Ham vs. Vischer: Carnivore or Vegetarian?
Today I saw that Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis took to social media to decry (yet again) Phil “Veggietales” Vischer for going on his Holy Post Podcast and daring to say Ken Ham is wrong about how to read Genesis—specifically Genesis 1. Ham took umbrage over one of Vischer’s guests saying that Ham preaches a “false gospel.” Ham implored his followers to deluge Vischer’s Twitterfeed and Facebook and demand that Vischer publicly apologize and “withdraw that false accusation.” Ham ended his Facebook message with, “People can disagree on our position on Genesis, but don’t accuse me of preaching a ‘false gospel.’”
The irony in Ham’s reaction abounds. Vischer’s criticism of Ham’s position wasn’t that Ham (or anyone) believes in a young earth, but that he makes belief in a young earth a central tenet of the Christian faith, despite the clear historical evidence that the original Fundamentalists didn’t even make that claim and despite the clear historical evidence that modern “young earth creationism” was an invention of the 7th Day Adventist George McCready Price. That was the reason why Vischer’s guest said Ham was preaching a “false gospel”—not because he believed the earth is only a few thousand years old, but that he goes out of his way to question the Christian faith of any Christian who dares question him and who is convinced the earth is millions of years old.
Or let’s put it in simpler terms: (A) Ham routinely questions the faith of Christians who believe the earth is millions of years old, and by doing so, essentially elevates YECism to a core tenet of the Christian faith; (B) Vischer responds with, “Hey, if you believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, fine—just don’t question the faith of those who disagree with you. If you do that, then that’s a false gospel, because you’re making belief in a young earth a litmus test for who is a true Christian.” (C) Ham thus responds with, “How dare you say I preach a false gospel when I question the faith of Christians who don’t agree with my YECist views! Hey, you can disagree with my position on Genesis, but don’t say I’m preaching a false gospel just because I question your faith and say you represent everything that is wrong with the church today!”
Can We Speak Intelligently of the Genre of Genesis 1-11?
Of course, if you’ve followed Ham for any length of time, and if you’ve read my book The Heresy of Ham, none of this will be really surprising. This is just par for the course with Ham—and quite frankly, it is just boring after a while. It’s not really even worth getting upset about anymore. Yes, if you’ve been the victim of some of the self-righteousness and pharisaic judgmentalism that he and his followers love to dole out, it really hurts. But at some point, one needs to realize he is just a petty, little man and move on. That being said, I want to comment on just a couple of things from the segment of Vischer’s podcast that Ham encouraged his followers to listen to—minutes 46:00-52:00.
At one point in this segment, Vischer and his guest have a little bit of a back and forth over what Genesis 1-2 really is. His guest calls it “poetry,” and Vischer comes back with telling him that it isn’t poetry, and that Tim Keller calls it “exalted prose.” Vischer then says the problem with Genesis 1-2 is that it “kind of sounds historical and kind of sounds poetic,” and that when you get to Genesis 3, the style of writing changes and it is more “straight prose.” Let me say, I thought the podcast was great and I agree with just about everything said in it…except this!
I apologize in advance if I sound like a snob here, but the literature major/biblical scholar in me just hates it when people can’t seem to understand basic concepts like genre. I’m just going to spell it out:
- No, Genesis 1 is not poetry. It isn’t written like the Psalms. Hebrew poetry is a distinct genre with certain genre characteristics—and Genesis 1 ain’t poetry. Yes, it is structured in a parallel way, with Days 1-3 paralleling Days 4-6, but Genesis 1 isn’t poetry. Genesis 1 clearly is prose narrative.
- Also, prose is not a genre. It is just a style of writing or speaking. Let’s make an easy illustration. Stephen King’s It is written in prose; Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice is written in prose; Frank Herbert’s Dune is written in prose. Although all three books can be classified in the broad genre of novels, even that is a bit too general, because King’s novel is more specifically that of Horror, Austen’s novel is more specifically that of Romance, and Herbert’s novel is Science Fiction. They are all narrative, all prose, and all novels, but still, different sub-genres of the general genre of novel. But it is just wrong to say “prose” is a genre.
- When it comes to Genesis 1-2, as well as Genesis 3-11, as well as Genesis 12-50, all of it is basically prose, basically narrative. So, for Vischer to say that Genesis 1-2 is “kind of history and kind of poetry,” but then Genesis 3 is prose, is just gobbley-gook. I know he got that distinction from Tim Keller, and Tim Keller has written some great books and is a great pastor, but sorry, that is just nonsense that doesn’t help anyone understand Genesis better.
- The big line of distinction within the Book of Genesis is between Genesis 11 and Genesis 12. Genesis 1-11 is clearly one kind of genre and Genesis 12-50 is clearly a different genre. All of it—both Genesis 1-11 and Genesis 12-50—is narrative/prose, but they are different genres. Genesis 1-11 is best understood a mythological narrative and Genesis 12-50 is best understood as historical narrative.
Yes, I know some people question whether or not Genesis 12-50 is actually history, but there is no denying that it is presented as such. The lifespans are generally normal lifespans, the geographical places are known to history, and multiple chapters are devoted to the lives of each patriarch. By contrast, there are numerous parallels in Genesis 1-11 to other ancient Near Eastern myths; the lifespans are wholly unbelievable from a historical perspective, with hundreds of years being passed over in a mere verse or two; and the places mentioned are ambiguous and, quite simply, unhistorical.
Saying Genesis 1-11 is myth doesn’t denigrate it. “Myth” doesn’t mean “untruth.” It is a specific genre of ancient writing that was used to describe a culture’s worldview regarding what that culture believed about (a) the gods/God, (b) the nature of human beings, and (c) the nature of the created order. It wasn’t trying to convey historical facts. It was trying to articulate that “worldview lens” through which that culture could interpret their world.
Genesis 1-11, therefore, functions as that “background myth” that provides the rationale for caring about history in the first place. It proclaims that there is One God, that He is good, that His creation is very good, and that human beings are created in His Image, and therefore have inherent dignity and worth—and because He loves them, God promised to get involved with human history to redeem them and elevate them from being mere image-bearing creatures to sons of God who bear His Likeness. That history begins with Abraham and finds consummation in Christ.
Genesis 1-11 is foundational to understanding the Gospel message, but it isn’t history. It isn’t poetry. And even though it is prose, that isn’t its genre. Genesis 1-11 functions as mythological narrative to set the stage for us to understand God’s involvement in history. At some point, Christians need to get over the stigma of using the term “myth,” and insist on using it in its proper sense of a legitimate genre of literature. Christians need to redeem the proper use of the term “myth” if they ever want to come to any kind of clarity regarding Genesis 1-11. If we avoid using the term, if we insist on speaking in incorrect vagaries like “Genesis is kinda poetry, kinda prose, well, it’s ‘elevated prose,’ sorta…kinda…” then young earth creationists like Ken Ham and mythicists like Richard Carrier are going to be able to take advantage of our vague and incoherent genre-babble, and present their own over-simplified, and utterly ridiculous, nonsense.
Genesis 1-11 is mythological narrative, and it is crucially important to know that if one is to interpret it correctly. And proper interpretation of Genesis 1-11 really is key if one is to understand, not only the history laid out in the Old Testament, but the Gospel message found in the New Testament. Say it with me: Genesis 1-11 is myth.
If you want to learn more about what this means, let me invite you to read these posts:
All About Myth
CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien, and the Importance of Myth
Making Sense of Genesis 1
I am somewhat bemused that you spend so much energy trying to demonstrate how Ken Ham’s position is false (For what it’s worth, I agree with you that there is no veracity to YEC ) yet with absolutely no evidence whatsoever still believe that the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical event.
