Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

    What do I think of Sandoval's book?

    The link can be found here.

    The text is as follows:

    What do I think of Chris Sandoval's book published by Trafford Publishing? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    Can Christians Prove The Resurrection is a book by a skeptic of Christianity written to show that while a disproof may not be possible of the resurrection, it is very far from proven. To his credit, this is probably the best book I've read attacking the resurrection. I suspect that many not familiar with the ins and outs of the Biblical world could find themselves concerned about what they read. For those of us who do know something about the scholarship in the area, it's still highly lacking.

    Also to be fair, Sandoval is not a typical new atheist type. He does at least have a bibliography, although one that I think is lacking at times. Naturally, any mention of Richard Carrier is enough to make me wonder but a few times Wikipedia is also cited which is problematic. Still, he's not just someone parroting other new atheists and there isn't a hint of mythicism in the book.

    Much of his argumentation relies on what he calls the principle of Judas's nose. The Bible never says that Judas has a nose, but it's fair to think that he did because all people we see for the most part have one and we should take the mundane ordinary explanation over something extraordinary. He gives the example that when you hear hoofbeats, you think horses and not zebras.

    This principle can work in many ways, but the problem is that too often Sandoval has assumed the physical similarities but has ignored the cultural dissimilarities. Sandoval writes not paying attention to the social world of the New Testament. Thus, arguments I favor relying on the honor and shame context of the New Testament world to defend the resurrection aren't even touched and when we get to his attacks on the resurrection instead of his defensive position, it gets worse.

    There are also times I think Sandoval presses to heavily on biblical inerrancy, all the while knowing that some apologists like C.S. Lewis rejected it. Sandoval goes after fundamentalists, but in many ways it looks like he has some fundamentalism in him himself. This will become even more apparent when we get to this attack on the resurrection. That having been said, he finds it interesting that evangelicals would want to side with people like Lewis who did not hold to inerrancy. Well why not? Lewis believed in the risen Lord like I did. I know a good number of Christians who don't hold to inerrancy but they are some of the most devout people I know.

    Sandoval also starts with the burden of proof and how history is done. He agrees with McCullagh for the most part with ideas like explanatory scope and avoiding ad hoc items and such. Some of you will recognize this from Mike Licona's work and to be fair, it looks like this book was written before or as that book came out so you won't see interaction with Licona's massive tome in here.

    He does argue against miracles without any mention of Earman and of course, we now have Keener's work on miracles and again, we cannot criticize Sandoval here for not having a reply to something that hadn't come out yet. It would be interesting to see if he might revise his thesis if he read Keener. Still, Sandoval says that saying God exists and miracles are possible is ad hoc and implausible, though not impossible, yet I wonder what is ad hoc about it? Is this not taking not just skepticism of the resurrection but skepticism of theism as the default position, something I have written on elsewhere?

    He also uses the problem of evil in saying that if we were God, we would have intervened in XYZ. Well would we? If we were God, we would also know the end from the beginning. Sandoval implies that being God would mean no new knowledge of the situation that would change one's data. Well if he thinks that's the case, I'll leave it to him to demonstrate that.

    When we get to eyewitnesses, on page 48 we are told that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses ignored eyewitness opponents when they started their movements. Christians likewise did the same. Okay. What eyewitnesses? Name them. In fact, if we looked at the earliest opponents of Christianity, we would find that they not only held to basic truths any historian would agree to, such as Jesus being a real person who was crucified, but also that he in fact did miracles.

    Now of course, we could say there were people who wrote against Christianity and their writings were lost due to events like the Jewish war in 70 A.D., but that's not the same as saying that they were there and even if they were there, that they were ignored. If we went by Acts, we could even say Apollos is an example that they weren't ignored since he engaged the Jews in public debate demonstrating that Jesus is the Christ. (Acts 18:27-28. This would also demonstrate that even far away, the facts of the life of Jesus were being discussed.)

    Sandoval also argues that the eyewitness argument would prove more than would like to be admitted, such as the miracles of people like Kathryn Kuhlmann and other Pentecostals. What of it? Let's suppose that we have eyewitness testimony that they did miracles. Let's investigate the claims and see what we can find. If there were real miracles, well and good. That's another point in my favor and one against Sandoval.

    What about someone like Sabbatai Sevi? The difference is not that stories arose around him, but even in a short time those stories were jettisoned because of Sevi's apostasy to Islam. The claim is not that legends can grow in a short time, but what does it take to get a legend to come up and totally supplant the truth of what happened in the critical stage of a belief system's formation? The resurrection was formulated straight out of the gate (And might I add the full deity of Christ) and there wasn't a competing Christian tradition until around the time of the second century when we have the Gnostics showing up and their denying the bodily resurrection would in fact make Christianity more appealing to Romans and such, but the orthodox would have nothing of it.

    Another figure that could come up is the Baal Shem Tov. For that, I can give no better source I think than my friend David Marshall. Marshall also rightfully asks that if we have these accounts that are supposed to be so close to the life of the individual and have eyewitness testimony of miracles, well why not believe it? It looks like the ultimate answer would come down to "Because I don't believe in miracles." I often see skeptics saying that they don't rule out miracles outright, but then when any evidence is presented, it must be denied because a miracle cannot be allowed.

    Sandoval writes that miracles proves all these worldviews, or it proves nothing. Well that depends. You see, I have no problem with miracles in other worldviews. I think some of them could be God showing common grace. Some could also be due to dark supernatural powers. I don't know without looking but here's the thing. I won't say yes or no without looking. Can I be skeptical? Sure, but I should also be open.

    What we have to ask is what is being proven in other worldviews? Christianity is the one religion that staked everything on one historical claim. No other world religion has done the same. What does the resurrection mean if true for Sandoval? Is it just "Jesus is Lord and we will go to Heaven when we die if we believe on Him?" If so, then that is lacking. It is really that Jesus made numerous claims about the Kingdom of God that centered around Him and His being the Messiah and the resurrection is God Himself vindicating those claims.

