Don't convince me of the resurrection from the bible

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Don't convince me of the resurrection from the bible

Post by steve7150 » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:34 am

When Gary Habermas was asked to discuss the resurrection at a University the head professor said this to him. Out of considering this Habermas developed what he calls "the minimalist approach."
He uses the sources in the NT that virtually all bible scholars accept as legitimate which are 1st Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1-3. The info in 1st Cor 15 3-8 he believes is a creed which goes back to a couple of years after the cross.

In 1st Cor 15.3-4 Paul says
"For i delivered to you as of first importance what i also received that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures."

Quoting Habermas he says, that this confession is an early Christian, pre-Pauline creed and is recognized by virtually all critical scholars across a very wide theological spectrum. There are several indications that reveal this conclusion.
First Paul's words "delivered" and "received" are technical terms for passing on tradition. As such we have Paul's statement that this material was not his own, but received from another source. Second a number of words in this creed are non-Pauline, again indicating another origin of this material. Non-Pauline phrases as "for our sins", "according to the scriptures", "he has been raised", "the third day", "he was seen", and "the twelve" (v5).

Habermas quotes various scholars including liberals and agnostics like Bart Ehrman who concede this creed dates back to the mid 30s. If Jesus was crucified around 30AD and Paul was converted around 33AD , three years later he visited Jerusalem and met with Peter and James (Gal 1.18-19). They most likely discussed Jesus death and resurrection and that is why Paul mentions them in his list of appearances of Jesus (1 Cor 15.5-7) and it is likely that Paul received this creed from these apostles during this visit.
So Paul would have received this creed at around 36AD but the creed itself already existed when Paul received it and would be dated earlier because Peter was an eye-witness of the empty tomb and of the risen Christ.

I'm just summarizing Habermas's method but the point of this is that he uses historically accepted documents to prove that many eye witnesses knew Jesus and believed he was crucified and rose from the dead.

Many critics attack the gospels because they claim it was written decades later and has contradictions and is therefore unreliable. These two letters are universally attributed to Paul and trace the Christian creed right back to the cross so avoid the whole gospel debate.

You can you tube Gary Habermas discussing this at "The Resurrection argument that changed a generation" by Gary Habermas. It's interesting.
Last edited by steve7150 on Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Don't convince me of the resurrection from the bible

Post by mattrose » Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:49 pm

I recently finished Mike Licona's "The Resurrection of Jesus." He is a student of Habermas, I believe. He takes the same approach. It's a lengthy volume (Around 700 pages I think), but quite good. He starts by discussing the work of the historian (What is possible and what is not). He then goes through the historical documents, grading them in terms of usefulness to the historian. He then considers a handful of historical theories and grades them against the evidence.

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Don't convince me of the resurrection from the bible

Post by kaufmannphillips » Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:49 pm

The relative earliness of certain ideas does not guarantee their reliability. Last week, bombs exploded in Boston; and since then, misinformation and wishful thinking and propaganda have exploded across mass media and social media and daily conversations. Various elements from this maelstrom of ideas may endure in people's minds for decades; and some may wind up coloring historical notions about the event for ever.

The few weeks from the crucifixion to Pentecost alone would have afforded plenty of opportunity for the basic Christian tradition about the crucifixion and its aftermath to have formed. But that tradition may have been influenced by misinformation and wishful thinking and/or propaganda.

And tracing the basic tradition back to this earliest setting does not "avoid the whole gospel debate." The subsequent development of thought (as found in the gospels, and in Paul and in Acts) provides evidence about the character of the early Christian movement, which may shed light on its character in even the earliest days. When we find theological innovation and massaging of data in slightly later documents, such features might also have existed in the earliest development of the tradition.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Don't convince me of the resurrection from the bible

