Gentlemen. We Are At War.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Are we really doing our part in the battle? http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/20...we-are-at-war/

[robertb]

“Please tell me why I should believe that Jesus rose from the dead.”

How would you answer this question, if you don't mind my asking?

[Apologiaphoenix]

I would start with the point that Christianity arose and thrived in an honor-shame society when it did everything wrong otherwise and I'd back that also with a minimal facts approach.

[robertb]

Thanks. Can you unpack this a bit?

What about an honor-shame society do you think is relevant to the question?

What do you mean by "when it did everything wrong otherwise"?

By "minimal facts approach" are you referring to something like Dr. Craig argues?

BTW, I am not interested in arguing or debating your approach, but am interested in how you would actually go about answering the question.

Thanks again.

[Manwë Súlimo]

I'm not sure who "invented" the Minimal Facts Approach, but Dr. Gary Habermas seems to be it's mascot. You can see several lectures of his regarding this approach on YouTube.

The honor-shame dynamic is relevant because most cultures in antiquity and in modern times regard as their chief value honor. Your family and individual social reputation is paramount - people often chose death over disgrace. The thing about Christianity is that just about every single facet of it's theology was abhorrent to what the ancient world valued, chiefly the fact that it's leader, Jesus, was crucified. Crucifixion was seen as so utterly dishonorable that the crucified man was regarded to be cursed by the gods. Basically, the long and short of it is this - Christianity wouldn't have exploded in popularity in the First Century unless people had a friggin' good reason to believe in it; namely, a resurrected body, vindicated from all shame by God.

Obviously, I'm summarizing. A short ~100 page book about the shamefullness of crucifixion can be read in Martin Hengel's Crucifixion (it's not a religious book, btw, it's merely an analysis of the historical bedrock of crucifixions in the ancient world).

[robertb]

I'm not sure who "invented" the Minimal Facts Approach, but Dr. Gary Habermas seems to be it's mascot. You can see several lectures of his regarding this approach on YouTube.

The honor-shame dynamic is relevant because most cultures in antiquity and in modern times regard as their chief value honor. Your family and individual social reputation is paramount - people often chose death over disgrace. The thing about Christianity is that just about every single facet of it's theology was abhorrent to what the ancient world valued, chiefly the fact that it's leader, Jesus, was crucified. Crucifixion was seen as so utterly dishonorable that the crucified man was regarded to be cursed by the gods. Basically, the long and short of it is this - Christianity wouldn't have exploded in popularity in the First Century unless people had a friggin' good reason to believe in it; namely, a resurrected body, vindicated from all shame by God.

Obviously, I'm summarizing. A short ~100 page book about the shamefullness of crucifixion can be read in Martin Hengel's Crucifixion (it's not a religious book, btw, it's merely an analysis of the historical bedrock of crucifixions in the ancient world).

Thanks for the information.

[OldHat]

I'm not sure who "invented" the Minimal Facts Approach, but Dr. Gary Habermas seems to be it's mascot.

I think it was Gary who invented it first for an essay when he was a non-believer and then others came along and provided their own type of minimal facts approach (like William Lane Craig).

[Apologiaphoenix]

For the former...

Christianity had a shameful Messiah in an honor-shame culture. You wanted to avoid shame, but crucifixion was the most shameful death of all.

Christianity taught resurrection. For the ancients, the body was a prison to escape. You didn't want to have a return to the body.

Christianity was a new belief. In the ancient world, antiquity and tradition was honored and novelty was looked at with suspicion.

Christianity taught exclusivism. In the ancient world, tolerance and inclusivism were the norms.

Christianity had a Messiah that had shameful origins such as being from a town of no reputation and a people of no reputation, even perhaps an illegitimate Messiah. (The Virgin Birth would have been seen as a way of avoiding that.)

Christianity taught you to not worship other gods or the emperor. This was a no-no in a culture where deviancy and individualistic actions would be viewed with suspicion.

Christianity had a Messiah who had a shameful behavior.

And this is just the start.

And yet, Christianity survived. The only reason I can think of that such a negative belief would survive is that people saw that it was true, and it in fact grew fast among the middle and upper class who had the resources to test the claims.


For the latter, I mean more along the lines of Licona and Habermas. These are facts agreed to by the majority of NT Scholars.

Jesus was crucified.
The tomb was found empty. (This is not unanimous but the majority hold to it.)
The disciples claimed to see the risen Christ.
James, a former skeptic, came to see his brother as the risen Lord.
Paul, a skeptic, became the greatest evangelist for the church.

[robertb]

Thanks AP.

Seems to me that what you are suggesting is that parishioners take a university level course or three...

[Apologiaphoenix]

No. They don't have to, but if they want to, no need to hold them back. They just need to be reading and studying and learning.

[alaskazimm]

Thanks AP.

Seems to me that what you are suggesting is that parishioners take a university level course or three...

A university level course is not needed. Check out the book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Mike Licona. It's written at the lay level and is really pretty easy to digest.

And JP Holding has a short book The Impossible Faith that covers the honor/shame aspect well.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Thanks AP.

Seems to me that what you are suggesting is that parishioners take a university level course or three...

Not really, but it's about time that the average church-goer starts reading books NOT by Joel Osteen. I actually find it fun.

[Raphael]

Thanks AP.

Seems to me that what you are suggesting is that parishioners take a university level course or three...

Not really Robert.

We are called to make disciples. that to me means that people need to be being educated on things, it doesn't need to be formal education though and there are some very good resources out there that are pitched at a lay level.

[robertb]

No. They don't have to, but if they want to, no need to hold them back. They just need to be reading and studying and learning.

I can appreciate that, though there is definitely a mountain of background information one must delve into in order to understand how to support this minimal facts approach. Or so it seems to me.

[Apologiaphoenix]

No. Not really. If one wants to go deeper, sure, but one can get enough just from reading Licona and Habermas's book.