    Sandoval also wants to speak about how creative Christians were in handing down their texts and uses Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 and the final chapter of John as his main examples. Well if we were wanting to talk about creative, much of this is mild. The appearances are found elsewhere and after John 20:28, Jesus helping catch fish is not exactly a huge step up. If stories were being created, we would expect the Christians to write something like the Gospel of Peter into the canonical Gospels. They didn't.

    In fact, it's quite interesting that someone like Matthew while regularly showing throughout his text how prophecy was fulfilled says absolutely nothing when it comes to the resurrection. He never says "This fulfilled the Scriptures." If you want to know what the resurrection means theologically, you must go to Paul. Had the writers been wanting to historicize prophecy as someone like Crossan would say, the resurrection would be the best place for them to do that, and they never did.

    He also argues that the Gospels were not valued equally, such as Luke wanting to drive out his predecessors, though all that is said is that he used sources before him, which was common. Because the writer of 1 Timothy used Luke, it is thought the other Gospels were not valued, but this no more follows than my quoting Matthew in a sermon sometime would mean I didn't care for the other Gospels. Also, we are told Justin Martyr did not use John, but such a scholar as Michael Kruger has called that into question.

    There is often much conjecture, such as saying that the Christians put an end to prophecy due to factions. This is odd since in a letter written to a community with factions, namely 1 Corinthians, Paul speaks highly about the gift of prophecy. Second, he argues that the next step taken was to go with Apostolic succession to stop the rumor mill and then to canonize four Gospels that contained information some Christians probably knew to be false. This is on page 56 and there is no citation given. The scenario is ad hoc indeed.

    Sandoval also says many cults and such rely on peer pressure. The reality is that peer pressure would work in the opposite way for the Christians. Christians would experience peer pressure from their society to not be different from everyone else and not to accept new belief systems that conflict with the Roman belief system and have shameful beliefs and practices. Sandoval's claim then works against him. Were peer pressure to be a strong deterrent in the early church, we would expect it to go the opposite way. Keep in mind Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians considering apostasizing and this without having to have any persecution in a physical sense. They are simply being shamed and that is enough for them to want to return to Judaism.

    This is really a major problem for Sandoval. He writes as if he assumes that all cultures are alike and that if individualistic peer pressure is a problem here, then it would have been in the ancient world. This is a radical claim that needs to be established since one of the first rules of understanding a foreign culture is to not presume that it is just like yours. Remove this assumption from Sandoval and much of his case falls flat.

    He also tells us that history is written by the winners, but what about Xenophon? What about Thucydides? These were not the winners and yet they wrote the history. This ultimately leads to a subjectivism of history if we follow it to its conclusion.

    When he writes about people who were outside of the church and wrote about Christianity, he says that clearly these writers knew only what they heard from the Christians themselves. Well no, that's not clear. It's not clear to scholars of Tacitus for instance, especially since Tacitus did not speak favorably of Christ or the Christians and wrote against hearsay and even did not take everything Pliny the Younger said at face value, who was his closest friend. Tacitus would have access to records as a senator and priest we would no longer have access to. Sandoval also says this was Celsus's only source, aside from Jewish Christians who were limited to Christian sources. It's amazing what Sandoval thinks he can know about a work that we don't even have a full copy of today.

    When it comes to the dating of the Gospels, Sandoval pretty much plants everything on the Olivet Disource, but this I find quite odd. If Sandoval is so sure that this is a false prophecy, which he has a chapter on, why would Matthew and Luke write about it after the fact? Why not just not mention it?

    He also wants us to call into question tradition from people like Irenaeus on the authors of the Gospels because Irenaeus thought Jesus lived to be 50. What is ignored is that Irenaeus does not get 50 from any tradition, but rather from his own unique doctrine of recapitulation. In fact, when Irenaeus speaks of the Gospels, he speaks as if his audience already knows what he is talking about and that there is no debate over. In fact, there never has been debate over this in the early church aside from if the Gospel of John is from John the apostle or John the elder. You can listen to my interview with Charles Hill for more.

    He also wants to use the usual canards about Mark getting the geography of Palestine wrong in Mark 7, as if only direct travel could be mentioned and not an itinerary. Sandoval also mentions the Gospels being anonymous citing page 66 of Sanders's book. It's unfortunate that he doesn't give the quote from that pages. It goes as follows:

    The authors probably wanted to eliminate interest in who wrote the story and to focus the reader on the subject. More important, the claim of an anonymous history was higher than that of a named work. In the ancient world an anonymous book, rather like an encyclopedia article today, implicitly claimed complete knowledge and reliability. It would have reduced the impact of the Gospel of Matthew had the author written 'this is my version' instead of 'this is what Jesus said and did.' - The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders page 66.
    We could go on with more at this point, but for now the work is not convincing. At least Sandoval is trying to interact, but it looks like what he does is just try to find a place where he thinks someone is unreliable and then say "Well based on that, why should we trust them elsewhere?" Follow this standard consistently and you will never trust anyone on anything.

    Sandoval also writes that if Jesus had performed miracles like these, most Jews would have followed Him. Well why? This from someone who cites Deuteronomy 13 later on about following a false prophet who even does miracles is surprising. Jews did not follow Jesus because miracles were not enough in themselves. It was His teaching and shameful lifestyle. Yet Sandoval wants to say then that these stories must be fictitious because of these reasons. He also says the Gospel stories could have been coherent without the nature miracles, so those must be an afterthought. There is no backing for this radical claim.

