Last night I went to a debate at a seminary in town featuring Bart D. Ehrman, author of "Misquoting Jesus" & Mike Licona, author of "Paul Meets Muhammed". The debate was on the question, is the resurrection of Christ provable? It amazed me to watch these men, who obviously stand at complete extremes of the issue, go back and forth with point and counterpoint each explaining why their point of view is correct. After all of the references made to Apollonius of Tyana and other "christ motif" figures in history, historical references to "resurrection-like accounts, and explainations of history seeking the most probable occurance, I couldn't help but come to a simply conclusion-no one won the debate. History didn't prove Christ's resurrection that night, nor did it disprove it. I came away from that debate frustrated because it's clear that the acedemic disciplines fail to prove or disprove theological issues-the only one that comes close, mostly due to the logic it imploys, is philosophy. The argument really shouldn't have been is Christ's resurrection proven by history, but that does God exist at all? Point and counterpoint of the debate last night were both motivated by different presuppositions: one that God exists, therefore making Christ's resurrection the most probable occurance (because God raised Him!) and one that God doesn't exist, therefore making Christ's resurrection the least probable occurance. No question was answered independent of those precepts and therefore no real good was done.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Muslims claim God exists and that Jesus was not resurrected.
So why does 'God exists' lead to the fact 'Jesus was resurrrected' or 'Moses returned from the dead'?
God's existence doesn't necessarily lead to the resurrection of Jesus, they could have been, historically, independant of each other, but for argument sake...as I was referring to in the debate I attended-I believe the thing that motivated each individual's idea of historical relevance was in fact the presupposition of God's existence and nothing more. Which is not to say that God's existence requires belief in the resurrection of Jesus, as you so rightly referenced Muslims who claim a belief in God yet disagree with the diety and resurrection of Jesus. Historically speaking, if God's existence is in question, then the resurrection of Jesus by mere natural means is certainly the least probable occurance, and therefore probably didn't happen. I will repeat my thought: the argument of Jesus' resurrection is founded on believe in the existence of God.
So Licona has to presuppose a god and then presuppose that one particular person out of the billions who have lived was the only one that this presupposed god decided to resurrect?
Meanwhile, Ehrman only has to suppose what is known to everybody - every religion throughout history was based on falsehoods, and that the evidence for Jesus becoming 'a life-giving spirit' (to quote Paul) is rather less than the evidence that Jesus ascended into the sky on his way to Heaven.
I don't know if the dichotomy should necessarily be that simplistic. The presupposition of God's existence will, by its very nature, assume certain characteristics typically associated with godhood, in this case the Christian God, which would then allow such a god to do and act as he pleases. If referencing the Christian God, then obviously you would need to take into account the redemptive historical connotations found throughout the scriptures and it becomes less progmatic to state a case of relative certainty concerning the resurrection of one man out of billions, because that one man's life would fit within the scope of that redemptive context.
The presuppositions on the case of Ehrman would require him to not believe in the existence of a god, especially if you propose a fact known to everyone, "that every religion throughout history was based on falsehoods." That would preclude him from taking on any truth claim from any religion and therefore leave him without a god, unless he were to create his own religion based on his own god-and then we are back to square one.
I disagree with your opinion that requires Licona to make more "leaps of intellectual faith" than Ehrman, becuase I still hold that the one guiding theme simply is wrapped up in the question, "does god exist or not."
Post a Comment