Alter on The Resurrection: Take Two

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@MJAlter

An idea to think about: Supposing that someone, an evangelical attempts to evangelize/witness someone of the Jewish faith. During that encounter, the evangelical presents NUMEROUS contradictions [you know the extensive list] from the Christian Bible to the person he/she is witnessing.

@MJAlter

Now let’s think about this for a moment: Jesus’s purported resurrection will be one of many topics employed to convince [= via supposed proof texts] the Jewish observer

I’m truly sorry about the way this has been used in you context. I see these as legitimate concerns that should be engaged on their own. However, this is what brings you to the inquiry with bias. You already know the conclusion. You wrote a polemic to protect Jewish people from the story of the Resurrection. I respect that you are upfront about this.

You do not seem, however, to understand much of Christian theology. It would be interesting into engaging those objections in more detail, perhaps on another thread. It seems that this could be a place of much more interesting discussion.

@MJAlter

Respectfully, I do not think that you are comprehending/looking at this issue through the lens of a Jew, and perhaps those of other faiths (although I could be wrong). Respectfully, you write: “We also are not discussing the “crimes” of Jesus, but the Resurrection.”
RESPONSE: YES! But…

I fully grant that a Jewish person of your persuasion has no interest in granting legitimacy to the Resurrection. If that is your point, you have no quarrel with me. It seems that I can see it from your point of view, right? Remember, also, that I am not actually trying to convince you of anything. If you want to reject the Resurrection, so be it.

First, the reason the “crimes” of Jesus came up is because you quoted several verses about conflicting testimony, to be used in legal proceedings, not historical analysis. That was an absurd use of those passages. For you to quote those passages in this way demonstrates in yet another colorful way that you do not have a coherent methodology. Thank you for availing yourself thusly to make my point.

Second, my (and @dga471’) complaint is to @vjtorley in portraying your analysis as something other than a polemic effort by an untrained Jewish person. @vjtorley goes so far as to equate your analysis with that of a neutral historian, when you are neither neutral nor a historian. Softening his claims, he argues that your analysis would convince a neutral historian. Yet, there is no evidence that a single neutral historian is engaging with your work, and it seems that this is for fairly obvious reasons. It appears to have large methodological flaws.

I like @vjtorley, and count him as a friend. I appreciate you have been nothing but respectful here @MJAlter. However, these are gross misrepresentations of you and your work. I’d like to clear this up before moving much further into an analysis of your argument.