    When it comes to the claims of Jesus being traced back through oral tradition, Sandoval follows a Carrier strategy and says that Paul was receiving revelation from a heavenly Christ. His main place for this is in 1 Cor. 11, but he ignores Keener's work on the historical Jesus where Keener points out that Jewish rabbis would say they received material from Sinai. They do not mean they heard Sinai speak but that that was the ultimate source. When it comes to 1 Cor. 11, Jesus is the ultimate source since He spoke those words. This would not apply to 1 Cor. 15 where Jesus did not speak about eyewitnesses seeing him.

    He also writes about mass hallucinations, namely Catholic appearances and such. Well first off, let's try to investigate and see what happened. Second, these were also a lot of power of suggestion and not so much hallucinations as people could well be seeing something and interpreting it wrongly. A hallucination is a case where someone sees something when really there is no external referent to see. If we consider the dancing sun, I have been told that if people stare at the sun for too long, that it will start affecting their eyes so they see weird things. (I have not tried this and have no intention of doing so. I don't want permanent retinal damage and excuse me, but I happen to enjoy looking at my wife and don't want that to change.)

    Sandoval also writes of bereavement hallucinations. No doubt, these happen, but how many times do we see these happening and the person afterwards says something like "My spouse is alive! Open up the casket!" No. If anything, bereavement hallucinations in fact lead to the opposite conclusion. They lead to the conclusion that the person is certainly dead.

    The next chapter is on the idea of persecution. Of course, this was written before Sean McDowell's Ph.D. on the topic so we can excuse that, but in all this talk about persecution there is not one mention of shaming. It's as if the only kind of persecution Sandoval can picture is persecution that puts your life on the line. Christians could run from that kind of persecution, but they could not run from shaming and if he wants to say early Mormons lived virtuous lives, I simply want him to explain the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

    In fact, in all of this Sandoval never asks one question. "Why were Christians persecuted?" What great crime were they committing? Answer. They were putting society at risk by failing to acknowledge the gods. They were also going further by saying Caesar is not Lord but Jesus was. There was no separation of church and state. Attacking religion is attacking the state and attacking the state is attacking religion.

    Sandoval also says Paul's conversion is not miraculous. After all, Reagan went from being a liberal to being a conservative. He gives other examples but all of this miss who Paul really was. Sandoval wants to say Paul had to understand the wrestling with sin since he wrote in Romans 7 which he says is not likely autobiographical but surely Paul knew the wrestling. Well no. Paul's testimony in Philippians 3 gives no hint whatsoever of any wrestling and Sandoval is reading a modern guilt conscience into this, something Krister Stendahl wrote about this long ago in his work on Paul and the introspective conscience of the West.

    Paul's move was in fact suicide on his part. If we want to think about benefits Paul got from being a Christian, we need to look at 2 Cor. 11. Those are not exactly glowing job benefits we would want. Paul was moving up and up in a prestigious position. Why would he switch to a shameful position? Unfortunately, since Sandoval does not know about honor and shame, he does not understand what was really going on in the case of Paul.

    When we come to Sandoval's explanation of what happened, he first goes after the claim that Joseph of Arimathea saying that it's odd he does not show up in Acts. Well what's odd about that? For instance, Mary Magdalene will fit into Sandoval's scheme, but the only place she could be mentioned is Acts is a reference to "The women" in Acts 1. Many people just drop out of the narrative so why expect Joseph to be mentioned?

    Sandoval's explanation for all the data relies on Mary Magdalene having a bereavement hallucination and then Peter exploiting her financially for it. For the tomb being found empty, he goes more with the idea of grave robbers, though grave robbers would not likely steal the whole body but only the parts that were needed for their incantations. Again, I find it all lacking. He does want to compare the appearances also to what happened with the claims of Mormonism, though I think Rob Bowman has given an excellent reply to that in my interview with him.

  • #2
    Part 2

    So now we get more into Sandoval's scenario. Sandoval sees the idea of Mary having an exorcism as a sign that she was emotionally fragile. Also, she was secretly in love with Jesus and had a nervous breakdown after the crucifixion. She panicked when a young man at the tomb said the body was missing and fled and later thought that it meant an angel had appeared to explain the supernatural disappearance of the body. She told this to her lady friends who had also had exorcisms and they had powerful feelings of Jesus's invisible presence.

    Peter after hearing about this started to experience the same and saw a career opportunity. He could rely on Mary Magdalene and the others in the Christian movement and not have to do any work and become the leader of a Messianic movement. Peter would then speak to crowds and was such a dynamic speaker that others would feel the presence of Jesus and if they didn't, well they were the doubters who weren't worthy. This is also why the appearance to the 500 isn't mentioned because it was known to be subjective.

    At this, let me give an aside. Paul relates this 20+ years later to the Corinthians not as new revelation to them, but something that they already know. This was accepted material. Why was it not mentioned in the Gospels? Why should it be? The Gospels were not written to prove the resurrection but to share the life and teachings of Jesus. Had they been written to prove the resurrection, they would have just focused on that and in fact answered objections. They didn't.

    To go back to the story, when we get to James, Sandoval continues his flights of fancy as he says that after Joseph died, Jesus abandoned his mother and brothers and ran away to join John the Baptist embarrassing his family financially. Evidence of this? None whatsoever. When the family approached Jesus in Mark 3, it was because he had shirked his financial responsibilities.

    Sandoval also says a lot of this creativeness comes through the oral tradition, but as expected, he cites no scholars whatsoever of oral tradition. It is all just presumed to be unreliable. Maybe it was, but Sandoval needs to make a case instead of just an assumption.

    When we get to other objections, Sandoval brings forward the idea that some first century Jews believed that Elijah and John the Baptist would be raised from the dead before the general resurrection. They do? When was this? I especially wonder with John the Baptist. Did Elijah have an important role to play in end times events? Yes, but Jews would not say Elijah had been raised from the dead due to the simple reason that in their tradition, Elijah never died! The common people did think Jesus could be someone come back from the dead, but there is no hint that they thought this meant the final eschatological resurrection.