Wouldn’t your time and energy be far better utilized and the Christian community as a whole far better served if you devoted all this time and energy to providing evidence to show that the resurrection did in fact actually happen?
Well, for one, I don’t spend that much time and energy on Ham anymore. Still, his organization continues to hurt many people, so occasionally I’ll write a post on him.
Two, if I remember correctly, in our past discussions regarding Christ’s resurrection, I repeatedly asked you to articulate what kind of evidence you’d accept, and you just refused to answer. There is the resurrection claims made in the Gospels and in Paul. No one thinks those claims were invented post-AD 70. Even though that is when the Gospels were written, most scholars acknowledge that they drew upon earlier sources that went back to the time of the earliest years of the church (i.e. circa mid-30s), and so those resurrection claims do, in fact, go back to the time of eyewitnesses.
Be that as it may, even though (as Paul says) Christianity is rooted in the historical claim of the resurrection, it would be wrong to think that the only thing Christianity is concerned about is somehow “proving” that Jesus rose from the dead. The reality of the resurrection shines a whole new light on everything.
First, thanks for allowing the comment through moderation. This was a nice surprise.
While not in the least suggesting this might now mean we are engaged, perhaps we might enter 2021 in a slightly less combative mode? 🙂
I may have mentioned in the past that Johnny Scaramanga wrote his doctoral thesis on the YEC teachings of ACE (Accelerated Christian Education) but eventually decided to give up writing about it because of the chronic stress it brought about.
Furthermore, this type of reaction is not confined solely to those who were raised in a YEC environment. There are any number of former Christians who would jump at the chance to explain to you why even your brand of Christianity still brings about certain forms of emotional trauma.
With regard to your second point.
Without trawling through the specific posts I can say that I would likely be convicted by evidence, which is why I am not convinced by claims of evidence.
However, I will ask you what I ask others who raise this point or ones similar:
What was the specific evidence that convinced you of the veracity of the resurrection claim?
Researching and writing about YEC and Ham brought me clarity and closure. I grew up within a part of Evangelicalism that never took YECism seriously, so I was surprised anyone did. And when I got shellacked by a certain YECist administrator, it was a rude and painful awakening. It didn’t make sense to me why anyone would make belief in a young earth a core tenet of the Christian faith, when it was so obvious that it never had been. Writing my posts and my book helped me make sense of that lunacy. I am no longer angry about it. I feel pity for people who are deluded with YECism.
With regard to the second point, the resurrection claim in the Gospels is just one part of a multi-faceted reason why I am convinced Christianity is true. It makes the most sense out of the world. As for the resurrection itself, (A) I am convinced the Gospels are historically reliable, and (B) the origin and rise of Christianity makes zero sense to me without the actual resurrection of Jesus. All the other arguments I’ve heard from skeptics to give alternate reasons as to why Jesus’ disciples would have continued on in the movement simply are not convincing at all, given the historical realities of 2nd Temple Judaism. They are all pure speculation from skeptics who lived 2,000 years later, and they give zero evidence themselves to back up their alternate theories.
Imagine you are in my shoes for a second?
See how easy that was?
I am sure you realise that the way you feel about those who adhere to YEC beliefs are almost exactly the same as the way every sceptic feels about those who adhere to any religion or belief system based on unsubstantiated supernatural claims.
Again, the key word here is claim. And I feel fairly confident that you will appreciate why sceptics doubt/reject such claims, be they from your religion or any other.
Any such claim does not represent evidence.
The obvious question for me to ask here is why does the unsubstantiated claim that a 1st century Jew, crucified for sedition, make the ”most sense of the world”?
And yet from my perspective they are merely tales and represent no more than historical fiction, and the available evidence supports this perspective.
So, briefly if you can, and in your own words, what specifically about the Gospels convinced you to believe they are historically reliable?
With due respect, god claims were two a penny ”back in the day”, as I’m sure you will agree, and while the Christian tale has some unique features the basic tale is not unique.
Furthermore, outside of the bible there is no independent (non Christian) evidence to support the ”twelve”. (or the Great Commission)
Evidence suggests Christianity was initially regarded as merely a sect within Judaism, which ostensibly it was, and only really ”took off” once it was embraced and sanctioned by the Romans.
If we can return to the reason for you becoming Christian?
I’m still interested in the specific evidence that convinced you of the veracity of the foundational tenets of Christianity.
Sorry, I’m not interested in going down this rabbit-hole with you again.
So, once again, when asked for evidence you, like every Christian I have ever discussed with adopt an air of effrontery and refuse to engage.
Seriously, Joel are you you really that surprised why Christianity is losing followers in the West hand over fist, when thy are represented by people who refuse to engage with sceptics in an honest and open fashion?
No. We’ve had these discussions before. You’ve asked for evidence before. I’ve given you evidence before. You’ve dismissed my evidence before. I’ve engaged with you on this topic for over a year.
I’d have a lot more respect for you if you just said, “Okay, well that isn’t convincing enough for me,” and not, “That’s not evidence! Give me evidence! You Christians are all alike!” Blah…blah…blah…
But it isn’t evidence Joel, and in truth you are fully aware of this.
Faith does not require evidence and this is why you have/ rely on faith.
And this is also one of the major reasons why people deconvert from religion – the complete lack of evidence.
All you have to do is ask them!
And it is this lack of evidence that invariably causes Christians to immediately go on the defensive then straight afterwards attack their interlocutor or come back with the well-warn demand of ”What evidence would convince you of (insert you religious/theological ”poison” of choice).”
I asked you to put yourself in my shoes and rephrased your YEC comment, yet you simply cannot or will not recognise that the scepticism you have for YEC is exactly the same as I have for your claims about your faith – lack of evidence.
In fact, your position is even more tenuous because at least there is evidence of an old earth which can be demonstrated to rebut YEC claims.
This is why I asked you to offer the specific evidence that convinced you of the veracity of the foundational tenets of Christianity and all you offer are claims – which I am sorry to say are merely unsubstantiated assertions in the bible.
I have never believed, and so I reiterate, the best people to substantiate what I am saying are deconverts, be they laypeople or former professionals (Ministers, Pastors, Priests, Nuns etc) as they have been on the ”other side of the fence”, and all those I have engaged acknowledge the lack of evidence to be one of the major reasons they deconverted.
Respect is a two-way street Joel, and I too would have more for you if you just said, ”Well, Ark, I have faith, and that is good enough for me.”
1. Historians and scholars consider the first century documents of historical biographies to be evidence that needs to be considered and taken into account.
2. Your very understanding of what faith is is sorely lacking.
3. No, asking a skeptic like yourself what kind of evidence would convince them is not stunt. It is a legitimate question. The fact you have NEVER been able to tell me tells me everything.
1.What historical biographies are you referring to?
2. If my understanding of faith is sorely lacking then you are the perfect exponent to explain it. Please do so.
3. I had a similar drawn out discussion with Pastor David Robertson.
My repeated answer of, I don’t know and that any such deity would know exactly what evidence to provide to convince me which I felt then and still do , to be the most honest response I can think of was not enough for him either. So, I finally relented and after some thought offered an example of what I considered an omnipotent god could do and provided a comprehensive reply and his immediate response was to suggest I was a liar!
This is why I ask Christians what was the specific evidence that convinced them of the veracity of the foundational tenets of their religion.
After all, there are only a limited amount of foundational tenets to consider. so all you have to do is pick one if it would make it easier for you and provide the evidence for it.
1. The four Gospels.
2. Faith does NOT mean “Believing supposed facts without evidence.”
3. It is a simple question. For the sake of argument, leave any talk of “God” out of the picture. The claim is that a man who was crucified and buried in a tomb for three days physically resurrected and came back to life. The Gospels are making that historical claim. Like any other claim made in ancient texts, what historical evidence would you need to convince that THAT event happened in history?
