#340 in Books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3)
Sentiment score: 26
Reddit mentions: 54
We found 54 Reddit mentions of The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3). Here are the top ones.
or
- Used Book in Good Condition
Features:
Specs:
| Height | 9 Inches |
| Length | 6 Inches |
| Number of items | 1 |
| Weight | 2.44 Pounds |
| Width | 1.5 Inches |
The historical Jesus is there. Certainly Jesus of Nazareth existed. Josephus, Tacitus, and I think the Talmud, and maybe Suetonius all have info about Him although scant.
For reading (not light) about evidence for the resurrection, I would suggest:
The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham
The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple by Richard Bauckham
He's written a number of books on the subject. The Resurrection of the Son of God is a big one.
An old standard is St. Augustine's Confessions. A new one is N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God.
I find both authors compelling for different reasons. I think Augustine is great at just writing about what it's like to be human. He knew what psychology was before it was invented, and it takes a great deal of honesty and self-reflection and humility to write about what goes on in your head, rather than what you wish went on in your head.
As for Wright, I really like The Resurrection of the Son of God because I think apologetics need to start with the cross.
If you're wondering what makes Catholicism true among other religions, consider that Christianity is rather unique among religions for its truth value being directly tied to an historical event: Christ's Resurrection. If Jesus did rise from the dead, Christianity is decisively vindicated, regardless of the other religions' claims (which is not to say other religions may not have insights or elements of the truth, just that they are not the full truth in the way Christianity is). For that reason I advise looking into apologetics defending the resurrection. Here's a short reading list to get you started:
How much have you actually looked? No one wants you to pretend to believe when you don't actually believe, but reading standard atheist talking points isn't exactly strong research. Have you looked at, for example, anything like N. T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God?
I have not read it, but I have been told repeatedly that NT Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God is an excellent discussion of the historical evidence for the Resurrection. It’s 740 pages long, so I imagine that he gets into the questions you’re asking.
I might also suggest Fr. Robert Spitzer from the Magis Center who has a 26 page overview of scholarship on this issue on his site. He includes references to other works you might find interesting in his footnotes. Section IV of that article addresses another of NT Wright’s works, Jesus and the Victory of God which also speaks to the witness of the early Church.
NT Wright
The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0800626796/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_29m8CbB0JJ9TY
This is a voluminous exploration. Wright is not perfect but this is a good tome.
Thanks for your nice message.
These arguments made a big difference in my life and if they make a difference in someone else’s life (or at the very least challenged them to give serious consideration to the evidence of natural theology) I am very happy to hear it.
I understand your reservations about the argument from desire. I think I mention in my discussion of it that it has only moderate force but has an important place in the cumulative case.
I would highly recommend some further reading because my posts are all capsule versions of arguments that are presented and defended with much greater rigour in my sources. If you only ever read two books on this subject let them be The Existence of God by Richard Swinburne and The Resurrection of the Son of God by N. T. Wright. If you have an iPad or Kindle both are obtainable in a matter of seconds online.
And regarding your question, I recommend this video: The whole thing or from around 6:00 if you’re short on time. In short: Aquinas suggested that wealth and poverty can each be either a blessing or a curse. Much more would need to be said to give a satisfactory answer but I think that is a good starting point. And of course if third world poverty is something that could be ended if first world countries were totally committed to ending it, then ultimately it is a consequence of moral evil.
All the best :)
If you're looking for something from the Christian perspective, but also properly historically researched, I have been told that the finest book on the subject is The Resurrection of the Son of God, by N.T. Wright.
I have not personally read it, although I do own it and will hopefully get around to it some day. I have read some of his less scholarly works, which, amusingly, often reference this and the other two enormous books in his "Christian Origins" series.
Not sure what sorts of perspectives you're looking for, but NT Wright is a top notch academic writing from a somewhat conservative Anglican perspective, and has written a ton on these two guys:
Jesus and the Victory of God
The Resurrection of the Son of God
Paul and the Faithfulness of God
And if ~3200 pages isn't quite enough to scare you out of attempting the project, you should also read the first volume in this series, The New Testament and the People of God.
> Christianity is not an evidence-based religion. It's like all other religions, which is faith-based.
While I agree that faith is a necessary component of Christianity, you seem to assert here that faith and evidence are mutually exclusive. I think this is a false dichotomy akin to the oft-repeated "science versus religion" debate topic of the last century.
Faith alone does not a Christian make. True faith always makes itself known (always "discovers itself" in the words of Edwards) in the life of the believer. In other words, faith produces evidence that demonstrates its efficacy. A love for God, a hatred for one's sin, and a spirit that strives to obey God's commands are some examples of this evidence that is apparent not only to the believer but to surrounding people. I certainly see this in my own life.
