to understand the unfathomable mysteries of that which is outside of human existance, and therefore impossible to comprehend. That is why faith is necessary. God cannot be rationalized in the human context. I do not think any measure of human reason can accomplish this, and that's the "magic" of faith. It means so much more when you do not have to rationalize it. That is what I think most people do not understand.
I appreciate the respectful conversation too. I am always open to changing my belief as it gets tested and refined. I am a lifelong learner, and in no way can claim I know what can not be known. I can only learn, grow, and evolve.
So, in short, to me, it does not matter if the resurrection is historical fact or not. You can have faith in it if that allows you to be closer to God, but it is unnecessary for me, since it is just a symbol of choosing life over death (physically and spiritually).
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 29, 2009 16:30:41 GMT -8
My point was that faith is what we are left with on any issue we cannot "prove"- whether it seems hard to believe or not.
Thanks for laying your cards on the table. So, just to get a bit more info, from your perspective, then, what do you make of Paul's claim in1 Cor. 15:16-19?
16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
I hope you see the same in me as well.
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Jul 29, 2009 17:04:31 GMT -8
Paul makes these claims based on his faith and belief. Christian doctrine, as we know it, relies on the resurrection to prove that death can be defeated. I see it as a symbol or myth to encourage those seeking salvation, if that is meaningful to them. Since I don't think Paul's words are doctrine, they only serve as a philosophy I don't agree with. Absolutely. And also a good excuse to mess around at work.
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Jul 29, 2009 19:25:53 GMT -8
|
|
ben
Advanced Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by ben on Jul 29, 2009 19:30:38 GMT -8
Why would eleven cowards suddenly become martyrs (10 at least) if the resurrection did not happen?
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Jul 29, 2009 19:38:42 GMT -8
Why would eleven cowards suddenly become martyrs (10 at least) if the resurrection did not happen? Because they believed the resurrection happened. That doesn't mean it did.
|
|
ben
Advanced Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by ben on Jul 29, 2009 19:49:59 GMT -8
Why did they believe it happened? These guys were running scared. Did someone tell them that Jesus rose from the dead and then suddenly He becomes someone they are willing to die for?
|
|