1. let me rather quote religious scholar, L. Michael White. You will more likely accept his credentials than my unschooled view, I’m sure! 🙂
2. Then feel free to produce the evidence that establishes as fact this faith.
3. I reiterate, in truth I do not know as such an event falls outside the realm of reality as we know it. As I wrote to Robertson, an omnipotent deity would know …. or at least should know exactly what evidence to provide in order to convince me of the veracity of such a written claim. Evidence that establishes fact and does not require any sort of faith.
There is a reason why we have the term Doubting Thomas in the English lexicon and you of all people do not need me to explain this.
And this is why I asked you to provide the evidence which convinced you (of the resurrection).
By providing this evidence I can then judge whether it would convince me.
1. Yes, they are not MODERN histories. That doesn’t mean they aren’t still conveying real history. Ancient historical biographies had different aims and different structures to them, but they were still speaking of history.
2. One assesses evidence in the real world as one should assess evidence in the real world: through evidence, logic, reason. “Faith” is not “believing something happened without any evidence.” Once one is convinced that there is a God (by means of using one’s logic, reason, intuition, etc.), “faith” is thus a relationship of trust in God. If you define faith in quasi-scientific terms, you just misunderstand what it is. All the historical evidence points to the fact that Jesus was a first century Jew who led a messianic movement, who was known to be a miracle-worker and healer, who ran afoul of the authorities, and who was crucified and buried. And in the same historical documents that give us THAT information, we also find the claim that he rose again three days later. The gospels are the textual evidence that cannot be so easily dismissed.
3. You are dodging. The CLAIM is that Christ resurrected IN HISTORY. Your initial sentence is the problem: “I do not know as such an event falls outside the realm of reality as we know it.” The claim is that it DID happen WITHIN historical reality. It isn’t saying it happened in some “non-reality realm.” It is saying that three days after Passover in AD 30, Jesus, who was crucified and buried, rose from the dead. It is a historical claim. Therefore, just like any other historical claim, what kind of evidence would you find convincing? What is the historical evidence that convinces you that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, that he was assassinated by Brutus and Cassius? What is the historical evidence that convinces you that Josephus was a Jewish historian who lived through the Jewish War of AD 66-70? What is the historical evidence that convinces you that Jesus was an actual Jewish messianic figure who was crucified around Passover in AD 30? This isn’t a hard question: What kind of evidence do you accept as convincing for ANY ANCIENT HISTORICAL CLAIM?
1. So we are agreed, then, White’s assessment is correct.
2.
But this is not the view accepted by millions of people across the globe., and the reason why not is straightforward: it lacks evidence. This point alone makes moot every other consideration and thus, without evidence all one has is faith. In short, belief in and acceptance of unsubstantiated claims.
Which is what the tale of the resurrection is.
3. I never ‘’dodge’’. I am honest as I can possibly be and have no need for obfuscation or subterfuge.
This is the main reason why I am trying to stay on topic and focused on the question at hand and with respect have no wish at this stage to bring in other examples from history. Bit we can at a later date if you are still up for it, no problem?
So, please, for now, let’s stick with the resurrection and only the resurrection, if that’s okay?
It is, as you rightly point out, an historical claim. But a claim nonetheless, and a claim for which there is no evidence to substantiate it.
A claim that is part of a text that is riddled with error across almost every discipline, which denigrates it even more.
So what would convince me? Why, evidence of course!
You do not accept YEC claims and you certainly do not accept the claim that the earth was flooded and one family was saved to float about on a boat full of animals. I am inclined to ask what evidence would convince you that this biblical claim was an actual historical event? I guarantee that Ken Ham would have no qualms whatsoever explaining about the evidence that convinced him of a global flood. Of course, we both know that what he calls evidence is merely a claim and we have scientific proof that the biblical tale is pure fiction, do we not?
The other salient point which I have stressed before is the claim that Yahweh is an omnipotent deity and all this encumbers. Thus, he should know precisely what evidence would convince me of the resurrection tale as written in the gospels, or any other biblical claim if the need arose.
This is why I have given the reply the way I did.
Therefore, as you are convinced there is evidence to support the claim that the character Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected please present the evidence and we can see if it passes muster.
Really, how difficult can this be?
1. If White implies that the Gospels are not historical, then we aren’t in agreement. But yes, we are in agreement that the Gospel are not modern biographies–but that should be already obvious, given that they are 2,000 years old.
2. Logic, reason, and intuition are not anchored to “proving facts” alone. But this is going nowhere.
3. Like I said, this is going nowhere. The Gospels are not “riddled with errors.” The texts are the evidence, as well as the other factors that Lee put forth contribute to an overall picture. Again, I’m asking for what historical evidence would convince YOU that the historical event of Jesus’ resurrection happened. Sorry, you continue to obfuscate and dodge. Saying, “If there was a God, then he’d know what evidence would convince me” is a crock. Don’t YOU know what evidence you’d find convincing? Again, leave talk of God out of this–we have a historical claim in a text that gives testimony regarding a historical person and which both scholars and historians find to be generally reliable. I imagine you accept the Gospel testimony when they say Jesus was crucified. Okay…why do you accept that? What evidence convinces you that he was, in fact crucified?
1.Is White stating that gospels aren’t historical?
2. If you have evidence and fact then there is no need of faith.
3. It’s going nowhere because you refuse to accept that, based on what I know of the resurrection tale I cannot give a definite answer to your question.
Christians have been commanded to spread the ”good news” for a long time and when missionaries went out to do just this they didn’t ask those they tried to convert ‘What evidence would you accept that would convince of the tale of the resurrection?”.
Of course not, they told the tale and presented the evidence.
I have explained how I tried to discuss what I thought would convince me to David Robertson and he all but called me a liar. There seems little to gain for me to risk subjecting myself to such ridicule and abuse again.
If you consider personal conviction to be good evidence that is sufficient for belief in the resurrection then you should be able to show that to others beyond just words if it is to be considered evidence.
Therefore, it is reasonable for me to ask, what was the evidence that convinced you?
1. I haven’t read him. You brought him up. I was just clarifying as to what we were in agreement on.
2. Again, that is just a misunderstanding of faith.
3. You haven’t told ME what you thought would convince you. That’s the problem. Again, it is a simple matter of what kinds of things would you deem to be credible evidence for ANY kinds of historical claims in ancient history. Until you actually answer that, I’m going to have to continue to call you on your dodging and evading of the question. And again, I have told you numerous times what evidence convinced me. I am convinced the Gospels are historically reliable; I do not find any other explanation for the survival and growth of the original Jesus movement after Jesus’ death as convincing; and then on another level, the resurrection itself, and the implications it has to understand the very nature of things, puts reality itself into a clearer light. That is more of a metaphysical/philosophical thing, but that contributes to my conviction it happened.
That you are convinced does not make the accounts factual (Historically reliable – and (secular) historians do not consider they are.) or that they can be regarded as evidence.
They remain claims. Claims that are largely unsubstantiated.
Again, this is your view and I am sure Mormons, Muslims, Hindus and the adherents of any number of religions will make similar unsubstantiated claims; claims you will dismiss because of lack of evidence, much in the same vein as you dismiss the claims of Ken Ham.
This statement is similar to the one you made above. It is primarily based on feelings (interpretation of the text) and not evidence.
I can state honestly that your response for the request for evidence of the veracity of the foundational tenets of Christianity pretty much mirrors that of every Christian I have asked this question of and the total lack of evidence is the prime reason every former Christian ordinary layperson and more tellingly, professional clergy) has cited for their reason for deconverting.
Again, this is why it is pointless trying to reason with you.