    We are also told that novelty is not impossible and Mormonism is the example of that, but Mormonism arose in a modern individualistic society with a more live and let live attitude and where the Mormons had wide open spaces they could flee to. Their tradition also changed quite rapidly and we do have independent evidence that Joseph Smith was a highly questionable character. If someone wanted to say Islam, one thing differentiates Islam. Islam had a sword. Remove the warring aspect from Islam and see what happens.

    Sandoval also writes about how the Christians destroyed the library of Alexandria. Unfortunately, it looks like Sandoval has followed an atheist myth, perhaps in the footsteps of Richard Carrier. An atheist like Tim O'Neill takes it to task here. He also says that Justinian passed a law against pagan teachers which meant shutting down the academy of Plato. Nonsense. There were plenty of neo-Platonic schools. Justinian did close a school but not because it taught Platonic teachings, but because it was founded by anti-Christians and including anti-Christian teachings.

    We will now move to the offensive case of Sandoval starting first with how the New Testament supposedly ripped the Old Testament out of context. If you're wanting to see if Richard Longenecker's Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period is cited, well you already know the answer. Of course not. In this, Sandoval is being the fundamentalist that he condemns.

    My view is of prophecy not so much as fulfillment but as reenactment. Now were there fulfillments? Yes. These were the case where specific timeframes were mentioned such as Daniel 2 and Daniel 9. (In fact, these would not be altered even if the late date for Daniel was accepted) In this case, it is that Jesus redoes as it was what was done back then and a this for that context is applied where the writer sees a parallel. It could even just be one verse in the passage instead of the whole passage. This was an acceptable method of exegesis in the time of Jesus and in fact done by the Dead Sea Scrolls community. We would not use it today, but the Christians were playing by the rules.

    One key example of this would be Matthew 15:8 where Jesus says to the Pharisees that Isaiah prophesied of them saying "These people follow me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me." Of course Isaiah was not speaking about the Pharisees, but Jesus saw a parallel that as the Jews were in the time of Isaiah, so the Pharisees were in the time of Jesus. This was entirely acceptable in the time. This would apply to many of these events, but let's look at some places Sandoval brings up anyway.

    One is that Matthew cites an unknown prophet in Matthew 2 saying Jesus would grow up in Nazareth. My reply to this is that this is a time where Jesus says prophets instead of prophet. I interpret it as saying Jesus would grow up a shameful figure and what could be more shameful than Nazareth?

    We naturally have the idea that Jesus supposedly rode two animals at once when he came in on the triumphant entry. What is noted is that there is the reference also to the garments being sat on the animal and Jesus sat on them. The them is not to the animals but to the garments. Matthew may have been wrong, but he is not an idiot. He does not presume to think Jesus can ride two animals at once.

    We next move to contradictions. Much of this I want to leave for Mike Licona's work likely coming out in the fall looking at contradictions in light of the study of Greco-Roman biographies. Still, Sandoval starts by saying that some Gospels plagiarized the others which would be a violation of American copyright law today. Well no. Copyright law did not apply naturally in the ancient world and secondly, what was said by one Gospel writer would be the property of the church and the church could do with it what it wanted. There is nothing more in this chapter that cannot be found talked about in good commentaries, so let's move to my favorite chapter, the last.

    I love this one so much because it brings one of my favorite objections to eliminate. Jesus was a failed prophet. Sandoval has already expected that Christians will spiritualize a text rather than take it literally, which of course begs the question that it's to be taken "literally" to begin with.

    Sandoval goes by two tests. The first is that a teacher would show up leading people away from God to follow a contrary system and Jesus did this by abolishing the Law and then of course there are ideas like the Trinity. Sandoval makes no mention of passages in the Old Testament that speak about a new covenant and about God doing something new in the midst of the people. He does in fact rightly show that the word translated as "forever" can refer to an indefinite time, but unconvincingly says that this cannot apply to the Law itself. While the term everlasting is used of God, it is followed with superlatives such as "From everlasting to everlasting."

    Yet let's go to my favorite. Jesus was wrong about the end of the world. The problem is Jesus is not saying a thing about the end of the world and you'd think that someone who cites N.T. Wright would know about this. Perhaps Sandoval did not really read Wright but just looked up a reference. Jesus is speaking in the manner of an Old Testament prophet and uses cosmic language to describe political events. What he is prophesying is in fact the great war of 70 A.D. and the destruction of the temple. In that case, Jesus's prophecy was right on the money.

    In fact, it's really sad he does this because he rightfully gets that the whole world in the discourse can just as easily refer to the Roman Empire and that Paul said he preached to every creature under Heaven which would be seen as a fulfillment of that prophecy. Sandoval just has a hang-up on literalism in this passage. Unfortunately, he will see my explanation as an explaining away and spiritualizing instead of realizing that there is a good exegetical basis for this.

    I prefer to point to 2 Samuel 22. If we take that literally, we should expect to find a case in the life of David where God hitched up Gabriel and Michael and came out flying Green Arrow style shooting his enemies with arrows. Search high and low and you will not find that. What it is is David is using the kind of terminology that was used in his day. We could point to similar passages like Isaiah 13.

    The irony then is that rather than this being a sign that Jesus was a false prophet, it is a great sign that He was a true prophet. Of course, Sandoval could punt to a late date, but if he does that due to it being a prophecy, then he is letting his worldview interpret the data where he says it must be late because prophecy cannot happen. I still find it odd that if this is such a blatant false prophecy that it would be written after the fact. (It's interesting that if it was also, Matthew nowhere says "This prophecy of Jesus was fulfilled in the destruction of the temple." Perhaps Matthew didn't say that because it hadn't happened yet?)

