Torley on The Resurrection: Take Two

Conversation Side Conversation
141

Hi Vincent,
Both while reading and participating in this discussion, I am faced with competing statements from you and @Freakazoid:

Because I’m not trained in NT studies, short of actually trying to get trained myself, I have to somehow decide whether you or Freakazoid is more credible. And at the current point of the exchange, based on your posts, I am more persuaded that Freakazoid knows more about the current state of NT scholarship than you do. For every statement he makes, he can cite a list some professional scholars who would agree or disagree with a position, whereas you either 1) simply assert that “scholars will believe x” without much elaboration, or 2) cite one or two people who seem to agree with you. Initially you quoted Casey and Ehrman (both legitimate scholars) whom Freakazoid then rebutted as not representative of the majority view (he rattled off a list of people who disagreed with them). Lately, however, you have been resorting to quoting Richard Carrier and Matthew Ferguson and linking to their articles as arguments. Neither are established NT scholars like Ehrman, Evans, or Wright, but counter-apologists whose main following are laypeople on the Internet. This is like me citing William Lane Craig as my preferred scholar. (Even that is not as bad, because WLC has probably professionally published more in NT than Carrier or Ferguson.)

This is not useful for this discussion, because I certainly never believed that “no counter-apologist can answer the apologists’ case for the Resurrection”. I do not even believe that a neutral historian cannot make a reasonable argument against the Resurrection. Rather, I believe that a neutral historian can make a reasonably strong argument in support of it. And I think that @swamidass’ viewpoint is closer to this.

Finally, when Freakazoid argued that even Markan priority is not universal among scholars, you edited your post to include a question on the /r/AcademicBiblical sub-Reddit:

If you actually read the Reddit thread, the top answer indicates that there have been serious scholars arguing against Markan priority in the last several decades: Farmer, Orchard, Griesbach, Jerusalem School, Robinson. Sure, their arguments might not be convincing to the rest of the academy, but then didn’t Freakazoid say the same about Ehrman’s belief about the empty tomb? Reading that Reddit thread, I’m inclined to agree that Freakazoid was telling the truth when he said that there are some people who don’t believe in Markan priority. The point is that there isn’t unanimous scholarly consensus on most things in NT studies. This is why I am willing to grant that anything we say about historical evidence for the Resurrection is less certain than say, the evidence that atoms exist.

Consistent with what I said earlier, there is a difference between knowing the state of the field and simply searching until you find somebody - either a legitimate scholar, or an atheist blog - who would lend credence to your assertions. I think exchange will be less interesting if we devolve into the latter. I am not as interested in engaging you as a proxy for atheist bloggers such as Carrier and Ferguson. After all, the original context for this discussion was your assertion that Alter had contributed a “bombshell” to the field of historical Resurrection studies. It’s not that some atheist bloggers have written articles arguing against the Resurrection.

6 Likes
142

@Freakazoid:

Hello Freakazoid:

A knockout blow is not always necessary. See my Preface [xlvi] In boxing, you can win on points… Hopefully, based on the cumulative information in my text, I will win on points. Yes, a knockout, technical or literal, would be nice…

An important point is to respectfully ask questions and respond. At times, unfortunately, often, all we can do is speculate. The texts [narratives primarily] are what we have to deal with. It would have been nice if the authors provided additional information, but again they did not. In a famous movie about Mozart, the Emperor suggested to Mozart that his score had too many notes. Mozart replied, there were NOT too few notes and there WEREN’T too many notes. [Daniel would agree - but no cello concertos, a lot of piano concertos] Nonetheless, here, I wish we had more notes.

A general response: My text was published in very early 2015. The draft was with the publisher for about a year. The bibliography is very healthy. Sorry, if it does not meet your ideals. Of course, that is why we have second editions. Furthermore, the book was already over 900 pages. How many additional pages do I need to add to meet your ideal?

I agree with #1, 2, and 3.