1. Your talk of “claims” is disingenuous and just wrong. The reason you know ANYTHING about ANYTHING in the ancient past (or not so ancient past) is because you deem certain written accounts to be trustworthy. When people have writing that testifies the existence of a certain person in history (Caesar, St. Francis of Assisi, Charlemagne, Josephus, etc.), they see if that account [i.e. that CLAIM] “fits” with what we know about that time period (and what we know of that time period also largely comes to us in the form of WRITING), and that is how they are convinced that certain people existed and certain events happened. Here it is, really simple for you: WRITTEN TESTIMONY–THE CLAIMS IN WRITTEN TESTIMONY–IS CONSIDERED EVIDENCE. I find the Gospels to be historically reliable EVIDENCE, as do many other scholars and historians. You don’t. Okay, just say that. But stop this charade of, “Oh that’s not evidence! That is just a claim!”
2. A fundamental HISTORICAL question is, “How do you account for the fact that the early Jesus movement survived and continued to grow after the crucifixion of Jesus?” IMO, the claim that Jesus resurrected, found in the written testimony of historically reliable Gospels, is more convincing than any other proposed reason.
So there it is. Please stop this charade. Try to be honest. And if you care to, please tell me why you believe that people like Boniface, Josephus, existed, or why you believe Jesus was crucified. I’ll tell you what you answer will be if you are being honest: “I believe those things because those claims are written down in testimony that is deemed to be historically reliable.”
Secular historians do not regard the Gospels as reliable. Period.
And a fair number of Christians – scholars as well as ordinary folk recognise that the gospels contain allegory and sometimes examples of outright fiction, designed to convey a theological message. The raising of the Saints, sometimes crudely referred to as the zombie walkabout, at the crucifixion is a good example.
The virgin birth narrative is another.
I am sure we could compile quite an extensive list, and I suspect people more qualified than me have done just that.
I imagine for similar reasons that Islam survived and grew and Mormonism was established and grew. That there are people who believe the entire world was flooded and some old bloke gathered all the animals and sailed away – tra la la.
Similar reasons why people believe the earth is flat , that people never went to the moon and any number of similar daft things. People are human. People are credulous. They want to believe.
Irrespective of the fact there is no verifiable or even reasonable evidence to support such claims.
They especially want to believe in things that offer future promises of reward, of lands of milk and honey etc and there are plenty of people who will gladly divest you of your hard earned money because of such promises.
Here’s an interesting tale. True as well. When Vespasian was vying to become emperor, Tacitus records that he cured a blind man by rubbing spit on his eyes.
Tacitus even gives the man’s name and his rank and where he resided at the time.
Sound familiar?
Tacitus was an historian and wrote history, as you surely know, yes?
And why would a highly respected Roman such as Tacitus make such an error or, gods forbid, lie?
Based on the metric you listed above I presume then that you accept this claim?
For the record I don’t, as I don’t believe there is any evidence for the supernatural, such as miracles.
I believe people like Josephus, Caesar, Pilate and many others existed because of evidence that supports the claim they were historical (real people).
1. You are out of your depth here. Bottom line is that almost everyone (aside from crackpot mythicists) acknowledge the Gospels to be bearing witness to real history. To what extent is debated. And so for me, I find the EVIDENCE in the Gospels compelling. You do not. That doesn’t mean it isn’t EVIDENCE. It simply means you don’t find it as convincing as I do.
2. I guarantee you that if either Joseph Smith or Muhammad was tried and executed in the very early stages of their ministries, the movements would not have survived. And the fact is, even after their deaths the REASONS why those movements did survive was NOT because Mormons and Muslims claimed Smith and Muhammad resurrected.
3. What is the EVIDENCE that supports the claims those various figures were, in fact, historical?
I’ll take your snarky comments with a pinch of salt, and extend you some slack as you are a Christian who relies a lot on faith and presupposition.
This might help you understand my position …
Here is an excellent article by Neil Geoffrey that explains much about the historical method and the problems which arise when trying to apply criteria to the gospels.
https://vridar.org/historical-method-and-the-question-of-christian-origins/
Not a snarky comment, just frustration with you being unable to understand what the Gospels as ancient historical biographies are, and your failure to see that written testimony in historical biographies constitutes evidence. It is really simple: I find the written testimony/evidence in the historical biographies to be convincing, you don’t. The problem is your inability to see that it is evidence nonetheless. It is just evidence that doesn’t convince YOU. Just because it doesn’t convince YOU doesn’t mean it isn’t evidence. And the reason it doesn’t convince you is because you have your own presuppositions that lead you to dismiss out of hand any claims like miracles/healings/Christ’s resurrection.
In any case, we’re done.
Oh, and only ”crackpot” fundamentalists consider there is any truth to the Raising of the Saints episode or the Virgin Birth narrative.
I sincerely hope you don’t hang your hat with this crowd?
Even Mike Licona acknowledges the Dead Saints episode is nothing but apocalyptic imagery, and not historical. In other words, fiction.
ARK: However, I will ask you what I ask others who raise this point or ones similar:
What was the specific evidence that convinced you of the veracity of the resurrection claim?
LEE: I know I’m going to regret this, but perhaps I can take a stab at this again? There are in no real order, just typed as I thought of them. Obviously none of them proves the resurrection however the kind of proof you seem to require doesn’t exist, and even if it did, still wouldn’t be sufficient to convince you because you’ve closed your mind to the even the possibility. For people who are willing to at least suspend their disbelief for a moment however I think that these items, certainly put together, are at the very least compelling, if not completely persuasive.
1. Multiple, independent sources; ie the letters of Paul and then the four gospels, written bet. ca. 49-ca. 90 AD. Too early for significant amounts of myth and legend to accrue to the stories (in the case of the life of Alexander the Great it took about 300 years for that kind of myth and legend to accrue to his biographies).
2. The fact that a dying-rising Messiah was not on anyone’s radar in ancient 2nd Temple Judaism thus would be a very strange story for the Jewish Paul and the gospel authors to invent. Certainly if they wanted to get other Jews and/or Romans on board with their new religion. No Jew expected God incarnated, crucified and resurrected, and no Greek or Roman wanted a human messiah (even if he was somehow also God). The disciples knew as well as you do that dead bodies normally stay dead.
3. The resurrection accounts in the gospels do not read as if they’ve been edited or harmonized in order to smooth out possible inconsistencies. They read as the accounts told by astonished eyewitnesses still trying to process and make sense of what happened, not as the invented, harmonized stories of a group of hoaxers.
4. The original disciples of Jesus and Paul never recanted their insistence that the resurrection was a real historical occurrence, even when faced with death. They all (save John) died by execution insisting Jesus had really been resurrected.
5. The counter-explanations (wrong tomb, stolen body, Thiering’s “pesher” theory, mass-hallucination, etc.) take more faith to believe than the resurrection.
6. The fact that by 311 AD the Jesus Movement, this odd sect of Messianic Jews, numbered some 10% of the Roman Empire and was steadily growing. If there was no resurrection, after Jesus’ crucifixion by the Romans his movement should’ve died, as all the other would-be Messianic Jewish movements did with the death of the would-be Messiah. No other Messianic Jewish movement on record ever survived the death of its would-be Messiah. Yet Christianity, 2000 years later, is still going strong.
7. The change that a belief in the resurrection was wrought in billions of lives over the past 2,000 years. Heck, look at Western civilization itself, which was/is founded upon the truth-claims of Christianity. Many of the pillars of our society we take for granted nowadays can be traced back to the Christian religion. Art: education; law; music; science; morality; etc. Just ask yourself what the world would look like if Greco-Roman or Germanic paganism had won the day instead of Christianity. We wouldn’t enjoy many of the rights and privileges we do in our Western society. And if atheism is right *nobody* has “natural human rights” because “natural uman rights” can only come from a creator.
8. Nobody in antiquity ever produced Jesus’ remains. If there was no resurrection . . . where’s the body?
9. This goes along with point number 2; the fact that the gospels portray the disciples as clueless regarding Jesus’ death AND resurrection. Why would fakers purposely make themselves look so ignorant?