    In conclusion, while Sandoval's work is the best I've read attacking the resurrection, it is still drastically weak. I am reminded of the adage that one of the best ways to increase your confidence in the resurrection is to read those who oppose it. At the same time, we need more work on the social context being brought to light in the church because those who hold to a modern concept of how societies work will struggle with this work.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

    Comment


    • #3
      I took one look at Sandoval's bibliography and knew right away it was just another crapshoot production. Now that I see some details, particularly that bit about the library of Alexandria....

      ....excuse me, does anyone have any ipecac?

      Comment


      • #4
        Oh, and I should note a humorous irony for all of us here. Does the name "Trafford Publishing" sound familiar?

        It should....

        51CVxtiGJtL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          Part 2

          So now we get more into Sandoval's scenario. Sandoval sees the idea of Mary having an exorcism as a sign that she was emotionally fragile. Also, she was secretly in love with Jesus and had a nervous breakdown after the crucifixion. She panicked when a young man at the tomb said the body was missing and fled and later thought that it meant an angel had appeared to explain the supernatural disappearance of the body. She told this to her lady friends who had also had exorcisms and they had powerful feelings of Jesus's invisible presence.

          Peter after hearing about this started to experience the same and saw a career opportunity. He could rely on Mary Magdalene and the others in the Christian movement and not have to do any work and become the leader of a Messianic movement. Peter would then speak to crowds and was such a dynamic speaker that others would feel the presence of Jesus and if they didn't, well they were the doubters who weren't worthy. This is also why the appearance to the 500 isn't mentioned because it was known to be subjective.

          At this, let me give an aside. Paul relates this 20+ years later to the Corinthians not as new revelation to them, but something that they already know. This was accepted material. Why was it not mentioned in the Gospels? Why should it be? The Gospels were not written to prove the resurrection but to share the life and teachings of Jesus. Had they been written to prove the resurrection, they would have just focused on that and in fact answered objections. They didn't.

          To go back to the story, when we get to James, Sandoval continues his flights of fancy as he says that after Joseph died, Jesus abandoned his mother and brothers and ran away to join John the Baptist embarrassing his family financially. Evidence of this? None whatsoever. When the family approached Jesus in Mark 3, it was because he had shirked his financial responsibilities.

          Sandoval also says a lot of this creativeness comes through the oral tradition, but as expected, he cites no scholars whatsoever of oral tradition. It is all just presumed to be unreliable. Maybe it was, but Sandoval needs to make a case instead of just an assumption.

          When we get to other objections, Sandoval brings forward the idea that some first century Jews believed that Elijah and John the Baptist would be raised from the dead before the general resurrection. They do? When was this? I especially wonder with John the Baptist. Did Elijah have an important role to play in end times events? Yes, but Jews would not say Elijah had been raised from the dead due to the simple reason that in their tradition, Elijah never died! The common people did think Jesus could be someone come back from the dead, but there is no hint that they thought this meant the final eschatological resurrection.

          We are also told that novelty is not impossible and Mormonism is the example of that, but Mormonism arose in a modern individualistic society with a more live and let live attitude and where the Mormons had wide open spaces they could flee to. Their tradition also changed quite rapidly and we do have independent evidence that Joseph Smith was a highly questionable character. If someone wanted to say Islam, one thing differentiates Islam. Islam had a sword. Remove the warring aspect from Islam and see what happens.

          Sandoval also writes about how the Christians destroyed the library of Alexandria. Unfortunately, it looks like Sandoval has followed an atheist myth, perhaps in the footsteps of Richard Carrier. An atheist like Tim O'Neill takes it to task here. He also says that Justinian passed a law against pagan teachers which meant shutting down the academy of Plato. Nonsense. There were plenty of neo-Platonic schools. Justinian did close a school but not because it taught Platonic teachings, but because it was founded by anti-Christians and including anti-Christian teachings.

          We will now move to the offensive case of Sandoval starting first with how the New Testament supposedly ripped the Old Testament out of context. If you're wanting to see if Richard Longenecker's Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period is cited, well you already know the answer. Of course not. In this, Sandoval is being the fundamentalist that he condemns.

          My view is of prophecy not so much as fulfillment but as reenactment. Now were there fulfillments? Yes. These were the case where specific timeframes were mentioned such as Daniel 2 and Daniel 9. (In fact, these would not be altered even if the late date for Daniel was accepted) In this case, it is that Jesus redoes as it was what was done back then and a this for that context is applied where the writer sees a parallel. It could even just be one verse in the passage instead of the whole passage. This was an acceptable method of exegesis in the time of Jesus and in fact done by the Dead Sea Scrolls community. We would not use it today, but the Christians were playing by the rules.

          One key example of this would be Matthew 15:8 where Jesus says to the Pharisees that Isaiah prophesied of them saying "These people follow me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me." Of course Isaiah was not speaking about the Pharisees, but Jesus saw a parallel that as the Jews were in the time of Isaiah, so the Pharisees were in the time of Jesus. This was entirely acceptable in the time. This would apply to many of these events, but let's look at some places Sandoval brings up anyway.

          One is that Matthew cites an unknown prophet in Matthew 2 saying Jesus would grow up in Nazareth. My reply to this is that this is a time where Jesus says prophets instead of prophet. I interpret it as saying Jesus would grow up a shameful figure and what could be more shameful than Nazareth?

          We naturally have the idea that Jesus supposedly rode two animals at once when he came in on the triumphant entry. What is noted is that there is the reference also to the garments being sat on the animal and Jesus sat on them. The them is not to the animals but to the garments. Matthew may have been wrong, but he is not an idiot. He does not presume to think Jesus can ride two animals at once.

          We next move to contradictions. Much of this I want to leave for Mike Licona's work likely coming out in the fall looking at contradictions in light of the study of Greco-Roman biographies. Still, Sandoval starts by saying that some Gospels plagiarized the others which would be a violation of American copyright law today. Well no. Copyright law did not apply naturally in the ancient world and secondly, what was said by one Gospel writer would be the property of the church and the church could do with it what it wanted. There is nothing more in this chapter that cannot be found talked about in good commentaries, so let's move to my favorite chapter, the last.