But this is not to say that one's faith cannot be bolstered by external evidence. In this category we have arguments for the existence of God and the historicity of the events described in the New Testament documents. Chief among these is the resurrection, which Paul identifies as the linchpin of the entire Christian faith.
> The resurrection of Jesus is not historical at all. The historicity of Jesus ends with his crucifixion.
As /u/RighteousDude has already pointed out, we "prove" facts of history not in a binary sense, but with degrees of confidence. Another way to put this is that given the body of evidence (documents, oral testimony, artifacts, and so on), we seek the explanation that can account for all the evidence and do so far better than any competing explanation.
The resurrection should be treated no differently. Given the evidence, virtually all scholars (to include skeptics) agree that 1) Jesus of Nazareth died in Jerusalem by crucifixion, 2) his disciples were transformed from cowards into men who boldly claimed that they saw Jesus after his death and who went on to become martyrs, 3) James (the brother of Jesus and a skeptic) was converted in the same manner, 4) Saul of Tarsus (initially an enemy of Christianity) was converted in the same manner, and 5) the tomb was discovered empty. There are many more facts that can be extracted from the available evidence, but these five are perhaps the most critical, and as mentioned, nearly everyone who studies this subject agrees on them.
So given these facts, what is the best explanation? Many have been proposed over the years, such as ideas that the someone stole the body, or that the disciples fabricated the story, or that Jesus never actually died, or that the disciples hallucinated, or even that this entire story is fiction. But each of these ideas completely fails to account for the whole body of evidence in some way or another. The best explanation that accounts for all the evidence is simply that God raised Jesus from the dead, and that the disciples, James, and Saul were all eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus.
The case I've summarized above is drawn from the work of Gary Habermas, whose Historical Jesus is an approachable introduction to the life of Jesus that pays special attention to the extra-Biblical sources. If you're interested in a more thorough treatment, N. T. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God_ is a great choice.
The video provides a summary of a more detailed argument he gives in several of his books (two of which are linked below), but the gist of the argument is that, all factors considered, the claim that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead has more explanatory power than other hypotheses.
https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1487186641&sr=8-10&keywords=nt+wright
https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-Dominic-Crossan-Dialogue/dp/0800637852/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1487186702&sr=8-1&keywords=nt+wright+crossan
>Does anybody here have any insight? Suggestions on where I should start? I want to believe in Christ but I don't know how, and I'd very greatly appreciate any insight I could get.
Yes. Read The Resurrection of the Son of God by historian and New Testament scholar N. T. Wright, or watch this lecture summarizing the book's contents. In short: the basic historical facts which justify the inference to the Resurrection are all established by critical historical scholarship, and, in an attempt to explain the emergence of those historical events, the 'Resurrection hypothesis' has, by far, the greatest explanatory power.
That's a good book, but I was talking about his scholarly work, The Resurrection of the Son of God. It's a 740 page dissection into it. It's on my to read list, but I haven't read it yet.
http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796
You should read N.T. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God as it changed my mind about whether the resurrection could be established on historical grounds.
Also, this book.
I'm slowly working through NT Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God
Surprised by Hope by NT Wright.
Along with his scholarly work on the Resurrection, The Resurrection of the Son of God, quite literally changed the way I looks at my faith.
N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God (https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796) provides a readable and well sourced summary in the first several chapters. The discussion is of course directed to the central theme of the book -- the bodily resurrection of Jesus -- but that provides a useful counterpoint to Jewish ideas of the 'afterlife'.
The heavily upvoted assertions in this thread simply tell us what we want to hear. Hence there are so few requests for citations and sources for these statements.
For those genuinely interested in reading research from both sides (rather than simply the flavour of the month sensation 'the real Jesus is this' author), why not check out a source such as NT Wright's 'The Resurrection of the Son of God', a 700 page work by a man who is arguably one of the best historical researchers and lexicographers of the period and its surrounding times.
Surely either people are genuinely interested in an issue, or they're merely genuinely interested in having their own preferences confirmed.
Wonder if the downmods will flow in...sometimes it seems the wonderful Redditors who I've enjoyed good honest discussion with are being replaced with diggbots who simply downmod anything that disagrees with their own view. Reddiquette people...this contributes to the discussion by offering a well-researched alternative viewpoint.
Tim Keller is pretty bad IMHO.
The best case I've seen is N.T Wright in his The Resurrection of the Son of God.