Pax.
Lee.
Dr. Anderson,
I am quite shocked you allowed Ark back into the blog. Honestly, some of your conversations with him are pure comedy gold 😂. Will you also allow Gary back into this blog?
Yours Sincerely,
The Programming Nerd
Haha…his comments still automatically go in the trash. I just felt like responding this time.
Ark, faith according to Christianity has never meant a blind faith devoid of evidence. If you’ve ever read the conversion accounts of people such as CS Lewis or Francis Collins (and if not you should) you know that these people did not convert based solely upon their emotions, or how they felt at a given moment. Lewis and Collins weren’t/aren’t intellectual light-weights prone to just believe anything. If you haven’t read Lewis *Surprised by Joy* in particular, you should. Lewis described himself as initially “the most reluctant convert in all of England,” nevertheless felt he had to follow the evidence wherever it lead.
The Mormon elders’ insistence that all you need to do is pray and the Holy Spirit will convict you of the truth of the Book of Mormon has never been the case regarding the New Testament (despite many well-meaning Christians saying that).
Nor do atheists exist in a faith vacuum buttressed always by reason. It takes a great amount of faith to say categorically that God doesn’t exist–indeed, the most Richard Dawkins can write signs on the sides of English buses is that God “probably” doesn’t exist. And many atheists I’ve met are atheists, not because they’ve rationally and meticulously studied the evidence, but because they made an emotional choice to reject any kind of faith after they had a negative experience of some kind. Not all atheists but more than a few. Certainly the claim many atheists have made to me that they are more rational simply by virtue of being atheists is both wrong and silly. Again, not all atheists make that argument, but many have.
Pax.
Lee.
Hi, Lee.
I have some spare time so, with Joel’s leave? – I’ll address this comment.
Agreed. However, what Christians deem to be evidence is not regarded as evidence by mainstream historians or others in the secular community.
And one only has to consider Thomas who would not accept the tale of Jesus’ resurrection until he saw the man himself and wiggled his fingers in the holes made by the nails.
I have never read Lewis but have read /listened to Collins.
Collins grew up in a Christian orientated culture and finally considered converting while working in a hospital dealing with terminally ill patients. He even acknowledges it was the finality of death that caused him to relook at his faith, or rather lack of it at that point. The term is known as Death Anxiety, I believe?
His description of falling to his knees upon seeing a frozen waterfall and the allusion to the Trinity is most …. colourful?
I presume you mean convince rather than convict? ☺
Ostensibly Mormons and Christians have the same problem. No evidence to support their claims.
You have a misconstrued idea of what faith to a non-Christian is. The English language can sometimes be the undoing of many of us. *Sigh*
I try not to use the word faith anymore, especially since I have been chatting with Christians, but rather use the word trust.
For example: Because of gravity, I trust that if I jump out of third storey window here on Earth I will, in all likelihood end up as a messy chalk outline on the pavement below.
Or …
I trust that the aircraft I take to fly to the UK will likely get me there safely because of the engineering standards employed to ensure the airworthiness of the aircraft.
Of course there is no absolute guarantee a flock of birds won’t fly into one of the jet engines, causing an explosion and send me plunging to a fiery death …. 🙂
Agreed. And if evidence is ever presented to confirm the existence of God ( and I presume you mean your god, the Christian god, yes?) then I, and millions of others, including Dawkins, no doubt, will adjust our perspective.
I can’t talk for others, but I have yet to be presented with evidence. I’ve read and heard plenty of unsubstantiated claims , but this is a different matter.
This certainly does not apply to me. However, I would be fascinated to read such an admission from an atheist if you know of any, or can provide a link?
I have never believed in any form of supernaturalism ( other than a brief flirtation with Santa Claus as a small child, for which I blame my parents …, don’t worry, I’ve forgiven them!)
By the way,
I can say without fear of contradiction that, in my time dialoguing with former Christians, including former professional clergy ) I have never heard/read one of them state this as the reason they deconverted. All, without exception have cited lack of evidence.
ARK: Agreed. However, what Christians deem to be evidence is not regarded as evidence by mainstream historians or others in the secular community.
LEE: Says who? NT Wright and Craig Evans for example are mainstream historians who regard everything Dr. Anderson and I have posted to you as evidence. I think you may not understand what constitutes evidence from an academic historian’s standpoint.Your comment below firms me up in this belief:
ARK: And one only has to consider Thomas who would not accept the tale of Jesus’ resurrection until he saw the man himself and wiggled his fingers in the holes made by the nails.
LEE: Thomas wasn’t an academic historian writing 2,000 years later, but rather (taking the accounts at face value for the sake of argument), an eyewitness. Thomas thus didn’t *have* to rely upon secondhand testimony, as the later readers of John’s gospel when reading Thomas’ story in said gospel do.
Besides, as a devout Messianic Jew Thomas wasn’t objecting to the IDEA of resurrection–he took that for granted–he just objected to the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected, since in Thomas’ 2nd 1st century, 2nd Temple Jewish worldview a Messiah who lets himself get killed by the Romans isn’t the true Messiah, thus God would never resurrect such a pretender in the first place.
If we could time-travel back to AD 30 there’d be no need for criteria to assess historical documents since we could observe the events they were chronicling and see for ourselves. John and the other gospel authors understand that Jesus’ resurrection was a one-off event not likely to reoccur thus they include the kind of written evidence that would persuade a 1st century Jewish or Greco-Roman skeptic–not necessarily a 21st century English or American skeptic.
ARK: Collins grew up in a Christian orientated culture and finally considered converting while working in a hospital dealing with terminally ill patients. He even acknowledges it was the finality of death that caused him to relook at his faith, or rather lack of it at that point. The term is known as Death Anxiety, I believe?
His description of falling to his knees upon seeing a frozen waterfall and the allusion to the Trinity is most …. colourful?
LEE: Firstly, you need to read Lewis’ *Surprised by Joy.*
Secondly, your summary of Collins’ conversion leaves a lot out. There was much more to it than a so-called “Death Anxiety.” That might be what initially prompted his investigation, but it was just that–an investigation, which took several years. If you recall he read CS Lewis and was persuaded by Lewis arguments, esp. regarding the existence of a Moral Law, in *Mere Christianity.*
Lewis, too grew up in a Christian household (Anglican) but by young adulthood had abandoned Christianity in favor of “reason” and become extremely entrenched in his atheism, so that, he tells us, at the time of his conversion he was “the most reluctant convert in England.” But he had resolved to follow . . . there’s that word again! . . . the evidence.
ARK: I presume you mean convince rather than convict? ☺
LEE: No, I meant “convict” (as in “she has strong convictions”); that’s a legitimate usage you may not be familiar with.
ARK: Ostensibly Mormons and Christians have the same problem. No evidence to support their claims.
LEE: Ark, your repeating this a dozen times doesn’t make it true.
There IS evidence, LOTS OF IT. You just either a) don’t understand what actually constitutes valid evidence or b) are so entrenched in your atheism that *no amount* of otherwise compelling evidence would convince you. You can’t even tell us what evidence you’d find persuasive.
ARK: For example: Because of gravity, I trust that if I jump out of third storey window here on Earth I will, in all likelihood end up as a messy chalk outline on the pavement below.
Or …
I trust that the aircraft I take to fly to the UK will likely get me there safely because of the engineering standards employed to ensure the airworthiness of the aircraft.
Of course there is no absolute guarantee a flock of birds won’t fly into one of the jet engines, causing an explosion and send me plunging to a fiery death ….
LEE: This is *exactly* the kind of faith the NT speaks of. Not a blind faith, but a faith informed by both reason and experience.