          I love this one so much because it brings one of my favorite objections to eliminate. Jesus was a failed prophet. Sandoval has already expected that Christians will spiritualize a text rather than take it literally, which of course begs the question that it's to be taken "literally" to begin with.

          Sandoval goes by two tests. The first is that a teacher would show up leading people away from God to follow a contrary system and Jesus did this by abolishing the Law and then of course there are ideas like the Trinity. Sandoval makes no mention of passages in the Old Testament that speak about a new covenant and about God doing something new in the midst of the people. He does in fact rightly show that the word translated as "forever" can refer to an indefinite time, but unconvincingly says that this cannot apply to the Law itself. While the term everlasting is used of God, it is followed with superlatives such as "From everlasting to everlasting."

          Yet let's go to my favorite. Jesus was wrong about the end of the world. The problem is Jesus is not saying a thing about the end of the world and you'd think that someone who cites N.T. Wright would know about this. Perhaps Sandoval did not really read Wright but just looked up a reference. Jesus is speaking in the manner of an Old Testament prophet and uses cosmic language to describe political events. What he is prophesying is in fact the great war of 70 A.D. and the destruction of the temple. In that case, Jesus's prophecy was right on the money.

          In fact, it's really sad he does this because he rightfully gets that the whole world in the discourse can just as easily refer to the Roman Empire and that Paul said he preached to every creature under Heaven which would be seen as a fulfillment of that prophecy. Sandoval just has a hang-up on literalism in this passage. Unfortunately, he will see my explanation as an explaining away and spiritualizing instead of realizing that there is a good exegetical basis for this.

          I prefer to point to 2 Samuel 22. If we take that literally, we should expect to find a case in the life of David where God hitched up Gabriel and Michael and came out flying Green Arrow style shooting his enemies with arrows. Search high and low and you will not find that. What it is is David is using the kind of terminology that was used in his day. We could point to similar passages like Isaiah 13.

          The irony then is that rather than this being a sign that Jesus was a false prophet, it is a great sign that He was a true prophet. Of course, Sandoval could punt to a late date, but if he does that due to it being a prophecy, then he is letting his worldview interpret the data where he says it must be late because prophecy cannot happen. I still find it odd that if this is such a blatant false prophecy that it would be written after the fact. (It's interesting that if it was also, Matthew nowhere says "This prophecy of Jesus was fulfilled in the destruction of the temple." Perhaps Matthew didn't say that because it hadn't happened yet?)

          In conclusion, while Sandoval's work is the best I've read attacking the resurrection, it is still drastically weak. I am reminded of the adage that one of the best ways to increase your confidence in the resurrection is to read those who oppose it. At the same time, we need more work on the social context being brought to light in the church because those who hold to a modern concept of how societies work will struggle with this work.

          In Christ,
          Nick Peters
          Nick,

          The problem with your position, as I have told you many times, is that your belief in a bodily resurrection of only ONE human being in all of human history rests entirely on assumptions and generalizations. "No first century Jew, living in an honor-shame society would do such and such or believe such and such..." You cannot prove that there were never any exceptions to your generalizations, therefore we are all left to each individually make a decision. Which is more probable:

          1. An exception to the standard rules of behavior and thinking for first century Jews (and pagans) occurred in circa 33 AD.

          or

          2. A dead man really did come back to life in a "heavenly" body and appeared numerous times to his followers, family, and to one Pharisee a few years later.

          If you believe that supernatural events/miracles are a common occurrence in our world, then choosing #2 is no big stretch of the imagination. However, if you believe that miracles are the least likely explanation of any odd event, by the very definition of the word, then the chances of the event in question being due to a natural explanation, such as a breach of first century Jewish protocol, is much, much more probable.

          This debate between Christians and skeptics will never reach a successful conclusion until either you convince us of the higher probability of miracles, or, we convince you that anecdotal claims of miracles, even if they number in the tens of thousands, are not considered good evidence for their reality. In order for most skeptics to accept the reality of miracles/the supernatural, we want to see standardized scientific/medical testing of these events. If you can provide us with examples of this type of evidence you may convince us, but showing us claims that John Doe in the hinterland of China was healed of his pancreatic cancer by ten people praying to Jesus is not going to cut it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Gary View Post
            Nick,

            The problem with your position, as I have told you many times, is that your belief in a bodily resurrection of only ONE human being in all of human history rests entirely on assumptions and generalizations. "No first century Jew, living in an honor-shame society would do such and such or believe such and such..." You cannot prove that there were never any exceptions to your generalizations, therefore we are all left to each individually make a decision. Which is more probable:
            Yeah. I've heard many times pointing to these exceptional Jews who did believe differently.

            Where are they?

            1. An exception to the standard rules of behavior and thinking for first century Jews (and pagans) occurred in circa 33 AD.

            or

            2. A dead man really did come back to life in a "heavenly" body and appeared numerous times to his followers, family, and to one Pharisee a few years later.
            We go with the evidence. I have no prejudice against miracles so it's not a problem.

            If you believe that supernatural events/miracles are a common occurrence in our world, then choosing #2 is no big stretch of the imagination.
            Who said they're common? If they were, they wouldn't be miracles.

            However, if you believe that miracles are the least likely explanation of any odd event, by the very definition of the word, then the chances of the event in question being due to a natural explanation, such as a breach of first century Jewish protocol, is much, much more probable.
            Fine. Then produce a more convincing theory that explains all the data.