It was stated: What that means is that we have no solid assurance that the witnesses to Jesus’ Resurrection personally took the trouble to check for themselves that his tomb was empty. … we don’t know that the apostles personally verified the empty tomb, on the third day.
Response: Agreed

It was written: It sounds like you haven’t read Evans and Magness on this subject after all
Response: I have. Magness and Evans are cited in my text.

some of the apostles were (in all likelihood) later martyred for their faith in Jesus, thereby proving their sincerity
RESPONSE: This “myth” is incorrect. In Volume 2, I devote about 100 pages to this topic employing Sean McDowell’s text as a foil. He has done an OUTSTANDING job gathering the material on this topic. A careful and critical reading of his text, in my opinion, is like shooting oneself in the foot.

The proper argument isn’t that specific apostles were martyred, but that early Christians were willing to face persecution and death for their beliefs.
Response: Absolute, unequivocally, and totally false. Sorry, you must wait for Volume 2 that is being edited. My editors have a life, and graciously are giving their time to comment on my manuscript. I sincerely thank them.

You wrote: This is just the same old 19th century liberal german account of the resurrection which I have no interest in debating given your earlier comments. I think it is pretty clear at this point that you are relying on internet searches in order to respond to me and others.
Response: Let’s think about this… Either you can be in a court of law or someone being evangelized or witnessed. Would a jury or one being witnessed accept purported evidence that:

  1. There is either conflicting or no evidence as to: when and where the risen Jesus appeared to his apostles
  2. there is no general agreement as to what he said , when he did appear to them.
  3. we have no record of the apostles attempting to verify that they all saw and heard the same thing , when Jesus appeared to them.

Should a juror or Jew just accept the material recorded in the NT? Of course not. Suour statement reads like an inconvenient…

You wrote: I have no interest in debating given your earlier comments.
Response: Then checkmate, I win since you resign. Your response is in my opinion (although I could be wrong) an ad hominem and it is also false. Current scholars and theologians have no problem discussing these, as you describe them “old 19th century liberal german account of the resurrection.”

You wrote: Points a, b, c, d, f, g, h, i, n, o, and q have been dealt with in more recent scholarship or in older scholarship that Alter doesn’t interact with. I’ve already cited a number of books and articles to this effect.
Response: I cite many sources that deal with the Last Supper (a): Stein 1996, Theissen & Merz 1998, Catchpole 2000, Wright 1996, Routledge 2002, Falcon 2006, Tabor 2006, Keener 2009, Black 2011, Bramer 2010, Cook 2011, etc. If you notice, most are by respected scholars. There is no agreement among scholars whether or not the Last Meal was the Passover seder. Question did you read my book?
(b) ibid. General response: There is no agreement when Jesus died.
© You must assume that the narratives are factual, historical… Many other scholars and myself do not.

I could go on… But, it seems to me that you are making a sweeping indictment without examining my text. Again, I will respectfully inquire: Have you read my entire text?

You wrote: e- Judas’ betrayal. Even if I grant that this is an irresolvable contradiction, all it does it show that either Matthew or Luke are working with independent traditions with some degree of error. None of it is integral to the resurrection narratives.
Response: My unit on Judas lends strong credence to the hypothesis that the Judas episode was a literary invention with possible theological implications (pp. 442-531) If my thesis (and that of others is correct), it must be inquired: What other parts of the narratives were literary or theological inventions.

You wrote: L- what Jewish records? We have the Mishnah and Talmud, neither which provide accurate information about historical events in pre 70AD Jerusalem.
Response: Absolutely agreed. I am being intellectually honest! In the playground it is often taught that two wrongs do not make something right. Well, may be Donald Trump does [bad humor].

You wrote: M- closest thing to unanimity you’ll get, but it only impinges on Matthew and not the rest of the Gospels.
Response: False. You have two women grasping Jesus’s feet, the angel at the tomb, the stationing of the guard at the tomb, the bribe… Collectively, Matthew reads like a Midrash or legend / myth.