Post by mattrose » Sun Apr 21, 2013 4:47 pm

kaufmannphillips wrote:The relative earliness of certain ideas does not guarantee their reliability.
I think you missed the point. Toward the end, Steve7150 said...
Many critics attack the gospels because they claim it was written decades later and has contradictions and is therefore unreliable. These two letters are universally attributed to Paul and trace the Christian creed right back to the cross so avoid the whole gospel debate.
Steve7150 is quite correct that many critics attack the Gospels on such grounds. Habermas argument does indeed counter this critique. The point you raise is a different critique altogether (I'll quote your 'new' critique below).
Last week, bombs exploded in Boston; and since then, misinformation and wishful thinking and propaganda have exploded across mass media and social media and daily conversations. Various elements from this maelstrom of ideas may endure in people's minds for decades; and some may wind up coloring historical notions about the event for ever. The few weeks from the crucifixion to Pentecost alone would have afforded plenty of opportunity for the basic Christian tradition about the crucifixion and its aftermath to have formed. But that tradition may have been influenced by misinformation and wishful thinking and/or propaganda.
To a degree, of course, your point is granted. Misinformation can be dished out (and be duplicated) rather quickly. On the other hand, your point has an obviously limited value. Certain distortions of the Boston bombings may arise and gain support, but other distortions have no real hope of surviving. One couldn't successfully convince sane people, for instance, that there were actually no explosions at all. Nor could one convince sane people that the city had actually been wiped off the map completely.

I know for sure that Licona (And I think this is true of Habermas as well, though it's been a while since I've read his material) is pretty quick to admit that certain details may have been added in... quite early... that weren't quite right (or, at least, cannot be considered historically reliable). But that's a far cry from messing up whether or not the claim was made that Jesus had appeared to multiple people. It's one thing to get mixed answers on whether there was 1 angel or 2 angels at the tomb when the women found the empty tomb... it's another thing to mix up whether the tomb was empty at all!

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Don't convince me of the resurrection from the bible

Post by steve7150 » Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:29 am

I recently finished Mike Licona's "The Resurrection of Jesus." He is a student of Habermas, I believe







Seems right as they wrote a book together called "The Case for the Resurrection".

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Don't convince me of the resurrection from the bible

Post by dwilkins » Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:42 am

I found this debate really interesting. Both made some good points. I thought Martin's point on the use of sarx and pneuma was very important. He covers it in detail in his book, "The Corinthian Body."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zRymeg_LNg

Doug

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Don't convince me of the resurrection from the bible

Post by steve7150 » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:26 am

I recently finished Mike Licona's "The Resurrection of Jesus." He is a student of Habermas, I believe. He takes the same approach. It's a lengthy volume (Around 700 pages I think), but quite good. He starts by discussing the work of the historian (What is possible and what is not). He then goes through the historical documents, grading them in terms of usefulness to the historian. He then considers a handful of historical theories and grades them against the evidence.







I watched Licona debate Bart Ehrman and Ehrman accepted that this creed goes back to the cross but he attributes any sightings of the resurrected Jesus as hallucinations explaining that many people today hallucinate. He said the crucifixion has nothing to do with the resurrection, meaning Jesus could have died by any method and be resurrected. Also he refused to give Paul's experience with the risen Christ any additional value then the experience of all the other folks. He also asked how Paul knew it was Christ talking to him as opposed to Satan or anything else.
The discussion was somewhat limiting because it was within the context of only historical info so you couldn't invoke any explanation that God or anything supernatural revealed Christ to Paul or anyone else. I would have liked Licona to reference Isa 53 but i guess that doesn't qualify as historical.

So it seems using Habernas's method you can bring the creed back to the cross, you can show that many folks believed Jesus existed and was crucified and rose on the third day but you can't prove they didn't have a mass hallucination even if you could reference Isa 53. So that's where the faith part comes in the equation.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Don't convince me of the resurrection from the bible

Post by mattrose » Tue Apr 23, 2013 1:04 pm

steve7150 wrote:So it seems using Habernas's method you can bring the creed back to the cross, you can show that many folks believed Jesus existed and was crucified and rose on the third day but you can't prove they didn't have a mass hallucination even if you could reference Isa 53. So that's where the faith part comes in the equation.
I think the situation is a little better than that.

You can show that Jesus existed beyond any reasonable doubt
You can show that Jesus was crucified beyond any reasonable doubt
You can show that various people claimed to witness a resurrected Jesus beyond any reasonable doubt

BUT ALSO

You can show that the actual resurrection of Jesus is the most reasonable explanation for the historical evidence

In other words, anyone taking a position has to have some theory to explain the historical record. When put side by side and considered for their pros and cons, the historical resurrection is the theory that makes the most sense. That is slightly different from being 'beyond any reasonable doubt', but not a ton different. Faith is more about starting to act on the most reasonable theory than it is about believing something that is not quite reasonable.