            This debate between Christians and skeptics will never reach a successful conclusion until either you convince us of the higher probability of miracles, or, we convince you that anecdotal claims of miracles, even if they number in the tens of thousands, are not considered good evidence for their reality. In order for most skeptics to accept the reality of miracles/the supernatural, we want to see standardized scientific/medical testing of these events. If you can provide us with examples of this type of evidence you may convince us, but showing us claims that John Doe in the hinterland of China was healed of his pancreatic cancer by ten people praying to Jesus is not going to cut it.
            If there was standardized testing, it would not be a miracle. It would just be a natural part of the universe that we did not explain. I have suggested you read Keener. Have you done that yet?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Gary View Post
              The problem with your position, as I have told you many times, is that your belief in a bodily resurrection of only ONE human being in all of human history rests entirely on assumptions and generalizations. "No first century Jew, living in an honor-shame society would do such and such or believe such and such..." You cannot prove that there were never any exceptions to your generalizations, therefore we are all left to each individually make a decision.
              Good night, you're every bit as stupid and desperate as the rumors say you are. Get brain surgery.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                Yeah. I've heard many times pointing to these exceptional Jews who did believe differently.

                Where are they?



                We go with the evidence. I have no prejudice against miracles so it's not a problem.



                Who said they're common? If they were, they wouldn't be miracles.



                Fine. Then produce a more convincing theory that explains all the data.



                If there was standardized testing, it would not be a miracle. It would just be a natural part of the universe that we did not explain. I have suggested you read Keener. Have you done that yet?
                Skeptics have produced numerous natural explanations for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection, but due to your hard and fast generalizations regarding the beliefs and behaviors of first century Jews, you refuse to see these natural explanations as more probable than a supernatural/miracle explanation. We could give you a list of one hundred natural explanations and you will never believe them more probable than your supernatural/miracle explanation if you regard the possibility of miracles as high as you do. That is the problem. Christians and skeptics must reach an agreement on the probability of miracles before we can ever hope to come to an agreement on this alleged historical event.

                Regarding Keener: Your standard for evaluating a miracle claim is probably very different from mine. Tell me if I am wrong. See for me, as a physician, I would require the following to believe any miracle claim:

                ---I would personally want to review all the evidence such as blood tests, imaging studies, medical records.
                ---I would want to personally interview the patient, doctors, nurses, family and all eyewitnesses to his "miracle".
                ---I would want to know who the doctor/doctors were who examined the patient both before and after the "miracle".
                ---I would want an independent, un-biased, multi-disciplinary panel to review the evidence.

                If you give me cases of alleged miracles with statements such as "and several doctors examined the case and agreed that there is no other explanation but a miracle", my response is going to be: "What are the names of these doctors? I want to interview them. I want background information on them. Are they members of the patient's religion? Do they have anything to gain by claiming a miracle? And I would do this not just for Christian miracle claims, but for those of every other religion, and, for every "miracle herb, potion", etc.
                Last edited by Gary; 02-01-2016, 04:14 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by jpholding View Post
                  Good night, you're every bit as stupid and desperate as the rumors say you are. Get brain surgery.
                  I am honored! The infamous JP Holding. Your reputation on the internet precedes you, sir. I now see where Nick gets his debating style.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Gary View Post
                    Skeptics have produced numerous natural explanations for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection, but due to your hard and fast generalizations regarding the beliefs and behaviors of first century Jews, you refuse to see these natural explanations as more probable than a supernatural/miracle explanation.
                    You mean due to the scholarly evidence of what the first century world was like that don't fit in with what skeptics want it to be like? Yep. Meanwhile, there have been evidences presented both positively of miracles (such as Keener) and a critique of the Humean position (Such as Earman) and you refuse to see them due to a materialist worldview. The difference is we have not been given an argument for materialism. Interestingly, when you say there are exceptions to the rule of how 1st century people were, you ask me to produce the evidence. When you say there are no exceptions to so-called natural law, I also have to produce the evidence. For my position, I've presented the scholarly works on the matter and I've presented the philosophical arguments on the matter.

                    We could give you a list of one hundred natural explanations and you will never believe them more probable than your supernatural/miracle explanation if you regard the possibility of miracles as high as you do. That is the problem. Christians and skeptics must reach an agreement on the probability of miracles before we can ever hope to come to an agreement on this alleged historical event.
                    You had your chance to provide one. You failed miserably. When you've given one, people have pointed out the problems and you don't answer. It's just "But it beats a miracle!"

                    There's one person here whose worldview is driving their interpretation. It's the one that refuses to produce evidence.

                    Regarding Keener: Your standard for evaluating a miracle claim is probably very different from mine. Tell me if I am wrong. See for me, as a physician, I would require the following to believe any miracle claim:

                    ---I would personally want to review all the evidence such as blood tests, imaging studies, medical records.
                    ---I would want to personally interview the patient, doctors, nurses, family and all eyewitnesses to his "miracle".
                    ---I would want to know who the doctor/doctors were who examined the patient both before and after the "miracle".
                    ---I would want an independent, un-biased, multi-disciplinary panel to review the evidence.

                    If you give me cases of alleged miracles with statements such as "and several doctors examined the case and agreed that there is no other explanation but a miracle", my response is going to be: "What are the names of these doctors? I want to interview them. I want background information on them. Are they members of the patient's religion? Do they have anything to gain by claiming a miracle? And I would do this not just for Christian miracle claims, but for those of every other religion, and, for every "miracle herb, potion", etc.
                    Fine. Go read Keener. That's your homework for now.
                    Last edited by Apologiaphoenix; 02-01-2016, 05:09 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gary View Post
                      I am honored! The infamous JP Holding. Your reputation on the internet precedes you, sir. I now see where Nick gets his debating style.
                      For schleps like you whose best argument is to plead wildly for anachronism, it's the most trouble you're worth.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Gary View Post
                        ---I would want an independent, un-biased, multi-disciplinary panel to review the evidence.
                        Now this is interesting. Gary, what are your thoughts about alternative medicine like acupuncture, herbal therapy, prolotherapy, osteopathic manipulative therapy, and the like? All therapies that many professionals consider pseudoscience quackery because of the lack of supporting evidence of their efficacy, to the point that most major payers will not cover them?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                          You mean due to the scholarly evidence of what the first century world was like that don't fit in with what skeptics want it to be like? Yep. Meanwhile, there have been evidences presented both positively of miracles (such as Keener) and a critique of the Humean position (Such as Earman) and you refuse to see them due to a materialist worldview. The difference is we have not been given an argument for materialism. Interestingly, when you say there are exceptions to the rule of how 1st century people were, you ask me to produce the evidence. When you say there are no exceptions to so-called natural law, I also have to produce the evidence. For my position, I've presented the scholarly works on the matter and I've presented the philosophical arguments on the matter.