You wrote: P- Most scholars will argue against guards at the the tomb, but there still isn’t anything like unanimity because you can find a number of important scholars that argue for its plausibility like Keener, Nolland, and France.
Response: And yes, they are highly respected believers and scholarly writers. Of course, believers can write truthfully and sincerely. But, so can those of ALL FAITHS… Is it also possible that they are writing from a biased view (?) as a believer, as am I (from a “traditional” Jewish point of view although I am not frum), and virtually all writers in this field? Is it possible to cited former Christian theologians and scholars who turned apostate, and reject your assertion? Why should we believe Keener et al and not their detractors (former Christian believers)?

You wrote: Even something as widely popular as Markan priority can’t claim this sort of standing because there are a number of good scholars who argue to Matthean priority.
Response: What a great and positive way to end: WE AGREE.

If possible, please answer two questions:

  1. What graduate school are you attending? [This information MIGHT clarify your theological framework]
  2. Have you actually read my entire book?

Well, soon I need to do some house cleaning. The Shabbas starts in about three hours [Remember, I am NOT frum]

Take care and thank you for you lengthy reply.

Mike

143

Hi Mike,
As Josh has said, this thread is mainly meant for arguments with Vincent, who has presented his own summary and understanding of your case, which is similar but not quite as comprehensive. Freakazoid was responding to Vincent, not you. It will be easier to keep track of the discussion in that way.

Secondly, you have asked several times to various people whether they have read your book. While I think @colewd says that he is now reading it, I have not read it, and I believe Freakazoid and Josh have not read it either, at least not in entirety. We are working mainly off of Vincent’s case and his subsequent replies, which started this whole exchange in the first place. As you can see, Vincent’s case has now expanded to also include the writings of atheist bloggers such as Carrier and Ferguson, not just limited to your book.

While I understand that you have devoted thousands of hours to writing your 900-page book on the Resurrection, it is unreasonable to demand that everyone read it before they can give a credible response, given its length. This is simply not how academic debate works. Even in pure mathematics, there are proofs written by reputable mathematicians which are ignored because they are too long and not written in an understandable way (see the case of Shinichi Mochizuki and the abc conjecture). Most NT scholars are able to present their cases within less than 400 pages - in fact, the core of the argument can usually be summarized fairly within much less.

1 Like
144

I also have a copy of Michael’s book if anyone has any specific questions. Sadly it lacks an index. I have not read it in its entirety.

145

@dga471

Hello Daniel:

Thank you for your cool headed and thoughtful response. As strange as it might seem, I am having a problem following the track of discussion. So I respond to what is on the screen. Just being honest. Several writers have also expressed similar concerns.

I have asked a relevant question: Have the commentators on this site read my text? I am positive that most have not. But, as a matter of transparency, why do they fail to state up front that they have not read the text? It is mind boggling that writers are commenting on something that they have not examined. I know that they are bright fellows and in some cases they are in Seminary and DEFINITELY have taken courses in Apologetics, Dogmatics, Systematic Theology etc that I have not had the opportunity to partake. Nonetheless, I spent approximately 11 years visiting Seminaries and speaking to several professors [Gary Habermas, Dale Allison, etc.]. I did real research. The vast majority of my sources were from the opposite side of the aisle: Craig, Geisler, Habermas, Licona, Wright, etc. At least in the movie, the Emperor heard the piece written by Mozart.

You wrote: We are working mainly off of Vincent’s case and his subsequent replies, which started this whole exchange in the first place. I agree, but, why the lack of transparency? Jewish poet, Haim Nachman Bialik wrote that,"Reading the Bible in translation is like kissing your new bride through a veil Please excuse the sexual euphemism; but, those who will know, will know.

You wrote: While I understand that you have devoted thousands of hours to writing your 900-page book on the Resurrection, it is unreasonable to demand that everyone read it before they can give a credible response, given its length.

Response: All that I request is transparency.

