rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,480
|
| | 03/17/09 at 07:51 PM | Reply with quote | #1 |
|
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/eschatology-william-lane-craig-vs-john-shelby-spong-resurrection-debate/3971050071
WLC vs Spong on the resurrection.
At 16:60 minutes, WLC says:
these three facts are agreed upon by the majority of New Testament scholars who have written on the subject: - Jesus’ empty tomb
- his post-mortem appearances
- and the origin of the disciples’ belief
Please note that WLC qualifies this statement with "who have written on the subject." That is what I suggested in the Richard Carrier thread. Christians on here struck it down.
At 19:05 minutes WLC says:
Does this mean therefore that most scholars accept the resurrection of Jesus as the best explanation? No it does not. For in order to accept the explanation that God raised Jesus from the dead, you must be prepared to affirm that a miracle has occurred and many historians feel that they cannot do that. Not that they deny the possibility of miracles, but they feel that in their capacity as professional historians, it's against the rules, so to speak, to appeal to miraculous explanations. So it's only the historians and they can't because of the rules of their game. Read on.
Regarding the "most scholars" argument, Spong responds:
Dr. Craig has...done the same thing politicians do. He says "Everybody thinks of it my way." "Most scholars," he said a number of times, "do this. Most scholars do that." Well, he and I must read a totally different group of scholars. I'm a member of the Jesus Seminar. We have 250 Ph.D. Bible scholars, Catholic and Protestant. And they would not agree at all with either the timing that Dr. Craig mentioned or with some of his historicity of such things as the...empty tomb.
So I guess it's not just historians who disagree that the resurrection took place in history. Apparently there are large numbers of New Testament scholars who disagree. My former professors are among these and they are NOT Jesus Seminar people.
As for the number of references in the NT, here is what Spong has to say:
When you read biblical material, you're not always reading primary sources. We know for a fact that Matthew copied Mark into his gospel. Matthew copies about 90% of Mark into his gospel. We know that Luke also had Mark in front of him when he wrote so Luke copies about half of Mark into his gospel. So when Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree, it's no mystery--they have the same source. Mark is the primary source for all of them.
Again, Spong and the Jesus Seminar people are by no means the only batch of scholars who are saying this stuff. Scholars as a whole are saying it. If you disagree show me the evidence.
I want to see archaeologists and astrophysicists who have published since 2005. Anything older than that is no longer "everything we know on the topic" because new things are being discovered all the time.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
john
Registered: 12/03/07
Posts: 1,691
|
| | 03/17/09 at 08:44 PM | Reply with quote | #2 |
|
To me asking Biblical scholars for a sensible opinion would be like asking a pharmacist funded by a drug company what they thought about one of the companies products.......but more so.
John
|
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,480
|
| | 03/18/09 at 12:02 AM | Reply with quote | #3 |
|
I don't think I understand what you are getting at, John. A pharmaceutical company can not sell just any product to just any person for legal reasons. Biblical scholars are constantly wrangling over the correct meaning of scripture, which I think is clear to anyone who reads the entire OP. I think Craig and Spong are fairly equally matched so far as regards professional training and accomplishment. Craig's fans will disagree but their disagreement does not make void Spong's academic achievements.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
Snakeystew
Registered: 04/04/08
Posts: 2,756
|
| | 03/18/09 at 12:17 AM | Reply with quote | #4 |
|
What he's saying is that the opinion of the pharmacist, (who is paid by the drug company), is not going to go against the drug company - because they are paying his wage. A 'bibilical scholar' is, generally, a religious christian that already believes it to be true before having become 'scholarly' in it. WLC, for instance, was a religious christian at 16 - long before he had anything pertinent to say on the subject. His opinions, (of which most are spectacularly bizarre), work on those pre-established beliefs. In the same manner that the pharmicist wont say diddly to those paying his way, WLC wouldn't say anything that might hinder belief in that which he already believes in. Therefore one wouldn't really expect to find a 'biblical scholar' that rejects the historicity of jesus etc. Yes, there are a few now, but for hundreds of years the only people that 'studied' the bible and came up with their astoundingly different versions of it, were those that already believe it to be true - hence every opinion of theirs must work upon that basic fact.