In the end I didn't agree with him, but I did learn quite a bit, which is more than I can say about most such books I've read. Downside: 740 pages. ;-)
■Posteriori Evidence
https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796
■A priori probabilistic evidence
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0087/pdf_files/Papers%20from%20Philosophical%20Journals/Swinburne_2013-resurrection.pdf
■But didn't David Hume debunk miracles?
http://pitt.edu/~jearman/Earman2000HumeAbjectFailure.pdf
The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright is the best one, though keep in mind it is over 700 pages. It is highly respected and compelling, even among non-Christian, critical Bible scholars.
A completely separate argument (though more easily summarized) is Gary Habermas' "Minimal Fact" argument, where he argues using only historical facts agreed upon nearly unanimously by critical Bible scholars (including skeptics and secular historians.)
A more general book about the historical reliability of the Gospel narratives is Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham. Keep in mind this is also lengthy and academic in nature.
The best summary of these arguments I've come across is in chapters 7 and 13 of The Reason for God by Timothy Keller. This is the book that turned my faith around. He's also great at citations and includes a very helpful annotated bibliography.
TL;DR - Everyone should read The Reason for God by Tim Keller.
This might be a helpful book for you to check out if you can find it in a library.
The resource I hear most recommended is N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God:
http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796
You guys could read this.
Haha. That's kind of a joke (since it's almost 750 pages long). But seriously, I've been wanting to read this for a while now.
Sorry it has taken me a little while to respond. It seems that in many of my discussions with people over evidences for Christianity, we disagree strongly on what counts as evidence. I am curious, do you think that evidence is subjective? Can something be evidence for me and not for you?
Thanks for responding to my points. Let me give some responses to your pushback
As to your statement,
> accuracy is no measure of truth
I am not really sure what you mean by this statement. If you mean that the gospels accuracy is representing the life and words of Jesus does not mean that what Jesus says and later interpretations of his acts and words were true, then I agree. However, if the gospels are accurate in representing Jesus life and death, then the empty tomb and reported resurrection must be accounted for.
> Why does that rise to the standard of evidence? That would mean there is no other possible > explanation of events, other than his actual resurrection, right?
I have yet to hear another explanation of the empty tomb, the reported sightings by the disciples and followers of Jesus and the uniform pronouncement of the early church as to the bodily resurrection of Jesus which is a alternate viable alternative. I would recommend The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright if you are interested in further reading in this area.
Beyond that point, the existence of a category which we call evil demands an external standard by which good and evil can be measured. A moral law demands a moral law giver. See Mere Christianity by CS Lewis.
I hope this provides some clarifications. Also, I am listed many books as references. I would be happy to read (or at least skim) anything which you would recommend in this area.
For Christianity? What about the case for the resurrection? Or if you have the time you could check out N.T. Wright's Resurrection for the Son of God which I hear is excellent and is also widely regarded to be the best book on evidence for the resurrection of Christ. Besides that, you also have the lives and religious experiences of countless Catholic saints like Padre Pio, Teresa of Ávila, Ignatius of Loyola, Francis of Assisi, Catherine Emmerich, Joan of Arc, John Vianney, Anna Maria Taigi and Therese Neumann. Then you also have Catholic miracles like Fatima, Lourdes, Lanciano, Guadalupe tilma and (although not exclusively Catholic but Christian) the Shroud of Turin.
http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796
http://www.amazon.com/The-Resurrection-Jesus-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196
http://www.amazon.com/The-resurrection-factor-Josh-McDowell/dp/0918956722
>our religion, ie: for Judaism
I was under the impression that you didn't believe the Torah. Do you?
>Put up or shut up.
I'm not sure how you would like me to, but I'll list some resources below. If you would rather delve into it by having a strict dialogue between the two of us, that's cool too. I may not be able to respond quickly every time, depending on how this carries forth, but I'll do what I can. As you mentioned, your soul is "at stake and all that."
Gary Habermas and N.T. Wright are the top two resurrection scholars. Michael Licona is also a leading scholar on the resurrection debate. Philosophers such as Richard Swinburne and Antony Flew have even shown their faces on the scene as well.
Books
Presentations
Debates
Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, and Michael Licona are the most frequent debaters on the Christian side, and Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier are the most frequent debaters on the non-Christian side. Habermas, Craig, and/or Licona have debated the following (possibly) recognizable names on this issue: Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, Antony Flew, John Shelby Spong, Gerd Ludemann, Shabir Ally, Arif Ahmed, John Dominic Crossan, Robert M. Price, and Dan Barker.
YouTube is great for finding those debates. There are also, of course, dialogues in book form.