You wrote: Most NT scholars are able to present their cases within less than 400 pages - in fact, the core of the argument can usually be summarized fairly within much less.
Response: Definitely agree. But please tell that to N.T. Wright, Mike Licona, etc. Of course, they are definitely in a different league. But, if in the future, you have the occasion to examine JUST the table of contents, you will understand the reason for its length. Volume 2 will be less than 400 book pages and be focused on The Minimal Facts, Best evidences, Sean McDowell’s apologetic on the martyrdom of the Apostles, and several often raised arguments by Bill Craig. And yes, there will be a Volume 3 to address additional arguments, some raised by the contributors to the site.

Shabbos starts in a few minutes. So I need to go.

Thank you for your cool headless. No Cool Hand Luke here.

Take care

Mike

1 Like
146

Earlier I mentioned a recently published book on Jesus’ last week, Jesus in Jerusalem: The Last Days.

The author writes:

The outline of the book follows a simple but essential approach to help readers understand narrative texts - identifying and anlyzing people, palces, times, events, and significance. While there are further matters that one needs to study in order to properly understand a text … these five questions that are put to the text are foundational.

Concerning people, Schnabel lists seventy-two individuals or groups of people. Of those seventy-two, which do we have reason to believe never actually existed? Which were a fictional creation of the gospel writers rather than historical?

For example, only eight of Jesus’ twelve disciples are mentioned by name. Only three of the twelve are named in all four gospels. Shall we declare the Gospels inconsistent and even contradictory about who the twelve were and even go so far as to doubt that they existed at all?

1 Like
147

Thanks for your reply Mike.

Well, I apologize if we were not being clear. I thought it is obvious that most people in this thread arguing against Vincent have not read your text. Thus, for the interest of transparency, I will admit up now that I have not read your text.

I was not really concerned with your text, to be honest. Many words are written about the Resurrection both online and offline every year. I would not be surprised to find that there is a Jewish apologist who attempts to rebut the arguments of Christian apologists. (Although I do respect your uncommonly long dedication to this effort.) My entry point into this debate was because Vincent Torley, whom I have heard of before as a Christian philosopher and apologist, published an extensive article arguing very strongly that the historical case for the Resurrection is hopeless. I had a feeling if nobody responded adequately to that article, a fellow Christian could be misled.

Well, imagine if an unknown composer claimed that he had written a 20-hour long opera which would reveal his musical genius. (Perhaps something on the scale of Wagner’s Ring cycle.) The Emperor answers that before committing to listening to this whole work, he would like to listen for a few representative arias from the opera. The composer and a singer performs a few arias. The Emperor is unimpressed. However, the composer insists that the Emperor has to listen to the entire opera before making judgment. How do you think he should have reacted?

3 Likes
148

I did a double-take on seeing Pilate, Jesus, and Bayes in a single paregraph. That has to be a first!

… Or then again, maybe it’s not! :smile:

1 Like
149

Now if only he had written Pilates! :smiley:

1 Like
150

Yet almost all of the issues that Alter raises in his book are old ones which you seem completely unfamiliar with. You can’t have been reading about this stuff for decades without that being false. Case in point- Ehrman’s stuff is decades out of date. You didn’t know the literature about it and had to resort to blog posts to try to make your point. I’ve cited a number of different scholars who agree with me for most of my arguments.

This is wrong. Once again, the Mishnah does not accurately reflect 1st century Jewish legal practices. This is more or less straight from Craig Keener’s The Historical Jesus of the Gospels pp. 314-316.

  1. The Mishnah records Pharisee-type idealizations of the law in its own day which is almost 200 years after Jesus’ trial

2 .Rabbinic sources indicate that the priests didn’t always play by the rules. This also fits what we see in Josephus.

3.The gospels intend to convey that the trial was a breach of protocol and not standard Jewish practice.

Nothing Keener is saying is new. He cites a number of older scholars in support of his points. I also referenced another work by Chapman and Schnabel that summarizes both older and newer scholarship on Jesus’ trial, all of which refutes your claim.

How can the gospels be completely different stories yet share so much common material? And Alter is not a scholarly authority that you can use to cite consensus on these matters.