Or something..
|
| Loading... | |
john
Registered: 12/03/07
Posts: 1,691
|
| | 03/18/09 at 02:20 AM | Reply with quote | #5 |
|
Not only that Snakey but the pharma analogy was pertinent in that I would guess the vast majority of the "scholars" are funded directly or indirectly according to their opinions.
John
|
| Loading... | |
forhisglory
Registered: 01/28/08
Posts: 2,167
|
| | 03/18/09 at 08:36 AM | Reply with quote | #6 |
|
Quote: What he's saying is that the opinion of the pharmacist, (who is paid by the drug company), is not going to go against the drug company - because they are paying his wage. A 'bibilical scholar' is, generally, a religious christian that already believes it to be true before having become 'scholarly' in it. WLC, for instance, was a religious christian at 16 - long before he had anything pertinent to say on the subject. His opinions, (of which most are spectacularly bizarre), work on those pre-established beliefs. In the same manner that the pharmicist wont say diddly to those paying his way, WLC wouldn't say anything that might hinder belief in that which he already believes in. Therefore one wouldn't really expect to find a 'biblical scholar' that rejects the historicity of jesus etc. Yes, there are a few now, but for hundreds of years the only people that 'studied' the bible and came up with their astoundingly different versions of it, were those that already believe it to be true - hence every opinion of theirs must work upon that basic fact.
Or something..
Snake, you've said many times that you were born an atheist. Now, I don't disagree with that, but I do think we're all born with a desire to find true meaning in life and desire to reach out to God. Regardless, my point is, since you were born an atheist and continue to believe that Christianity is untrue, should we disregard your opinion? You say above, "WLC, for instance, was a religious christian at 16 - long before he had anything pertinent to say on the subject. His opinions, (of which most are spectacularly bizarre), work on those pre-established beliefs....WLC wouldn't say anything that might hinder belief in that which he already believes in." So by that logic, it seems we can dismiss all your posts as well since from birth (not from 16 years old when one can actually reason), you were an atheist and you certainly wouldn't say anything that might hinder the "belief in that which [you] already believe in."
This is simply the genetic fallacy. The truthfulness or falseness of the issue is not being looked at all, but simply who is making the statements and what their beliefs are. The Jews provided some of the best histories of the holocaust. Should we dismiss them simply because they believed the holocaust was evil? Moreover, it stands to reason that anyone who does find the evidence for the truthfulness of the Bible compelling, that they would become a Christian. The fact that some scholars were already Christians prior to studying more in depth still has nothing to do with whether the Bible is actually true or false and whether the evidence is strong or weak. |
| Loading... | |
harvey1
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 3,598
|
| | 03/18/09 at 09:05 AM | Reply with quote | #7 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by forhisglory
Regardless, my point is, since you were born an atheist and continue to believe that Christianity is untrue, should we disregard your opinion? There's certainly a mixture of truth in both your's and Snakeystew's opinion here. I think everyone deserves a fair hearing of their use of evidence, but at the end of the day we need to recognize that Muslim and atheist scholars will almost universally reject WLC's argument that we ought to believe the resurrection is the most plausible explanation of the facts. This is not a coincidence of these groups just having come to a different analysis. It has to do with the background opinions that they happen to hold, which we need to factor in when polling the opinions of those scholars. Similarly, we need to factor the confirmation bias of biblical scholars who are Christian. However, if we just took confirmation bias as the reason for why scholars almost universally believe something to be true and ignored the massive uniformity in opinion, then we are off our rocker. |
| Loading... | |
Pumbelo
Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 424
|
| | 03/18/09 at 09:55 AM | Reply with quote | #8 |
|
rsmartin, science works by what experts publish in peer-reviewed journals.