>if you don't like my tone
I'm actually enjoying your tone, haha
N.T. Wright wrote a quite lengthy book about it.
I'm working my way through this monster: The Resurrection of the Son of God by Wright. It's a fun read, and it's not that dependent on the first two books in the series, so maybe you should see if your library has it.
The first part of the book is a survey of what people in the first century understood about death and the "afterlife", from both Greek and Jewish perspectives. They knew about death, spirits, ghosts, shades, visions, hopes, warm fuzzies in the heart, living on in memory...and that "resurrection" is a different (disgusting) thing that just doesn't happen. Now take /u/KSW1's advice and read 1cor15, probably written in 55AD...
Someone else recommended NT Wright, and while I think that's very good scholarship his tome on the resurrection is a very tedious read and for the most part just a huge overview of what people in the ancient Mediterranean world believed about the afterlife. I guess you could skip those parts and only read the conclusions and the last couple of chapters, though.
I'd mainly recommend Mike Licona's "The Resurrection of Jesus: a New Historiographical Approach". It's also a very long read, but more to the point on this subject and very carefully argued. Also, The Jesus Legend by Boyd & Eddy is a very good read on the reliability of the gospels in general.
> Yeah there are people in my extended family that converted to catholicism (albeit it was because of marriage). They seem more chill than the christianity i'm normally exposed to.
Well from the sound of it, they’re probably non-practicing/cultural Catholics. Unfortunately, this is common. xP
> I consider myself a seeker. I wouldn't be asking these questions and currently trying to read the bible if I wasn't. I've been to church. I don't get that fuzzy feeling everyone else does.
Kudos to you for your love for the truth!
>but I cant bring myself to be confident in the mechanism by which this higher power has manifested life, death, and everything in between. It would not be humble of me to claim such things with 100% certainty. I feel like there's always something to learn.
Ah, well just to clarify, Catholicism does not claim to know everything. There is a lot that we do not and cannot know because we are human and not God. However, there is also a lot that we can and do know due to divine revelation and human reason (see the classical theist tradition for example).
The evidence is out there. I mean if there wasn't any, then being an atheist or agnostic would be the clear-cut choice right? Yet there are many brilliant people in the world today who believe in God as a result of compelling philosophical, scientific and historical evidence. Anthony Flew for example, the world's most influential atheist in the 20th century, converted to deism in 2004. He came to believe in the God of Aristotle, a God that possessed the attributes of immutability, immateriality, omnipotence, omniscience, oneness or indivisibility, perfect goodness and necessary existence. He also ended up developing a great respect for the Christian religion saying: "I think that the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honoured and respected whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. There is nothing like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul…If you’re wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat" (There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind, 185-186).
> And if in the process of me learning, I die and go to hell, well f**k me right? Like what can I do?
If you die in the process of learning then you will be judged by God who is perfect justice. Again, you aren't screwed. If you've lived a good life and tried your best to follow the truth then I have no doubt you'll be saved.
>The hostility is unwarranted and should not happen. However, I don't think it's necessarily the hostility that contributes to their reluctance. Whether they are right or wrong ...or whether believers are right or wrong, there is some kind of resistance there for sure, but if its coming from a genuine place, how do both parties work with each other and come to a solution? Not everyone who doesn't believe is wanting to continue to sin or rejects Jesus. I personally believe Jesus historically existed. Sometimes it's just hard to believe in a resurrection, I don't know how to make it any more philosophical than that.
There are biases on both sides. The bias for Christianity can stem from seeking comfort in the idea of God during hard times, loving the idea of heaven or falling in love with Christ and one’s faith.
On the other hand, the bias for atheism often stems from an atheist not wanting to make significant changes to himself and the way he lives his life, especially in the matters related to sex (although I was never an atheist, I could relate to this). If there is one thing about Christianity that rubs modern man in the wrong direction, it is its sexual ethos – that’s where all the hate and vitriol comes from really. If atheism is true, then we are free to do as we please. However, if Christianity is true, then there is a rightful way by which we should live, a life of virtue, and more is expected for us. In the light of Christianity and its demands, atheism is very attractive, comforting and relieving.
This bias for atheism makes them atheists less receptive to the gospel and hinders them from weighing the evidence for the existence of God objectively. Few gladly follow the evidence wherever it leads because many want atheism to be true.
>Sometimes it's just hard to believe in a resurrection, I don't know how to make it any more philosophical than that.
I wonder what it’s like for an atheist like you, who was never a Christian, to approach Christianity and all its claims..