ARK: This certainly does not apply to me. However, I would be fascinated to read such an admission from an atheist if you know of any, or can provide a link? . . .
LEE: What I get from you is a rigid refusal to budge even an inch towards being open-minded enough to look objectively at the truth-claims of religion.
I can say without fear of contradiction that, in my time dialoguing with former Christians, including former professional clergy ) I have never heard/read one of them state this as the reason they deconverted. All, without exception have cited lack of evidence.
LEE: None of them said to me in so many words that they rejected Christianity because of a negative experience however it doesn’t take a PhD in psychology to read between the lines and see that that is indeed what happened to them. For some of them, a relative died after they prayed for God to heal them or spare them (I know of a lady locally who rejected God after her husband died); for others, they were burned by organized religion. Still others see all the evil in the world and decide that since God hasn’t eradicated it he must not really exist.
CS Lewis admitted that as a young atheist he was angry at the god he didn’t even believe in for making such a mess of the world.
In his book *Mind and Cosmos* atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel argues that naturalistic Darwinian evolution cannot explain the rise of human consciousness yet states that he refuses to consider God. In his book *The Last Word* Nagel writes:
“I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear [of religion]. I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”
So Nagel admits he doesn’t WANT there to be a god. At least he’s honest enough to admit what his reasons are. Surely you can see how his fear of religion colors his views?
Pax.
Lee.
For goodness’ sake, Lee Wright and Evans are Christians first and foremost and their Christian worldview will underpin their view on history where it relates to their faith/religious belief.
That much should be obvious to anyone, surelçy? Read a secular historian if you want to compare approaches. In fact, the article I linked above by Neil Godfrey – who although not an historian – will outiline the problems associated with assessing the historical reliability of the gospels.
I used the character of Thomas to illustrate the point that in the tale he was not convinced by hearsay and ”demanded” to see the character of Jesus in the flesh before he would accept the tale of the resurrection. Even Jesus commented on this aspect. Surely you don’t need me of all people to quote the passage in question?
If the gospel accounts were designed to convince 1st century Jewish or Greco-Roman skeptics then it is obvious the writers did a lousy job as, based on history and Acts it was Saul/Paul who was instrumental in the spread of the Christian religion. Until the Romans got their hands on it of course.
No not really.
Re Collins. His extended delving into Lewis and other inquiry not withstanding, his Christian influenced cultural background and his death anxiety were the vital components that tipped him over the edge.
And your continual affirmation that there is evidence does not make it so either.
So, best you spell out exactly what you consider evidence is.
Perhaps we should start with a dictionary definition? You choose the one you like.
This way we will – hopefully – remove any further misunderstanding of what constitutes evidence and what constitutes an unsubstantiated claim. Does this sound fair to you?
Really? Then please present the evidence that informed your faith regarding the virgin birth, Jesus walking on water, the raising of the Saints at the crucifixion in Matthew, the Noachian global flood as described in Genesis.
What ”you get” is of no consequence to me if you are rigidly refusing to provide evidence of such truth claims. I made a polite request and you are simply hand waving it away.
Negative experience is a given. If one discovers that everything one has been led to believe is true is merely a falsehood then negative feelings are bound to surface. Anger, being one such emotion. But it is the lack of evidence that causes the final breach. Go listen to someone such as Dan Barker. He will set you straight as to how he felt.
ARK: For goodness’ sake, Lee Wright and Evans are Christians first and foremost and their Christian worldview will underpin their view on history where it relates to their faith/religious belief.
That much should be obvious to anyone, surelçy? Read a secular historian if you want to compare approaches. In fact, the article I linked above by Neil Godfrey – who although not an historian – will outiline the problems associated with assessing the historical reliability of the gospels.
LEE: That you apparently make this argument with a straight face speaks volumes. Because I can guarantee you that Craig Evans and Michael Grant use/used the EXACT SAME historical method. When doing history Evans sets aside his Christian preconceptions and Grant sets aside his secular preconceptions. Your comment above tells me you haven’t really read much academic history, or even good popular history.
For example, in his essay “Space, Time and History: Jesus and the Challenge of God” Wright discusses the historical method that he and other academic historians use:
“There is no secret to how good history is done. There are of course ongoing debates among historians themselves, but there are some generally accepted principles. History is real knowledge, not merely ‘opinion’ or ‘guesswork’. It follows the accepted methods of the natural sciences: collection of data, formation of hypotheses, testing and verification of hypotheses. Most hard science studies the repeatable; history, like astronomy or geology, studies the unrepeatable. But the method is the same. History involves, in particular, the investigation of human motivation, which means thinking into the minds of people who think differently to ourselves. And history, unlike mere chronicle which just collects unrelated data, always aims at a connected narrative in which cause and effect (including the ‘law of unintended consequences’) are appropriately displayed.”
ARK: If the gospel accounts were designed to convince 1st century Jewish or Greco-Roman skeptics then it is obvious the writers did a lousy job as, based on history and Acts it was Saul/Paul who was instrumental in the spread of the Christian religion. Until the Romans got their hands on it of course.
LEE: You apparently haven’t read Acts, either, because at the end of Peter’s Pentecost sermon in chapter 2, 3,000 Jewish pilgrims embraced Christianity. And in verse 7 of chapter 6 Luke records that the number of disciples in Jerusalem increased, which included the conversions of several Temple priests.
Saul of Tarsus doesn’t convert until chapter 9. So the church was already up and running before Saul’s conversion. Its true that he gave it a push in the Greco-Roman world which saw the numbers rise, but it wasn’t just the Paul of Tarsus show. Without Peter and his colleagues Saul wouldn’t have had a church to convert to.
ARK: No not really.
LEE: Yes, really. If you want to be taken seriously as an open-minded, critical thinker, that is. You really ought to read the authors you’re critiquing before you criticize them or attempt to argue against their positions. That you are apparently unwilling to do so also speaks volumes. What are you afraid of? Maybe you’re one of those people CS Lewis accused of “willful blindness,” those skeptics who are afraid Christianity *just might* be true, thus are afraid to read certain books. As Lewis admitted, “a young atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.” You probably won’t be familiar with the quote since it’s in *Surprised by Joy.*
ARK: Re Collins. His extended delving into Lewis and other inquiry not withstanding, his Christian influenced cultural background and his death anxiety were the vital components that tipped him over the edge.
LEE: Having both read *The Language of God* and watched several video clips of Collins recounting his conversion I can truthfully say that nowhere in any of them does he give this impression. On the contrary, in *The Language of God* pp. 11-29 Collins describes his childhood and gradual move from agnosticism to atheism. Since you haven’t read it I’ll post some of the relevant bits. Please read these CAREFULLY:
“My early life was unconventional in many ways, but as the son of freethinkers, I had an upbringing that was quite conventionally modern in its attitude toward faith–it just wasn’t very important. . . .
“Faith was not an important part of my childhood. I was vaguely aware of the concept of God, but my own interactions with Him were limited to occasional childish moments of bargaining about something that I really wanted him to do for me. . . .
“In my early teens I had had occasional moments of the experience of longing for something outside myself, often associated with the beauty of nature or a particularly profound musical experience. Nevertheless my sense of the spiritual was undeveloped and easily challenged by the one or two aggressive atheists one finds in almost every college dormitory. By a few months into my college career, I became convinced that while many religious faiths had inspired interesting traditions of art and culture, they held no foundational truth. . . .
“Though I did not know the term at the time I became an agnostic. . . There are all kinds of agnostics; some arrive at this position after intense analysis of the evidence, but many others simply find it to be a comfortable position that allows them to avoid considering arguments they find discomforting on either side. I was definitely in the latter category. In fact, my assertion of ‘I don’t know’ was really more along the lines of ‘I don’t want to know.’ . . . I practiced a thought and behavior pattern referred to as ‘willful blindness’ by the noted scholar and writer CS Lewis. . . .