Go ask Richard Dawkins this:
"Has it ever come to your mind that, maybe, there are many many highly credentialed biologists who think evolution is false, they just don't participate in the dialogue within the scientific community?"
If you don't write on this subject, you are obviously not doing any research.
__________________
"Yuri Gagarin admitted on his deathbead that the whole purpose of the Soviet Space Program was to hide the True Cross, Noah's Ark, Schrodinger's Cat and Zuzu's Petals and many other antiquities in a polar orbit, which explains the recent hyperactive aurora. They are all stored in a radiation proof chest, with "Beware of Leopard" stenciled on the lid."
-Spankopeta Press |
| Loading... | |
fkeefe
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 877
|
| | 03/18/09 at 11:55 AM | Reply with quote | #9 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Pumbelo
rsmartin, science works by what experts publish in peer-reviewed journals.
Go ask Richard Dawkins this:
"Has it ever come to your mind that, maybe, there are many many highly credentialed biologists who think evolution is false, they just don't participate in the dialogue within the scientific community?"
If you don't write on this subject, you are obviously not doing any research.
And for obvious reasons.. in some cases they would lose their jobs and face ridicule.This is the freedom of speech that atheists always bleat on about but only when its applied to them
__________________
fk |
| Loading... | |
john
Registered: 12/03/07
Posts: 1,691
|
| | 03/18/09 at 01:40 PM | Reply with quote | #10 |
|
Quote: The fact that some scholars were already Christians prior to studying more in depth still has nothing to do with whether the Bible is actually true or false and whether the evidence is strong or weak.
........but in real life it surely affects the credence we give to those scholars opinions of whether the Bible is true or false and the evidence strong or weak.....very much so given their natural desire for consonance not to mention eternal bliss.
cheers John
|
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,480
|
| | 03/18/09 at 11:20 PM | Reply with quote | #11 |
|
My point is that WLC admits that the argument about "most scholars agree with me" is refuted BY HIS OWN SELF.
And as if that weren't enough, Spong piles on the numbers.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
fkeefe
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 877
|
| | 03/19/09 at 05:05 AM | Reply with quote | #12 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
My point is that WLC admits that the argument about "most scholars agree with me" is refuted BY HIS OWN SELF.
And as if that weren't enough, Spong piles on the numbers.
"Bishop" Spong.Now what a hypocrite this man is sticking with a religion he doesnt really believe in. Atheists like you I understand but people like Spong and Crossan are modern day Pharisees who Jesus said were Whited Sepulcheres and a Nest of Vipers.Seemingly harsh words from the Master but He knew their hearts and said they were like the Blind leading the blind and would all fall into a pit.They have a form of Godliness but deny His power.When judgement comes they will have their reward.Like the poor actress Natasha Richardson no-one knows when death will come and while we live and breath this is the only accepted time to believe in Christ as Saviour.Martin you should ask God to come into your heart because eternity without Him in hell is dependant on your response.
__________________
fk |
| Loading... | |
SecretAsianMan
Registered: 03/10/09
Posts: 126
|
| | 03/19/09 at 06:07 AM | Reply with quote | #13 |
|
Quote: My point is that WLC admits that the argument about "most scholars agree with me" is refuted BY HIS OWN SELF.
You're clearly taking him out of context.
William Craig says most scholars agree with the four facts that he presents in his arguments. That is completely different from claiming
Quote: Does this mean therefore that most scholars accept the resurrection of Jesus as the best explanation?"
In fact, of all the debates I've seen Craig done on this subject, he's NEVER claimed that most scholars agreed that resurrection is a historical fact. Rather, he's said over and over again that they agree with those facts he presented. Most other scholars disagree with him on whether these four facts are best explained by the resurrection. |
| Loading... | |
Pumbelo
Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 424
|
| | 03/19/09 at 12:52 PM | Reply with quote | #14 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
My point is that WLC admits that the argument about "most scholars agree with me" is refuted BY HIS OWN SELF.