Anyway, if you’re interested, I suggest seriously looking into the evidence for the resurrection. Check out what we Christians have to say on the topic, what are our strongest arguments, etc. For starters, I recommend checking out this article by Dr. Kreeft but if you’re looking for a serious challenge, I suggest picking up N.T. Wright’s magisterial study The Resurrection of the Son of God.
>So it goes back to my OP, which is how do you "unknow" what logically makes sense to you?
The only way to "unknow what logically makes sense to you" is to learn more and realize that you're wrong. When that happens, you'll make changes to your worldview based on this new information that you perceive to be correct.
I'm not sure about one book in particular but N.T. Wright would be a good place to start – perhaps The Resurrection of the Son of God.
> Hard to have a grudge against something you don't think exists.
I see your point, but I would also say that if God does exist - this stance toward God is in itself a grudge.
>What makes you say everyone, even Christians, has a grudge against God? That sounds like an interesting idea even though I already disagree.
The short answer is that all have sinned/are sinners. It's hardwired in our very existence - that we are enemies of God and by nature objects of wrath. The longer answer would take some lengthy conversations about one's understanding about Christianity, and discussions about terms such as sin, salvation, grace, redemption, justification, sanctification.
> My point earlier was that admitting Jesus existed doesn't mean admitting any of those other things.
I agree with that - my answer above was that this is the easiest route to take. If Jesus doesn't exist, I don't have to worry about any of his claims, or examine any of his life.
> No one comes back from the dead, and no one ever will.
I'd highly recommend this book. It's long and dense - but Wright makes a compelling case for the historicity of the Resurrection. But your adamance in the impossibility of coming back from the dead I think is useful as well - Human beings know this to be true, which is what makes the Resurrection story a gamechanger.
There’s plenty of proof for that as well:
http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/Resurrectionarticlesinglefile.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796
Yes, sure. If you imagined a literate culture with wide access to papyrus you certainly would. I think, however, an ancient historian would tell you that historians often have to rely on a single account of history from a single official source. If you want a strong case for the miraculous around Jesus death, ancient historian / bishop / leading theologian N.T. Write digs into the circumstances and argues convincingly that the early church could not have begun the way it did if Jesus had not been raised from the dead. The Resurrection of the Son of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God
Ken Ham is a well known quack. There's entire libraries of scientifically peer-reviewed data and evidence that completely and exhaustively debunks everything he claims. If you really want to know more, go ask r/science or just google Ken Ham and I'm sure there's ample evidence to go around.
As for McDowell, he's very fast and loose with evidence, and does a horrible job with hermeneutics and actual biblical scholarship. As an example, he somewhat famously states that Jesus uniquely fulfilled some 400+ Old Testament prophecies concerning the messiah. In actuality, that claim is WTF worthy. Just an absurd claim, since any OT scholar worth their salt would never even suggest that there are 400+ prophecies about the messiah, let alone that Jesus somehow fulfilled all of them. His books are a reflection of this piss-poor scholarship, and are aimed at an audience that doesn't know any better.
In short, stay away from those two! Go for this one instead.
Looking over your comments in this thread, OP, my first instinct was, "Wow, this guy is pretty cage-stage."
Your comments in this thread show a kind of absolutism around a particular reading of justification that seems very cage-stagey to me. You repeatedly bashed Wright, even calling him a teacher of a false gospel (which carries the verdict of "accursed"!), despite his track record of powerfully articulating such central doctrines as the resurrection. Wright's not perfect; no one is. Christian intellectual maturity includes the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff without implying that someone is accursed—unless there's very good reason to do otherwise. Perhaps I'm insufficiently Reformed, but I just don't see a denial of imputation as rising to that level.
And then I'm especially disappointed that you turned on your green mod username and cited rules in order to intimidate your interlocutor. A mature man shouldn't need to cite his authority as a mod and a pastor in order to win an argument. It just feels dirty to me.
You're apparently a pastor, and I'm not. Because of that you probably have at least a decade of Christian experience more than I do, too. So perhaps that ought to make me hesitant to hit 'save' on this comment. But at the same time, I would expect to see a pastor demonstrate uncommonly great charity towards a brother like Wright.
The Gospels or this:
https://smile.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796/ref=gp_aw_ybh_a_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=BCRD1RNFXNXC16V43V08
God did speak for himself. That's the authority that I case my claims upon.
