Dr. Peter Kreeft presents an article on the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. Kreeft presents 5 different theories and offers a critique of each.This was recently featured over at Truthbomb Apologetics, along with this nice resurrection post, which included this flash video.
Article here.
Have a blessed Easter holiday.
12 comments :
The 5 options according to the link..
1 Jesus died Jesus rose Christianity
2 Jesus died Jesus didn't rise—apostles deceived Hallucination
3 Jesus died Jesus didn't rise—apostles myth-makers Myth
4 Jesus died Jesus didn't rise—apostles deceivers Conspiracy
5 Jesus didn't die Swoon
Erm… what about
6. Jesus didn’t exist, stories created 50-100+ years after the supposed event
7. Jesus exist, so didn’t get crucified, stories created 50-100+ years after the supposed event to sound good by mixing different ideas/beliefs held at the time.
8. Jesus died, followers tried to answer how their leader died, found ‘answers’ in the bible that explained what happened with regards to the death, no one knew where the tomb was as per Mark (if such a tomb existed since most criminal are just thrown in a common pit) further accounts where built on original accounts with the later accounts being more dramatic than the first. (As seen in the gospels) The only fact therefore being that a ‘wise man’ existed and died… nothing amazing there.
Not saying any of the above is true – just top of my head thoughts.
Just something to think about over the long weekend.
Have to go – time to get a curry :-)
Lee
Don't forget number 9... "Anything we can think of that rejects Jesus Christ."
Hi Brian,
Don't forget number 9... "Anything we can think of that rejects Jesus Christ."
he he... like that one :-)
One minor point though - I'm not rejecting Jesus any more than I am rejecting Zeus, Woden or Thor. I really find it odd when the Christian blames me for rejecting their God… anyway – I am looking for Jesus (in a way) but I don't just believe any old account that already sounds rather fishy.
If Jesus existed (which I suspect was the case BTW) and he died on the cross (maybe, no problems with that really - lots of people died on crosses at the time) then the only thing left to prove is the BIG ONE... did Jesus come back and was he the Son of God?
Well, how do we go about proving that? You tell me, it is the Christian’s claim after all.
Maybe if we had a good reliable historical source - one that is backed up with many other independent sources…?
The Bible? I might give that as one source… now what about the independent sources?
Take care… and have a good Easter – mine has been great so far, hope you having a good one also.
Lee
Lee,
I assume you would most assuredly demand expert evidence for other fields of study. So why is it when it comes to the evidence in favor of Christianity, any old hack theory will do as long as it confirms your pre-conceived ideas about Jesus?
Jesus never existed? Seriously, Lee?
Brian is right: #9 seems to be your theory of choice.
Don't forget number 10..."Jesus was a space alien."
"The Bible? I might give that as one source… now what about the independent sources?"
Hi Lee, just a quick note on this point, I'd actually consider the Bible to be multiple sources. I mention this in my little eBook about the New Testament:
These 27 writings [of the NT] were composed by several different authors, at varying times, in diverse locations, under varying circumstances, often for very specific audiences. This means that the New Testament should not be understood as a single source, but rather as comprising
multiple independent sources collected in one volume.
http://www.whyfaith.com/nt/
(Sorry I don't mean to advertise my own stuff :) But this is a point that I think is important but rarely mentioned.)
Have to be real short...
Hi Thomas
Jesus never existed? Seriously, Lee?
No, I think Jesus (or someone that later was known by that name) existed.
Not every atheist agrees with me – but they are wrong :-)
The bible writers went to a lot of trouble trying to balance the story of a living Jesus – they didn’t so a good job either.
This is why I think a 'real Jesus'/man existed – whatever he was called.
Brian is right: #9 seems to be your theory of choice.
Thomas, you have not addressed my points – just attacked me, which you are free to do of course, but it isn’t a good argument.
+++++++
Hi Aaron,
Don't forget number 10..."Jesus was a space alien."
Yep, I’ve written about that on my blog for fun once :-)
http://strawmen-cometh.blogspot.com/
2008/10/greatest-story-never-told.html
Why not aliens indeed?
Nothing supernatural :-)
+++++++++
Hi emmzee
Hi Lee, just a quick note on this point, I'd actually consider the Bible to be multiple sources. I mention this in my little eBook about the New Testament:
But they all sing from the same hymn sheet :-)
Notice I never said they were written by only one person, my point was and is that they are not independent sources :-)
Read history – there are two sides to every story, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Now, if I used as my only source of Hollywood movies (made by many different people over a period of time like you say of the bible) to judge English history - I would think ALL English were toffee nosed scum of the Earth who always need a good American to show us the right way forward.
Being English I know this isn’t 100% correct... I’m not toff for one :-)
Have to go - take care all
Lee
If I'm not mistaken, "The Empty Tomb" by Lowder and Price actually argues something along the lines of "Jesus was a space alien"
No kidding.
http://www.tektonics.org/tomb/emptytomb.html
http://www.triapologia.com/hays/ThisJoyfulEastertide.pdf
If I'm not mistaken, "The Empty Tomb" by Lowder and Price actually argues something along the lines of "Jesus was a space alien"
Price? Robert Price? The Biblegeek? Aliens?
Oh dear... I hope it isn't true.
No – I don’t go for the alien idea - though there are no physical reason why aliens could not come and visit Earth, the evidence for aliens is next to zero.
Lee
Hey Brian,
Thank you so much for the link. I greatly appreciate it.