Which is compatible with the gospel writers adding material from their traditions that they thought complimented Mark. Magness, for instance, points out where she thinks this happens with Mark and Matthew- the description of Joseph as rich and a member of the Sanhedrin, the description of the tomb as both rock-cut and a family tomb.

Matthew is generally thought to be prior to Luke, so he can’t evolve from a good man to a secret disciple. The term waiting for the kingdom of God that is used to describe Joseph is compatible with all descriptions.

John is independent of the Synoptics. He’s not combining anything. His tradition doesn’t evolve from the Synoptics. This is also relevant to the description of Joseph.

For an actual survey of the state of the discssion, see The Synoptic Problem: The State of the Question. It’s by Stanley Porter, an evangelical who is also one of the top NT scholars in the world. I guess it’s my fault for not originally using it alongside my claim.

4 Likes
151

I might respond to some of what you wrote later, but as for these two questions.

  1. You can see my introductory thread for information about me.
  2. I’ve only read parts of it. To be honest, I don’t feel the need to read any further.
2 Likes
152

There seems to be this wierd logic of labeling all differences as discrepancies.

I also agree that these are old arguments. Perhaps this was just the first time Torley encountered them?

3 Likes
153

It boggles my mind that Richard Carrier, someone who is view as a total crank by virtually everyone in the field, is being used to try to teach us about the historical method. The intellectual bankruptcy of Richard Carrier is one of the rare consensus positions in NT studies.

On a more serious note, I have little interest in keeping this going if it is going to devolve into Torley using a couple of die-hard atheist bloggers as proxies for actual argumentation on his behalf. Like you said, neither are established scholars. Neither are independent, neutral historians either.

4 Likes
154

While I agree with you that these guys are not neutral they may have some arguments worth merit. I think the mistake is not creating an argument and just citing one of their write-ups as evidence.

A big hurdle these guys have is trying to make the Gospels irrelevant or the claim against the empty tomb is almost silly. Ehrman argues for their historic value when he makes the case for the historic Jesus so his position is not against Joseph offering Jesus his tomb but arguing that a resurrection cannot be a historical claim. The interesting take away is that when you argue for the historical validity it is hard to argue against Jesus divinity with out contradicting yourself.

155

Well stated.

Yes, Carrier has a Ph.D. in history. Yet, I don’t know of any university which has offered him a faculty post and he has not succeeded in the world of academic peer-review. I will grant that he has a flair for attracting attention and winning over fans online. But it is difficult to imagine that he has anything important to teach us.

And I can’t help but recall Carrier’s claims that atheist philosopher turned theist Anthony Flew did not actually author the book There is a God. Carrier made this outrageous claim despite an extensive correspondence with Flew, and a very clear statement by Flew through his publisher.

2 Likes
156

Deist.

157

Obviously, a deist is a type of theist. Richard Carrier claimed that Anthony Flew had not abandoned his atheism to become a theist and that Flew’s actual position was misrepresented by the book’s co-author. Deism was not the primary issue in Carrier’s arguments.

2 Likes
158

Hi @swamidass, @dga471, @Freakazoid, @Djordje and @colewd

All good things must come to an end, and I feel that this discussion has gone on long enough. I’d like to make a closing statement.

@dga471 raised the issue of how credible I am regarding the scholarly consensus, compared to @Freakazoid. He seemed impressed with the fact that @Freakazoid was able to cite more up-to-date sources. There’s a very good reason he’s able to do that: he lives near a good library, and I don’t. I live in Japan, where I simply don’t have access to a theological library. Instead, I have to employ all my ingenuity on the Internet, and rely on the kindness of friends who occasionally send me articles.