Ok, links:
https://www.amazon.com/Testament-Christian-Origins-Question-Paperback/dp/0800626818
https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm
https://historyofphilosophy.net/
I would say there is more truth to cypherhalo's comment than first appears. Most biblical scholarship and textual criticism (as well as biblical archaeology) unfolds naturally according to the particular scholar's philosophical pre-dispositions. Welhausen's DEJPQ theory is an example, as is Davide Hume's natural history of religion. In other words, I would say there is no such thing as "biased" vs "unbiased" views on a subject this large, one that requires multiple non-empirical judgments and hunches in order to form an opinion on. I would perhaps use an equally blunt contrast of "university press" vs "popular press" publishing – and stick with the former.
If you are interested in a full-throated defense of the resurrection by an Oxbridge academic, give The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright a look. It is 740 pages, so not exactly light reading; but what kind of scholarly investigation into such a subject would be?
Sorry I'm a little late replying.
If you'd be interested in doing some reading on the Resurrection, Michael Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus, Dale Allison's Resurrecting Jesus, and N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God are all excellent. They're all on the long side, but if you really want to dig into the historical question, one or more would be helpful.
I was converted to monotheism largely by considerations similar to those explored in The Cosmological Argument by William L. Rowe (whose rejection of the principle of sufficient reason, and hence of theism, I do not share), which influenced my opinion of the probability of miracles in a way that undercut my objections (largely in line with the arguments in the tenth chapter of Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding) to arguments for the resurrection of Jesus like those found in The Son Rises and The Resurrection of the Son of God.
What sorts of things specifically are you interested in? I'm just throwing out most of the stuff that isn't C.S. Lewis, Alvin Plantinga or Francis Collins.
He quotes this guy Lamin Sanneh, and his book Whose religion is Christianity. Now I look at it, that looks really interesting.
For The Glory of God, By Rodney Stark
Jesus and The Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham
'Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights'
Um, I was expecting for the chapters where he talks about the historical basis of the Gospels to be full of sources, but his only sources seems to be Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and The Resurrection of The Son of God, by N.T. Wright. This book is turning out to be more disappointing than I thought was possible. I was actually going to investigate some of his historical conclusions a bit more.
>You claim that your god interacts with the physical world in response to prayers and according to his "plan" to influence people and events and yet have never shown any proof of the truth of such a claim nor have you even advanced a theory on how such an external supernatural action would occur outside of physical laws.
There are those who may say they have proof in the experiencing the miracles or answered prayers themselves, but I do not believe I'll be able to provide you with "proof" that God interacts with the world. What would that proof look like anyway?
>On top of that, you claim that wine and bread literally transforms into blood and body of Christ. Not allegorically, not metaphorically, literally. This claim is easily disprovable and hurts your credibility. As well, the claim that blessings, confession, sacraments, adoration or any of these ceremonies has a basis in reality is absurd and has zero evidence to back it up.
Yes, I do believe that at the words of consecration from the priest, the bread and wine literally, substantially, truly become the body and blood of Christ.
The claim is easily disprovable in what way? Do you want to take the bread and wine and examine it? We assert that even under a microscope, the bread and wine will still look like bread and wine.
The doctrine of the Real Presence states that Jesus is present under the appearances of bread and wine. So any testing would still reveal that bread and wine are still present.
Even Jesus' own followers left him after hearing him say that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, it is not surprising that those not of the faith would scoff at it. It is a scandalous claim indeed.
>Spirital as it pertains to biological as well as life-after-death. You say a lot about what the afterlife is like and what the parameters for attaining it are without any basis of proof aside from stories from ancient illiterate shepherds who had no idea how reality worked. You have zero actual knowledge of souls, sins, resurrection, afterlife, etc. and yet you make many claims about them and call these claims "truth".
This depends on what you mean by "knowledge." Are you suggesting that the only way of attaining knowledge of something is to prove it scientifically?
This proof you are seeking is nothing something we've ever claimed that we've had. These things you mention (sins, resurrection, afterlife, etc.) are things we believe de fide divina et ecclesiastica (of divine and ecclesiastical faith).
As far as the soul, I think there is room for discussion about the evidence of the soul. Intentionality comes to mind.
Also, you said that our basis for proof comes from:
> "stories from ancient illiterate shephards who had no idea how reality worked
This is a genetic fallacy
And to suggest they "had no idea how reality worked" is an absurd claim.
>Again, you say this and yet your church makes many claims about knowing precisely this. Belief is irrelevant, evidence is relevant. You can believe what your books say all you want. Even if everyone on Earth believed something that was untrue, say that the Earth was flat (coughthebiblecough), it doesn't make it true.
Belief is not irrelevant and knowledge of something being true is not solely contingent upon seeing scientific proof of it.
For example, you rightly believe that there are other minds apart from yourself. But it is impossible to prove this scientifically. Does it make the belief unwarranted? No, it is a properly basic belief.