Godspeed
Hi, Lee
I appreciate your honest approach. You don't seem crass, but rather very interested and open. That's cool. You don't see that as much from either side of the issue, really.
Couple thoughts.
[Point 1] You wrote: "But they all sing from the same hymn sheet :-) Notice I never said they were written by only one person, my point was and is that they are not independent sources :-)
[Point 2] Read history – there are two sides to every story, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
[Point 1A] Now, if I used as my only source of Hollywood movies (made by many different people over a period of time like you say of the bible) to judge English history - I would think ALL English were toffee nosed scum of the Earth who always need a good American to show us the right way forward."
About point 1, are they actually dependent? I don't think so. The authors of the New Testament were separated over great geographical distances, came from a huge variety of backgrounds, and wrote over many years. These evidences are not in dispute by middle eastern scholars. So really, it seems they were quite independent sources. It would be just the same if you and I went to see an Iron Maiden concert (yours in the UK and mine in the States). If we then both published reviews of the concert on our blogs, we would still be independent sources.
Point 2. Saying the truth is often in the middle is really just a convenient euphemism that means basically, the truth could be anywhere. Looking at history, there are many issues where the truth is black and white. Hitler was a murderous villain is not up for debate. If it was, one side would definitely be correct.
Point 1A: your analogy comparing the NT authors and their writings to Hollywood movies disdaining Brits is like comparing apples and electromagnetic space telescopes. ;-) The Hollywood movies you refer to make no claim to be historical or truthful, but rather figments of screenwriter's imagination. The Biblical authors internally claim that the NT is accurate history just as millions of Christians and historians from the first century on have claimed.
A better analogy takes us back to the Maiden gig. Suppose 27 people: some male, some female, some rich, some poor, some old some young, etc. Went to see Iron Maiden concerts in various parts of the world over the 30 years that Maiden has been around. If each one of those 27 people wrote a review of the concert, and it all turned out to agree, we'd be STUNNED. I mean, Maiden switched vocals from D'ianno to Dickenson, drums from Burr to McBrain, added a 3rd guitarist (wish they hadn't);-) and wrote a variety of concept albums and songs. We would expect these reviews to be quite different in content and attitude. Some of the older folk might not call what they saw music, eh?
We see a similar situation with the NT authors. The documents agree. We should be stunned. And then we should perhaps think, hmmm...maybe God is behind all this.
My .02
Never alone.
-Wayne
Hi Wayne,
I appreciate your honest approach. You don't seem crass, but rather very interested and open. That's cool. You don't see that as much from either side of the issue, really.Thanks – though on the crass part, I have been known to make some mistakes
About point 1, are they actually dependent? I don't think so.Well, they seem to be building on one another – each adding a little more ‘flavour’ to the previous account to fit their own ideas.
Start with Mark, a rather simple account and many scholars agree was the first I believe.
Then read Mathew and Luke and they seem to build on seem said stories.
I don’t have time tonight to defend my position much so I will just ask you to look up the Lord’s prayer (the first thing that came to mind, there are others and probably better examples – the women by the empty tomb could be another example when read side by side)
Now the Lord’s prayer, I would have thought, is rather important – and every effort should be made to get it correct.
In Mark
“And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.”
Mark 11:25-26
Then Luke
And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
Give us day by day our daily bread.
And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
Luke 11:2-4
Then Matthew
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Matthew 6:9-13
My point is the theme of the prayer ‘feels’ the same – they seem to have a common source, but they have been changed a little.
Hence I do not think they are independent.
It would be just the same if you and I went to see an Iron Maiden concert (yours in the UK and mine in the States). If we then both published reviews of the concert on our blogs, we would still be independent sources.Indeed, these would be independent reviews (but of the same event?)
Let’s suppose that we both went to the same concert –I bet we could agree on the songs played and the lyrics.
The point though would be this.
What if I didn’t go to the concert – just read your review.
What would you expect to read in my account/review?
I might add a little here and there to ‘prove’ that I really did go to the concert. I might assume that no one would have read your account, so I might even change a few details.
How would we go about testing which review was the original, which one was true, which one was dependent on the other?
Point 2. Saying the truth is often in the middle is really just a convenient euphemism that means basically, the truth could be anywhere.No, this isn’t what I meant.
For example.
Let’s suppose we find two accounts of a battle in history.
One written by supporters of King A, the other by supporters of King B.
Both agree that a battle took place, the date and location – but one says King A had 10,000 troops, the other says King A had 60,000 troops.
The answer probably is some where in the middle. One playing down the numbers, the other playing them up.
(BTW – I’m a big fan of English history around the War of the Roses in the 1400’s. I’ve got many books on the subject, some written by those who like Lancashire, and those who like York – people are bias I can tell you that much.)
Looking at history, there are many issues where the truth is black and white. Hitler was a murderous villain is not up for debate.Some deny many of the acts Hitler was said to have done BTW
I’m not one of those… I think he was scum
Point 1A: your analogy comparing the NT authors and their writings to Hollywood movies disdaining Brits is like comparing apples and electromagnetic space telescopes. ;-) It was just an analogy – but I don’t think I was that far off the mark.
The Hollywood movies you refer to make no claim to be historical or truthful, but rather figments of screenwriter's imagination. Erm… actual, listen to the writers/directors of such movies many believe THEY are telling the truth, based on THEIR interpretation.
More importantly though – a lot of people who watch the movie think it is true. My fav movie to hate is Braveheart… enough said.
Darn… I've runout of time.
Have to go.
Have a good weekend
Lee
Post a Comment
Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.