Nevertheless, I’d like to make a couple of points. First, there’s a difference between virtual unanimity (which is what I claimed exists among scholars regarding the specific points I mentioned) and absolute unanimity. The fact that @Freakazoid is able to cite some scholar who disagrees with some of the points I discussed proves nothing regarding the existence of a consensus. Take Markan priority. @Freakazoid linked to this recent article in an attempt to show that the question remains up in the air. But in the words of Emeritus Professor Ronald Troxel (University of Wisconsin-Madison, Hebrew and Semitic Studies Department), “the consensus within scholarship is of “Markan priority,” that Mark’s gospel was written first and was used as a source by Matt and Luke, thereby explaining the agreements.” That’s despite the fact that several unresolved issues remain regarding the Synoptic question. You can review the key arguments here and Troxel’s discussion of some of their weaknesses here. Nevertheless, Markan priority remains the entrenched position, and even a scholar such as Craig Evans (who thinks Matthew and Luke were written in the sixties A.D.) doesn’t challenge Markan priority. Heck, Christian apologists such as former homicide cop J. Warner Wallace (now a minister), author of Cold Case Christianity, even appeal to it when building their arguments for the Resurrection: he describes Mark’s Gospel as an early “crime broadcast” on pages 166-168.

@Freakazoid also writes that “John is independent of the Synoptics,” but here he is simply being dogmatic: there’s certainly no consensus on this point.

Second, in response to @Freakazoid’s claim that I’m out-of-date: I’m actually quite familiar with most of the points he raises. He mentions the Mishnah, and says that its second-century prohibitions did not hold in the first century. I was familiar with that argument back in the 1980s, and in my original post, I actually cited an article by Rector John Hamilton, who defends the Gospel accounts, but nevertheless concedes that Jesus’ trial “contravened normal legal practice at many points” (p. 336) and approvingly quotes Biblical scholar Dr. Josef Blinzler’s conclusion that one is not able “to spare the Sanhedrin the reproach of very serious infringement of the law” (The Trial of Jesus, English translation, Cork, 1959, p. 138). I also explained why I did not consider Hamilton’s attempt to salvage the credibility of the Gospel narratives historically probable. @Freakazoid also claims I am out-of-date regarding the literature on Jesus’ burial, but in my post, I actually cited an article by Craig Evans from 2016, another article by Jodi Magness from 2007 and several articles by Ehrman from 2018. I wasn’t familiar with the one he cited by John Granger Cook, but after I was kindly sent a copy, I revised my assessment of the probabilities. In any case, as my original post makes very clear, even if Magness’s proposal on Jesus’ burial is correct, the apologetic case for the Resurrection is still fraught with difficulties.

To see why, let’s go back to the three facts that need to be established in order to build the apologetic case for the Resurrection:

(i) that Jesus existed, and died (not contested by scholars);
(ii) that Jesus’ dead body disappeared from its grave, and could not be found anywhere else;
(iii) that Jesus was seen, heard and touched by honest, reliable witnesses whose testimonies independently agreed with one another.

In order to show that Jesus probably rose from the dead, you need to demonstrate facts (ii) and (iii). These two facts should be treated as logically independent of one another: you can have a missing body without apparitions, and vice versa. You cannot assume that (iii) depends on (ii) without begging the question, either against the Resurrection (maybe the disciples’ visions were triggered by the discovery of the empty tomb!) or for it (if God wanted to raise Jesus, then of course he’d bring Jesus’ body out of the tomb before manifesting Jesus to his disciples). So we have to treat (ii) and (iii) as separate, independent facts.

Now here’s the thing: in order to demonstrate that the Resurrection occurred with a probability of over 50%, you need to show that facts (ii) and (iii) have a probability of at least 71% each. (70% of 70% is only 49%.) That’s quite a high bar. Even Professor Gary Habermas was modest enough to claim that 75% of New Testament scholars accepted the reality of the empty tomb, and I should point out that a critique of Habermas’ survey can be found here. It’s really not very scientific.