Also, the bible does not attempt to tell us how the material world actually is. It's not a science book. There is nothing in the bible that says the earth is flat. What you would most likely refer to is where, in the Bible, it means the "four corners of the earth."
>I have enough evidence to reject it in favour of the null hypothesis for reality with a little help from Occam. The null hypothesis would be that there is no unseen, spiritual world and the only world that exists is what we can detect with our own senses and scientific measurement. Since we have seen exactly zero evidence that contradicts this or supports a magical spiritual world, the only possible conclusion is that magic doesn't exist.
You're starting point is that the only "proof" you'll accept is scientific. The entities in question are not empirical, thus the scientific method is of no use for determining the reality of the after life.
So if your criteria for determining the reality of the after life is that it must meet the standard of scientific proof, you're making an assumption that that's the only proof that is acceptable.
If there is intentionality, a will, I think it's compelling evidence of something "other wordly" that has power over the material world. When I move my leg, I willed my leg to move. This is a good starting point for understanding the spiritual as it related to the biological.
>They aren't credible to anyone unless you already accept their truth a priori. They're about as credible as Homer's Odyssey or any other story devised by man.
Do not treat the Bible as one single book, first off.
Secondly, if you treat the New Testament, especially the Gospel accounts, as you would any other historical document, you may find the historical reliability of the gospel accounts on the resurrection of Christ are quite compelling. See here for quick reference.
For a more in depth look, see here.
>In sum, you use the word "truth" in reference to your claims, yet there can be no truth without evidence.
Are you talking about scientific evidence? Because if you are, then this is simply not true.
You can arrive at truth without scientific in many things, in fact, you have to. Take for example mathematical truths. You cannot prove these with science because science must presuppose them.
You can arrive at logical truths without scientific evidence. You can also know things are true, such as someone is beautiful, without scientific evidence.
>Why would it?
Because sometimes an argument just can't really be effectively summarized without destroying the argument. (Nor reduced to 10,000 characters or less.)
If some expert in a given field--a professor, a professional theologian, a scientist, a philosopher, a professional historian--has spent an hour laying out an argument, typically that IS the summary. It's the summary of a much longer argument. Usually a book of several hundred or thousand pages.
Take this video talk by Professor N.T. Wright. In it, he summarizes some of the arguments he made in this 740 page book.
Will the proposed rule be clear enough to stipulate exactly how much of a summary of the summary is required to avoid censure by the mods?
>lack of evidence
If you are interested in re-evaluating your position, I recommend a 700 page argument for the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. It might be more informative than a reddit conversation.
The Resurrection of the Son of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3
http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796
What (other than prejudice) would keep you from reading it?
>Wrong, my day job is in science. Science is not based in trust whatsoever; it happens to be the case that trustworthy scientists are employed by large academic institutions because of the quality of their work—for the most part (there are exceptions).
Take my field, for example. If I'm working on some cell line mechanism in the lab, I will indeed be working based on something someone has done before me. There will be prior evidence which I have to utilise. I don't just blindly accept it and work on it. I have to read it, analyse it, and see whether other independent groups have come to the same conclusions. That's the whole basis of meta-analysis—you don't trust one person's work. It's a fundamental aspect of science.
>Science is not based in trust whatsoever;
And, then you also explain what you trust in science:
>That's the whole basis of meta-analysis—you don't trust one person's work. It's a fundamental aspect of science. And it happens to be the case that trustworthy scientists..
That is what I am saying about Biblical Studies, in particular language. Trustworthy scholars do the work. Not one person.
That's the whole basis of meta-analysis—you don't trust one person's work. It's a fundamental aspect of
sciencetextual analysis in Biblical Studies. No one person verifies the work of all the others, not me or anyone else, because that is impossible, but that is what you think ought to happen "to be sure" of whatever.>The fact that you're questioning my credentials based on a really obvious flaw makes you argument incredibly weak.
I assumed you could not work in science because of how self-contradictory your argument was, but I just showed you how you did it with science too. The problem, I see, is definitely more based in logic.
>Perhaps you're just talking about mathematicians and statisticians, where prior mathematical proof is easier to validate. Others can do it there and then, whereas in the physical sciences you have to physically set up an experiment and replicate it.
No, I am talking about all sciences.
>Whilst I can't say with 100% certainty (and no one ever will) that Jesus did not walk on water, raise from the dead or turn water into wine, it goes against all current scientific knowledge. For those to be true, fundamental laws of physics and chemistry would need to be re-evaluated.