“After graduation. . . I went on to a PhD program in physical chemistry at Yale. . . and my heroes were the giants of physics–Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and Paul Dirac. I gradually became convinced that everything in the universe could be explained on the basis of equations and physical principles. And so I gradually shifted from agnosticism to atheism. . . .
He goes on to say on page 20 that his conversation with the dying Christian lady caused him to realize that “I had never really seriously considered the evidence for and against belief.” It was only THEN that he read about the major world religions, then moved on to CS Lewis after consulting a Methodist pastor. If anything, Lewis was what tipped him over the edge.
Collins says on pp. 20-21:
“The argument that most caught my attention and most rocked my ideas about science and spirit down to their foundation, was right there in the title of Book One: ‘Right and Wrong as a clue to the Meaning of the Universe.’ . . .
“Encountering this argument at age twenty-six, I was stunned by its logic.”
“I had started this journey of intellectual exploration to confirm my atheism. That now lay in ruins as the argument from the Moral Law (and many other issues) forced me to admit the plausibility of the God hypothesis.”
ARK: So, best you spell out exactly what you consider evidence is.
LEE: Been there, done that. See my above post to you.
ARK: Perhaps we should start with a dictionary definition? You choose the one you like.
LEE: From Merriam-Webster’s online:
“(Entry 1 of 2) 1a : an outward sign : indication. b : something that furnishes proof : testimony specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter.”
The Cambridge English dictionary defines “evidence” as:
“one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true”
The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as:
“The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”
ALL OF WHICH fits everything Dr. Anderson and I have been saying here. Everything we’ve posted to you counts as evidence, unless you wish to argue with three reputable dictionaries of the English language.
Now how about you put your money where your mouth is and tell US what kind of evidence would convince YOU?
Pax.
Lee.
ARK: Oh, and only ”crackpot” fundamentalists consider there is any truth to the Raising of the Saints episode or the Virgin Birth narrative.
I sincerely hope you don’t hang your hat with this crowd?
LEE: NT Wright isn’t a “crackpot fundamentalist” and yet he allows for the possibility of the virgin conception. In his essay “Suspending Skepticism: History and the Virgin Birth” he writes:
“I can, however, run the process the other way. Because I am convinced that the creator God raised Jesus bodily from the dead, and because I am convinced that Jesus was and is the embodiment of this God, Israel’s God, my worldview is forced to reactivate various things in the suspense account, the birth narratives included.
“There are indeed more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in post-Enlightenment metaphysics. The ‘closed continuum’ of cause and effect is a modernist myth. The God who does not ‘intervene’ from outside but is always present and active within the world, sometimes shockingly, may well have been thus active on this occasion.
“It is all very well to get on one’s high metaphysical horse and insist that God cannot behave like this, but we do not know that ahead of time. Nor will the high moral horse do any better insisting that God ought not to do things like this, because they send the wrong message about sexuality or because divine parentage gave Jesus an unfair start over the rest of us. Such positions produce a cartoon picture: the mouse draws itself up to its full height, puts its paws on its hips and gives the elephant a good dressing down.
“This foolishness is, of course, a way of saying that no ‘proof’ is possible either way. No one can prove, historically, that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. No one can prove, historically, that she wasn’t. Science studies the repeatable; history bumps its nose against the unrepeatable.
“If the first two chapters of Matthew and the first two of Luke had never existed, I do not suppose that my own Christian faith, or that of the church to which I belong, would have been very different.
“But since they do, and since for quite other reasons I have come to believe that the God of Israel, the world’s creator, was personally and fully revealed in and as Jesus of Nazareth, I hold open my historical judgment and say: If that’s what God deemed appropriate, who am I to object?”
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/suspending-scepticism-history-and-the-virgin-birth/10100888
ARK: Even Mike Licona acknowledges the Dead Saints episode is nothing but apocalyptic imagery, and not historical. In other words, fiction.
LEE: Which even if true in itself doesn’t mean the gospels’ account of Jesus’ resurrection is fiction.
Pax.
Lee.
It is true which is why I raised the point (excuse the pun)
If scholars recognise that one aspect of the gospel tale is narrative fiction – which they do – then surely it is incumbent on them to afford even more skepticism toward every other claim of resurrection?
And as it is recognised and acknowledged that the Dead Saints episode is fiction what evidence is there to determine that any other similar episode is not narrative fiction as well?
You sound frighteningly like Ken Ham-type Fundamentalists: “If one part of the Bible is deemed to be metaphor/fiction, then ALL of it probably is!” “If Adam wasn’t a historical human being, then how can you believe the resurrection happened?”
The answer to both questions is simple: You use basic literary competence. It isn’t that hard to be an intelligent reader. It is only hard if you are an ideologue with an agenda to push.
We’re done.
No, I did not say this, but any decent scholar worth their salt would hold each tale to the same degree of scrutiny.
Again, there is plenty of scientific evidence to establish that the biblical tale of the Noachian flood is fiction.
The Dead Saints issue is also regarded as fiction by most scholars.
If basic literary competence is the key to establishing the veracity of any biblical tale then why do no secular historians regard the resurrection tale holds any historical veracity?
Because they have a presuppositional stance against the existence of God and the reality of the supernatural.
In any case, no serious scholar–none, secular or Christian–put the resurrection accounts on the same level as that peculiar verse in Matthew.
We’re done.
ARK: If scholars recognise that one aspect of the gospel tale is narrative fiction – which they do – then surely it is incumbent on them to afford even more skepticism toward every other claim of resurrection?
LEE: Some do. Some don’t. Regardless, there’s a difference between scholarly objectivity and the kind of paranoid skepticism you advocate. As Prof. Craig Evans himself notes, many skeptics like yourself mistake a radical skepticism for critical thinking, when in fact, that kind of radical skepticism is no more critical than credulity.
ARK: And as it is recognised and acknowledged that the Dead Saints episode is fiction what evidence is there to determine that any other similar episode is not narrative fiction as well?
LEE: Have you never read anything about the criteria of historicity that academic historians use to assess historical claims? These criteria are used by both “secular” and “religious” historians to assess the accuracy and historicity of a given claim made by an author or authors. The main ones in Jesus studies are:
1. Embarrassment: A fact or event that appears to cause embarrassment to the theology of the gospel authors is less likely to have been invented by them than a fact or event that bolsters their theology.
2. Discontinuity: A fact or event that does not appear to have had any basis in earlier tradition is less likely to have been invented by the gospel authors than an event that may have been predicated in an earlier tradition.
3. Multiple Attestation: A fact or event that appears to have been preserved down multiple lines of independent tradition is more likely to be true than one that is only preserved down a single line.
4. Coherence: A fact or event that appears to be consistent with our present understanding of the historical context is more likely to be true than one which appears to be at odds with it.
5. Rejection and Execution: A fact or event that looks as though it might provide a realistic explanation for the rejection or execution of Jesus is more likely to be true than the more tendentious explanations offered consciously by the gospel authors (e.g. divine providence, the Jews being in league with the devil etc.). (This criterion is less strong as it presumes historicity of the execution to begin with, but given that the execution of Jesus appears to satisfy each of the four previous criteria, it’s based on a fairly solid foundation so far as second-order criteria go.)
Pax.
Lee.
I am no longer going to “OK” anymore of Ark’s comments. He’s not stopping, like I knew he wouldn’t. I think the arguments have been laid out. I’m not in the mood to continue talk in circles.
After agreeing with Lee on what counts as evidence as per dictionary definitions I was actually going to offer an evidence-based answer to the question he posed last night, but was distracted by the football, and decided to leave it for this morning (South African time, of course.)
The answer is prepared so If you are interested then let me know and I’ll post it for Lee.
If not … no worries.