@Freakazoid correctly points out that two of the Gospels mention that Peter visited the empty tomb, but two don’t. Only Mary Magdalene is common to all four Gospel accounts. But let’s go with Mary and Peter: the whole case for the empty tomb is based on what these two individuals say they saw at the tomb. None of the other apostles, and none of the Jewish high priests or Roman authorities are known to have visited Jesus’ tomb. What’s more, it’s quite likely (see Magness’s article) that Jesus was buried in the family tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, rather than a new tomb. If Jesus was buried in a new burial niche in the wall (or loculus) inside Joseph of Arimathea’s family rock tomb, then the possibility of misidentification cannot be discounted. Did Mary and Peter check the right niche? Recall that Peter wasn’t even present at the burial of Jesus, and according to Luke and John, he went back to check the empty tomb without Mary Magdalene to point him in the right direction.

But let’s be generous, and say that the probability of the empty tomb is 80%. If we can demonstrate fact (iii) with a probability of 62.5% or greater, then we are home and hosed. (0.8 x 0.625 = 0.5, or 50%, which is the bar for "more probable than not.) But can we be even 62.5% sure that Jesus was seen, heard and touched by honest, reliable witnesses whose testimonies independently agreed with one another? I’m afraid not. To repeat what I wrote earlier, in comment 81 above:

First, there is no general agreement as to when and where the risen Jesus appeared to his apostles.

Second, there is no general agreement as to what he said , when he did appear to them.

Third, we have no record of the apostles attempting to verify that they all saw and heard the same thing , when Jesus appeared to them.

Fourth, even if they did so, it is still doubtful whether their testimonies agreed independently of one another. For St. Paul (citing an early Christian creed) and Luke both attest to Jesus having appeared to Peter before appearing to the other apostles, and according to Luke, Peter went and told them what he’d seen. If Luke’s account is correct, the apostles’ expectations would have been biased by what Peter saw and heard, creating an expectation on their part as to what Jesus would say and how he would appear, if he were to appear to them. Thus from a historian’s perspective, we cannot be sure that we have eleven independent testimonies from the apostles who saw and heard Jesus.

Taken together, these arguments vastly weaken the force of fact (iii), and I see no way that its probability on purely historical grounds could be assessed at over 50%.

Leave aside my first point (about the location of the apparitions), if you like, and even my second, if you want to. The third and fourth points are far more important. There’s no getting around them. We don’t have eleven independent testimonies of Jesus’ Resurrection apparitions. Indeed, Matthew 28:17 even includes the jarring detail that some of the disciples doubted, when they saw Jesus. Make of that what you will. Without several independent testimonies, we are unable to demonstrate fact (iii): that Jesus was seen, heard and touched by honest, reliable witnesses whose testimonies independently agreed with one another.

Apologists can tie themselves in knots trying to argue that surely the apostles would have checked one another’s accounts of what they saw and heard, but that’s speculative. The fact is that we have no evidence that they did so.

I might conclude by asking you all: why does a historical proof of the Resurrection matter to you so much? And if there were such a proof, doesn’t that negate the Christian teaching that belief in the miracle of the Resurrection requires the gift of supernatural faith? On your account, someone who accepts the reality of a personal God who is able to work miracles (as classical theists of all stripes do, including Jews, Muslims and some deists) would be able to conclude that Jesus had risen without the need for any gift of faith from God. That seems strange.

The season of Advent will soon be upon us, and I’m off to Mass in a few minutes. I’d like to conclude by wishing you all a happy and holy Advent and Christmas.

1 Like
159

By pure root word meanings, perhaps, but in typical current usage, no. “Theist” has come to have a more specialized meaning for most people, indicating a God who interacts with the world after creation, and not merely by “sustaining the natural laws.” The Deist God creates the world, and maybe sustains its laws by his power, but doesn’t interact with individuals in a personal or providential way.

160

Hello @Mung:

First, thank you for purchasing my book.

Second, you wrote: Sadly it lacks an index. I have not read it in its entirety.
Response: You are wrong!
The Index of Subjects pp. 831-841
The Index of Names in References pp. 845-854
The Bibliography pp.749-830

Perhaps you purchased an e-book and did not scroll down far enough.

Once again, thank you for the purchase.

Take care

Mike

1 Like