But that wasn't your claim. Your claim was that parts of the Bible are "exagerated or fabricated" within the contect to textual analysis. You are questioning the veracity of the text itself, and that is what I am answering. This isn't about what is particularly "un-scientific" abou the Bible, however interesting a subject that might be.
>And, indeed, thorough historical proof that it happened. AFAIK the only solid evidence is that Jesus was crucified. There is no evidence from that generation which conclusively says he went missing from his grave.
Now you turn to historiography, rather than emperical science, as the source of your complaint. Since this is closer to the subject at hand, textual analysis, I will address it briefly. That are scholars who argue in exhaustive detail the historicity of the resurrection. If you have time to read a 700 page book on it by a professor who's taught at Oxford and Cambridge, I recommend N.T. Wright's [Resurrecetion of the Son of God*](http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796). It offers what the author, and plenty of others, regard as evidence for the historical ressurection. If you have not read it and refuted its contents, you are not in a position to say there is no evidence, even if you continue to say there isn't, which I fully expect to be the case.
There's lots, on all different levels. So it depends what you're looking for and what questions are important to you. You might consider:
If you want to understand the philosophical arguments for God you could try:
Specifically on Jesus, you might try,
And one last one which I haven't read, but I hear is good
But honestly, simply reading the Bible, praying and earnestly seeking is the best start.
I think the most important reason is Jesus. We have good reasons to believe that he rose from the dead.
The arguments are sketched out in a book that was published several years ago called The Case for Christ. Recently, there have been two more scholarly treatments of roughly the same subject, one by a guy named Richard Bauckham, called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, and the other by N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God.
A guy named William Lane Craig is probably the most active popular defender of the historicity of the resurrection. He has written lots of books and essays on the subject, and google will also turn up transcripts and recordings of his debates.
I wasn't kidding when I said I didn't have time to get into a detailed debate about the Resurrection. However, I would like to make a few general remarks.
The first is that the view you are advocating has been atomized at the highest levels of academia by the brightest minds with deep and specialised knowledge for a very, very long time. And if you think that it can lead to the justified conclusion that nothing unusual happened on the first Easter Sunday then you are simply ignorant of the matter of which you speak.
For instance, the established historical explanadum includes post mortem appearance experiences. And every serious historian must account for them.
Take Bart Ehrman. “Historians,” he writes, “have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.” He then goes on to place the Resurrection hypothesis in historical quarantine because, he says, miracles by their very nature lie beyond the explanatory scope of the historian.
Dale Allison may be held in even higher regard than Ehrman in high academia. And as Craig concludes of Allison's book Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters,
>That Allison should, despite his sceptical arguments, finally affirm the facts of Jesus’ burial, empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection and hold that the resurrection hypothesis is as viable an explanation as any other rival hypothesis, depending upon the worldview one brings to the investigation, is testimony to the strength of the case for Jesus’ historical resurrection.
My point is that whatever explanatory entity you appeal to you will still be tasked with providing an explanation for how and why the disciples came to a fierce belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus because it is historical bedrock for virtually every critical scholar with a terminal degree in a relevant field. And it follows from this that the hypothesis that the New Testament was given mythological embellishments is only going to get you so far—and certainly not to a justified denial of the Resurrection Hypothesis.
My second point is that I think you are very impressionable and this concerns me. One day you are working yourself into a lather that Islam is the one true religion. On the next you are accusing Islam of teaching idolatry—probably the single-most offensive thing you could suggest to a Muslim. On a third day I notice your flair is something about Saint Paul being a heretic who is burning in Hell. On a fourth day I am surprised by a PM in which you tell me you will probably end up being a nondenominational Christian.
It concerns me because I think it lacks wisdom, prudence and love and these are properties that I believe should supervene on anyone who is in communion with God. I once saw you tell someone who objected to the doctrine of hell (you were wearing your Islamic hat at the time) that they were, "God's bitch," and he could do as he pleased with them. Whatever religion God has revealed himself in, one thing is for sure: He would not approve of this.
And whatever religion you are tomorrow you will I take it still be a theist. And I think belief in God has practical moral implications for our everyday life. I think it means that we ought to try to act with love, patience and prudence. I don't know, dude. Maybe just chill as a basic theist for a while and pray to God for guidance and discernment in discovering his true revelation in history. Surely this would be better than alternately defending and trashing religions? Trashing atheism is fine. God is different. Even in my criticism of other religions I try to be respectful. God is sacred and I think we should be solemn and loving in our quest for him.
Lastly, if you want to really get stuck into the Resurrection (instead of, you know, taking glib potshots like you are currently doing) this is the book you need to read. Have at it!