                          You had your chance to provide one. You failed miserably. When you've given one, people have pointed out the problems and you don't answer. It's just "But it beats a miracle!"

                          There's one person here whose worldview is driving their interpretation. It's the one that refuses to produce evidence.



                          Fine. Go read Keener. That's your homework for now.
                          "Interestingly, when you say there are exceptions to the rule of how 1st century people were, you ask me to produce the evidence. When you say there are no exceptions to so-called natural law, I also have to produce the evidence. For my position, I've presented the scholarly works on the matter and I've presented the philosophical arguments on the matter."


                          Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

                          I have never said that "there are exceptions to Nick's generalizations about first century Jews". I have only stated that the probability of a possible exception to a generalization regarding the behavior of any group of humans is more probable than a resurrection. We have numerous instances in collective human history of human beings doing and believing things outside the norm of the group, but even you will admit that we have only one alleged resurrection. So based on statistics, an exception to the norm of human behavior is more likely than a resurrection. It's math, Nick. Simple math.

                          And I have NEVER said that there are no exceptions to natural law. What I have said is that the evidence for such exceptions is weak. I am open to better evidence. I have never ruled out the possibility of the supernatural.
                          Last edited by Gary; 02-01-2016, 06:10 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            Now this is interesting. Gary, what are your thoughts about alternative medicine like acupuncture, herbal therapy, prolotherapy, osteopathic manipulative therapy, and the like? All therapies that many professionals consider pseudoscience quackery because of the lack of supporting evidence of their efficacy, to the point that most major payers will not cover them?
                            Excellent points! Both acupuncture and osteopathic medicine have undergone scientific studies and have been found effective for several medical conditions. These treatments are now considered standard treatments. Some herbs have been studied and found to be of benefit, but most studies are inconclusive.

                            Prolotherapy is still considered investigational. When I first heard about it, I thought it was quackery. However, my view of its healing potential changed after it helped me with a back injury that did not improve with physical therapy and medication, and then after seeing hundreds of patients get better with prolotherapy after failing traditional treatments. I always tell patients it is investigational, that traditional medicine has not recognized it (yet) as a standard treatment, and I always offer the traditional approach to treatment along with the alternative therapies. I never suggest the only possible treatment is prolotherapy.

                            Thank you for your questions!
                            Last edited by Gary; 02-01-2016, 06:26 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                              You mean due to the scholarly evidence of what the first century world was like that don't fit in with what skeptics want it to be like? Yep. Meanwhile, there have been evidences presented both positively of miracles (such as Keener) and a critique of the Humean position (Such as Earman) and you refuse to see them due to a materialist worldview. The difference is we have not been given an argument for materialism. Interestingly, when you say there are exceptions to the rule of how 1st century people were, you ask me to produce the evidence. When you say there are no exceptions to so-called natural law, I also have to produce the evidence. For my position, I've presented the scholarly works on the matter and I've presented the philosophical arguments on the matter.



                              You had your chance to provide one. You failed miserably. When you've given one, people have pointed out the problems and you don't answer. It's just "But it beats a miracle!"

                              There's one person here whose worldview is driving their interpretation. It's the one that refuses to produce evidence.



                              Fine. Go read Keener. That's your homework for now.
                              "There's one person here whose worldview is driving their interpretation. It's the one that refuses to produce evidence."

                              You still don't get it, do you, Nick? In our culture, the onus of providing evidence is upon the person making the claim, not the skeptic who questions the claim. I have never claimed to have the (naturalistic) explanation for the early Christian belief of a Resurrection. I have no idea how this belief developed. I have only questioned your claim that the bodily Resurrection is the only plausible explanation for this belief.

                              The onus for evidence is on you, friend, not me, and you have zero evidence for the alleged Resurrection event itself, as it happened; no one admits to witnessing this "car accident", an analogy many Christians are fond of using. NO ONE, even in the Bible, claims to have watched the dead body come back to life or to have watched the body leave the tomb! The only evidence that you have are claims of post-death sightings, which in cumulative human history, come a dime a dozen, and an empty grave, which in cumulative human history, is not an unheard of phenomenon. And then, of course, your generalizations and assumptions about first century Jews. But again, history has ample evidence of generalizations being violated. But Resurrections are an unheard of phenomena, even by your own standards! Even you admit, it only happened ONCE...if at all.

                              So put it all together. Which is more probable: A one time, previously unheard of event, or, an exception to the usual behavior and thinking of an ancient people.

                              The onus is on you, Nick, regarding your extraordinary claim for the development of the early Christian belief in a resurrection. The onus is on you to prove miracles are real events. The onus is not on me or on any other skeptic of your supernatural claim. And don't ask me to read more books. I am not going to do your work for you! YOU provide the evidence. The fact that no historian includes this alleged event in any university history textbook is proof that your evidence, to date, is insufficient, notwithstanding your howls of "foul"; alleging a bias by the entire academic community.
                              Last edited by Gary; 02-01-2016, 07:05 PM.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                              3 responses
                              33 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                              1 response
                              20 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                              1 response
                              21 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                              2 responses
                              38 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Working...
                              X