And as if that weren't enough, Spong piles on the numbers.
I'm pretty sure Craig doesn't make his numbers up.
__________________
"Yuri Gagarin admitted on his deathbead that the whole purpose of the Soviet Space Program was to hide the True Cross, Noah's Ark, Schrodinger's Cat and Zuzu's Petals and many other antiquities in a polar orbit, which explains the recent hyperactive aurora. They are all stored in a radiation proof chest, with "Beware of Leopard" stenciled on the lid."
-Spankopeta Press |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,480
|
| | 03/19/09 at 10:50 PM | Reply with quote | #15 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by fkeefe
"Bishop" Spong.Now what a hypocrite this man is sticking with a religion he doesnt really believe in. Atheists like you I understand but people like Spong and Crossan are modern day Pharisees who Jesus said were Whited Sepulcheres and a Nest of Vipers.
What a viper you are fkeefe. What a whited sepulchre! You pretend to be a Christian but you want all the good things and conveniences this world has to offer. If you don't know what I mean then think about it for a minute. I come from a community that lives a very comfortable life without tv, radio, and the latest conventions such as store-bought clothing and the automobile. I continue that lifestyle just because I can't think of any better or more comfortable way to live. And you consider yourself such a righteous Pharisee. Yeah right!
Owning automobiles are nothing but pride of the flesh. Go to, you proud Pharisee, and howl. Jesus said to sell what you've got and give to the poor and "Come follow me." There are places in the world where people simply don't own cars. It's simply not necessary. I don't have one and I don't plan ever to have one. It's simply not necessary. I have no driver's license. There's no reason to get one. Arrange your life to use public transportation and reduce air polution.
Quote: Seemingly harsh words from the Master but He knew their hearts and said they were like the Blind leading the blind and would all fall into a pit.They have a form of Godliness but deny His power.
And I know your heart every bit as good as you know Spong's and Crossan's hearts. You definitely have a form of godliness but you deny the power thereof. Cursed, self-righteous Pharisee that you are. If anyone's got it right, it's people like Spong. I don't know Crossan.
Quote: When judgement comes they will have their reward.
Yup, if there is a judgment to come, this great man will surely get his reward for his faithful service to his lord and master. He worked hard to make Christianity accessible to our generation. Unfortunately, I did not know about him in time. And now I don't think his religion is better than outright atheism. But if he feels better believing in Jesus, then I have no problem with it so long as he's not hurting anyone.
Quote: Like the poor actress Natasha Richardson no-one knows when death will come and while we live and breath this is the only accepted time to believe in Christ as Saviour.
I don't know Natasha Richardson--whether she was rich or poor, but I most certainly know that none of us know when we will die. As for the "accepted time" for anything--if I want to get something done, there's no time like the present to do it. I think all of us who are old enough to be posting on these forums know this. Repeating it is kind of redundant.
But yeah, I realize fundamentalist Christians somehow delude themselves into thinking they alone have a handle on how tenuous life is on this earth. Funny how they can be this way, given that all of us are in this together.
I also realize fundamentalist Christians delude themselves into thinking they have a monopoly on what is most important in life. So be it. They just make a major nuisance of themselves--and worse--by being this way. For that reason, people like myself, Spong, Borg, Crossan, and others, consider it our duty to stand up to the fundies just so they know they don't rule the roost. At least, not completely, not yet.
Quote: Martin you should ask God to come into your heart because eternity without Him in hell is dependant on your response.
Says fkeefe. Never again can you claim that you did not bring violent charges against a person on these forums for purely religious reasons. I think this is the first time anyone on these forums told me directly that I was going to hell if I did not obey their religious dictates. That is on your record, not mine.
For your information, I would have to violate my deepest convictions to "ask God into my heart."
Only a person with a dead conscience fails to respect that statement.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