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Don't convince me of the resurrection from the bible

Post by kaufmannphillips » Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:36 pm

mattrose wrote:
kaufmannphillips wrote:
The relative earliness of certain ideas does not guarantee their reliability.
I think you missed the point. Toward the end, Steve7150 said...
There were multiple aspects of Steve's post that afforded response. I'll retain the privilege of responding to the aspects I choose, from the angles I choose.
mattrose wrote:
Toward the end, Steve7150 said...
Many critics attack the gospels because they claim it was written decades later and has contradictions and is therefore unreliable. These two letters are universally attributed to Paul and trace the Christian creed right back to the cross so avoid the whole gospel debate.
Steve7150 is quite correct that many critics attack the Gospels on such grounds. Habermas argument does indeed counter this critique.
And I countered: "...tracing the basic tradition back to this earliest setting does not "avoid the whole gospel debate." The subsequent development of thought (as found in the gospels, and in Paul and in Acts) provides evidence about the character of the early Christian movement, which may shed light on its character in even the earliest days. When we find theological innovation and massaging of data in slightly later documents, such features might also have existed in the earliest development of the tradition."
mattrose wrote:
To a degree, of course, your point is granted. Misinformation can be dished out (and be duplicated) rather quickly. On the other hand, your point has an obviously limited value. Certain distortions of the Boston bombings may arise and gain support, but other distortions have no real hope of surviving. One couldn't successfully convince sane people, for instance, that there were actually no explosions at all. Nor could one convince sane people that the city had actually been wiped off the map completely.
One certainly could convince sane people of either distortion - if trusted sources gave them misinformation, and if they had no exposure to data that challenged the misinformation in a compelling manner. For many persons, it would take highly compelling data to overrule their trusted sources.

And of course, some persons will be convinced easily of things they would like to believe, yet will be quite impervious to data that they would not like to believe. One might debate whether these people are "sane"; but then - if your Facebook news feed looks like mine - we might ask what percentage of the general population would qualify as "sane."
mattrose wrote:
I know for sure that Licona (And I think this is true of Habermas as well, though it's been a while since I've read his material) is pretty quick to admit that certain details may have been added in... quite early... that weren't quite right (or, at least, cannot be considered historically reliable). But that's a far cry from messing up whether or not the claim was made that Jesus had appeared to multiple people. It's one thing to get mixed answers on whether there was 1 angel or 2 angels at the tomb when the women found the empty tomb... it's another thing to mix up whether the tomb was empty at all!
Persons who spread small non-truths, may also spread large non-truths - perhaps for the same basic reasons that they have spread the small ones.

Similarly, persons who accept small non-truths, may also accept large non-truths - perhaps for the same basic reasons that they have accepted the small ones.

And again, persons who tolerate small non-truths, may also tolerate large non-truths - perhaps for the same basic reasons that they have tolerated the small ones.
mattrose wrote:
You can show that the actual resurrection of Jesus is the most reasonable explanation for the historical evidence

In other words, anyone taking a position has to have some theory to explain the historical record. When put side by side and considered for their pros and cons, the historical resurrection is the theory that makes the most sense. That is slightly different from being 'beyond any reasonable doubt', but not a ton different. Faith is more about starting to act on the most reasonable theory than it is about believing something that is not quite reasonable.
:arrow: Faith needs not necessarily have any root in or correspondence to reason.

:arrow: Reason is an art; accordingly, not every reasonable person will concur as to what "the most reasonable explanation" is.

(You might appreciate this line of reasoning. ;) )

:arrow: Persons who take an agnostic position do not have to endorse any particular theory as "most reasonable."

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Don't convince me of the resurrection from the bible

Post by steve7150 » Sat Apr 27, 2013 7:52 am

nd I countered: "...tracing the basic tradition back to this earliest setting does not "avoid the whole gospel debate." The subsequent development of thought (as found in the gospels, and in Paul and in Acts) provides evidence about the character of the early Christian movement, which may shed light on its character in even the earliest days. When we find theological innovation and massaging of data in slightly later documents, such features might also have existed in the earliest development of the tradition."






I specified what part of the gospel debate i referenced which was their dating and supposed contradictions. Personally i don't find any actual contradictions as the differences are complimentary not contradictory. For example at one point at the tomb there may have been one women then later two then later other women just as there could have been one angel and later two.
If the accounts were identical skeptics would claim the accounts were copied so i find the differences rather minor and imply truthfulness rather then falsehoods.
RE the gospels dating although skeptics claim they were written late i think Mark was virtually an eye witness account and the others were written early and certainly before 70AD since the destruction of Jerusalem is never mentioned as a past event.

Post Reply

Return to “Missions & Evangelism”