Well then, by all means.
Oh, so now you’re interested.
Before I consider posting, please, as a matter of consistency and intellectual integrity, and because, unlike secular historians who you are wont to disparage you do not have a presuppositional stance against the existence of God and the reality of the supernatural, why are you so vehemently against the evidence presented by the bible and endorsed by Ken Ham that the Noachian flood was historical fact?
Haha…calling your bluff. Post your response or not.
As a Biblical Scholar, I know the genre of writing Genesis 1-11 is, and it isn’t historical narrative. That’s why. Literary competency and genre recognition.
And your reply would be summarily dismissed, reviled and ridiculed by millions of those who consider the Noachian flood historically accurate, as you are well aware.
I suppose it all boils down to evidence does it not?
Have another go. And this time try to consider your reply from the perspective that the flood is like any other supernatural biblical event.
I have the response to Lee, by the way, but in light of the delay of this reply to my request I included it in a blog post of my own.
The full comment to Lee is there, and I think I may let it go live. You and Lee are, of course invited to comment and naturally, I do not moderate.
But I will offer you another opportunity to respond here.
And you haven’t provided a link.
Oh, I’m sorry. I thought it would be a simple matter of clicking on my Gravitar. No matter….. here you go.
https://attaleuntold.wordpress.com/2021/01/07/its-all-a-matter-of-evidence-mlud/
In your post, you write:
Therefore, by applying the Oxford English Dictionary definition of evidence I might well accept the tale of the resurrection of Lazarus as likely to be historically accurate if it can be shown to meet the criteria set out by the Oxford. Namely: (Does the)“The available body of facts or information indicate (ing) whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”
You’ve said nothing. To the question, “What evidence would convince you that a certain event (like the resurrection of Jesus or the raising of Lazarus) happened?” You responded basically with, “If the facts or information indicate whether a belief/proposition is true or valid.”
That is saying nothing. If I ask, “What evidence would convince you?” and you reply with, “If the facts/information are true,” you’ve said nothing.
As you are still having to fish my comments out of your ”trash” it would more productive and a lot easier, for me if we continued this discussion over on my blog where we can exchange ideas regarding this evidence in real time.
Cut and paste this response and drop in, no problem.
Lee seems not to have any issues so I can see no reason why you should be reluctant to ”show up”.
See you ”over there”?
Not worth my time. Like I said, after almost two years of trying to get an answer from you, you finally give an answer, and you say absolutely nothing.
As you accept the tale of Lazarus, and refuse to acknowledge that I too will accept it if it meets the dictionary criteria of evidence as Lee and I agreed upon, there must , therefore , bee another standard of evidence you adhere to.
Is this standard a version reserved for ”believers”, like you, I wonder?
If I ask, “What evidence would convince you?” And you respond with, “I’d be convinced if it met the dictionary definition of evidence,” again, you’ve said nothing. Once again, you are dodging and refusing to give a straight, intelligible answer.
What KIND OF EVIDENCE would convince you that something in the past happened? This is not a difficult question. It boggles my mind that after almost two years you are still unable to give a coherent answer.
ARK: Oh, and only ”crackpot” fundamentalists consider there is any truth to the Raising of the Saints episode or the Virgin Birth narrative.
I sincerely hope you don’t hang your hat with this crowd?
LEE: NT Wright cannot be called a “‘crackpot’ fundamentalist” yet even he is willing to suspend his disbelief regarding (more properly) the virgin conception. In his online essay “Suspending scepticism: History and the Virgin Birth” he writes:
“I can, however, run the process the other way. Because I am convinced that the creator God raised Jesus bodily from the dead, and because I am convinced that Jesus was and is the embodiment of this God, Israel’s God, my worldview is forced to reactivate various things in the suspense account, the birth narratives included.
“There are indeed more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in post-Enlightenment metaphysics. The ‘closed continuum’ of cause and effect is a modernist myth. The God who does not ‘intervene’ from outside but is always present and active within the world, sometimes shockingly, may well have been thus active on this occasion.
“It is all very well to get on one’s high metaphysical horse and insist that God cannot behave like this, but we do not know that ahead of time. Nor will the high moral horse do any better insisting that God ought not to do things like this, because they send the wrong message about sexuality or because divine parentage gave Jesus an unfair start over the rest of us. Such positions produce a cartoon picture: the mouse draws itself up to its full height, puts its paws on its hips and gives the elephant a good dressing down. . . .
“As with most ancient history, of course, we cannot verify independently that which is reported only in one source. If that gives grounds for ruling it out, however, most of ancient history goes with it. . . .
“It will not do to say that we know the laws of nature and that Joseph, Mary, the early church and the evangelists did not. Mary and Joseph hadn’t seen diagrams of Fallopian tubes, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t know where babies came from. Hence Mary’s question to Gabriel (in Luke), and Joseph’s determination to break the engagement (in Matthew).
“Nor can we say that if we believe this story we should believe all the other similar ones in the ancient world as well. Of course, the argument ‘miracles are possible therefore virginal conception is possible, therefore Jesus’ virginal conception may well be true,’ also commits one to saying, ‘therefore Augustus’s virginal conception may well be true.’ But that is not my argument. . . .
“Maybe, after all, it is the theory of the contemporary sceptic that is metaphor historicized. The modernist belief that history is a closed continuum of cause and effect is projected onto the screen of the early church, producing a myth (specifically, a tradition-historical reconstruction which sustains and legitimates the original belief so strongly that its proponents come to believe it actually happened).
“This foolishness is, of course, a way of saying that no ‘proof’ is possible either way. No one can prove, historically, that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. No one can prove, historically, that she wasn’t. Science studies the repeatable; history bumps its nose against the unrepeatable.
“If the first two chapters of Matthew and the first two of Luke had never existed, I do not suppose that my own Christian faith, or that of the church to which I belong, would have been very different.
“But since they do, and since for quite other reasons I have come to believe that the God of Israel, the world’s creator, was personally and fully revealed in and as Jesus of Nazareth, I hold open my historical judgment and say: If that’s what God deemed appropriate, who am I to object?”
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/suspending-scepticism-history-and-the-virgin-birth/10100888
ARK: Even Mike Licona acknowledges the Dead Saints episode is nothing but apocalyptic imagery, and not historical. In other words, fiction.
LEE: Which, even if true, doesn’t mean the gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are fiction.
Pax.
Lee.
ARK: The answer is prepared so If you are interested then let me know and I’ll post it for Lee
LEE: I can’t wait . . .
Pax.
Lee.
Ark, I think if you’ve read the Doc’s blogs over the years you will see pretty quickly that on a practical level it doesn’t matter whether someone believes Genesis 1-11 is unadulterated history or not. The problem comes when Ken Ham or others from AIG insist that their interpretation is the *only* valid interpretation and that to argue that the Genesis flood has elements of “artistic license” and was never intended as unbiased, factual history means one isn’t a true Christian. THAT is certainly my problem with Ken Ham. He’s entitled to believe that the Genesis flood account is factual scientific reporting if he chooses however he DOESN’T have the right to sit in judgment on other Christians who don’t agree with him.
Genesis doesn’t include an interpretive guide because it’s original audience 3,000 years ago wouldn’t have needed one. They understood what parts were intended as factual history and which parts were intended to be read figuratively. Westerners 3,000 years later typically bring our modern presuppositions to the text, tending to read it as we would our morning paper, yet that’s a mistake. You hafta read Genesis 1-11 through the lens of the ANE society which originally produced it.
Any first-year college literature course tells students that when reading a literary work one has to consider the context–historical, cultural, religious, etc. in order to properly interpret/understand it.
There’s a reason nobody reads Chaucer the same way they’d read a John Grisham novel. The same is true of biblical literature such as Genesis 1-11.
Pax.
Lee.