 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Curious
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 8
| Posted 7/27/2001 8:49 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hi Everyone,
Thanks for your thoughtful responses to my previous question concerning "taking the leap of faith." They really were helpful. I hope this isn't bad forum protocol, but I thought I'd start a new topic related to some follow-up questions I had to your responses, since they're of a different nature.
Many of you mentioned in your responses to my original posting the importance of a personal relationship with Christ. I agree with this wholeheartedly - it seems that to the degree that I've had faith and committed myself to God, I've seen Him revealed in my life. Yet, the skeptical side goes back to a point that Doc made concerning how people from other religions often also have powerful faith experiences that confirm their beliefs. In a related vein, I also agreed with Meph's citation of principles concerning conservation of belief. In this citation, it was mentioned that one should not doubt unless there are some reasons to reject the relevant belief. I guess that brings me to some questions that have plagued me recently. These questions give me reasons to reject my beliefs, and therefore are important for me to address to really have faith with intellectual integrity.
For about the past year and a half, I've engaged in an e-mail debate with a friend about the truths of Christianity. She is a psychologist and, as a result, has raised some very interesting psychosocial questions about the evidence for Christianity. I'd be interested in your responses to the following two issues that she has raised about the evidence for the resurrection, in particular, as none of the apologetics books that I've read really have dealt with them adequately.
1. Couldn't the accounts of the resurrection appearances be explained by halluncations? I realize that the environment of Jesus' time was such that individuals back in that day did not expect a resurrection, thereby supporting the notion that the appearances were real, and not just a confirmation of previous hopes. But, isn't it possible that the disciples were so distraught at their friend's sudden death that they experienced hallucinations about Jesus' resurrection? I mean, there are others around today who say that they have seen God (and this seems most probable when certain people are under a lot of stress, like the disciples were), but everyone else around them thinks they're crazy. Furthermore, these perceptions go away with psychotropic medications, suggesting that such individuals were not experiencing some type of spiritual super-vision, but rather just had some bad brain chemistry. Given this, couldn't the disciples' accounts of the resurrection be explained by trauma and halluncations that may have followed?
2. Can the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection (as well as other episodes in Jesus' life) be trusted, given the unreliability of eyewitness testamonies, in general? Almost everyone who has provided evidence for the Deity of Christ points out the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection and other notable events as the most convincing reason. For example, Lee Strobel pointed out in the Case for Christ any jury legitimately following the rules of a standard U.S. court likely would come to the position that Christ actually did rise from the dead based on the eyewitness accounts recorded in the New Testament. However, recent research suggests that eyewitness accounts, in general, may be flawed and therefore often may be unreliable sources of evidence. You may have seen a Dateline special earlier this year where the reporters had an individual come into a college classroom, steal something from the instructor, and then run out of the room as fast as possible. The students in the room then were asked questions about what they saw. After interviewing these students, it was found that there were amazing levels of disagreement concerning what actually took place. This parallels the findings of an entire research literature showing that eyewitness testimony may not be that accurate. And, these studies often use eyewitness experiences (such as the one in Dateline) spanning a very short amount of time, which may be compared with the greater amount of time involved in the New Testament accounts, where errors would seem even more likely. Moreover, if you look in the New Testament, there are cases where individuals say that they saw Christ risen after a period of not believing this to be true. Based on this line of thinking, it seems reasonable to argue that the eyewitness accounts are inaccurate and therefore unconvincing evidence for Christ's resurrection and Deity.
I have developed some answers to these questions, but the possibilities remain strong in my mind that the arguments provided above are better explanations for the resurrection accounts and for the rise of Christianity than actual appearances of the Risen Christ. So, it really would be helpful to hear a discussion concerning them. Any responses would be greatly appreciated.
Best regards,
Curious
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Pseudo-Intellectual
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 58
| Posted 7/27/2001 11:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I hope this isn't bad forum protocol, but I thought I'd start a new topic related to some follow-up questions I had to your responses, since they're of a different nature.
it seems like good protocol to me:)
Okay i'll save #1 for others. as for #2...
quote:
2. Can the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection (as well as other episodes in Jesus' life) be trusted, given the unreliability of eyewitness testamonies, in general? Almost everyone who has provided evidence for the Deity of Christ points out the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection and other notable events as the most convincing reason. For example, Lee Strobel pointed out in the Case for Christ any jury legitimately following the rules of a standard U.S. court likely would come to the position that Christ actually did rise from the dead based on the eyewitness accounts recorded in the New Testament. However, recent research suggests that eyewitness accounts, in general, may be flawed and therefore often may be unreliable sources of evidence. You may have seen a Dateline special earlier this year where the reporters had an individual come into a college classroom, steal something from the instructor, and then run out of the room as fast as possible. The students in the room then were asked questions about what they saw. After interviewing these students, it was found that there were amazing levels of disagreement concerning what actually took place. This parallels the findings of an entire research literature showing that eyewitness testimony may not be that accurate. And, these studies often use eyewitness experiences (such as the one in Dateline) spanning a very short amount of time, which may be compared with the greater amount of time involved in the New Testament accounts, where errors would seem even more likely. Moreover, if you look in the New Testament, there are cases where individuals say that they saw Christ risen after a period of not believing this to be true. Based on this line of thinking, it seems reasonable to argue that the eyewitness accounts are inaccurate and therefore unconvincing evidence for Christ's resurrection and Deity.
i too saw that Dateline report on eyewitness's. Very few people were able to say exacly what the thife was waring or how tall they were ect. but everyone agreed that someone did actually steal the prof's purse.
Eyewitness's get little things wrong that sometimes are big deals in court but they generally agree about the major gist of things. The eyewitness acounts of the Bible agree that Jesus died and rose again. They do have some inconsistancy's in smaller details like how many people ran to the grave and stuff like that. to me that is evidence that theis eyewitness accounts are authentic. some have suggested that the whole thing is a hoax and the disciples made up the whole story and stole the body themselves or something. if it were a hoax they probably would have conspired together to get their story strait first!!!
more needs to be said to answer your question but maybe that's a start.
d.c.
dudechild
"If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?" -Art Hoppe
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Curious
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 8
| Posted 7/27/2001 12:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi,
To respond to Pseudo-Intellectual's comments before many more reply, I agree that eyewitnesses tend to agree about the gist of an event, but may disagree about the details. That's basically my question, though maybe it wasn't overly clear in my first posting. Isn't it possible that the individuals who said they witnessed Jesus risen were right in seeing someone, but wrong in the identity of the person they saw? This is consistent with what many of the eyewitness accounts in the gospels suggest.
Curious
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/27/2001 1:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Would you be convinced?
A seminary professor out in New York has a position that the Gospel of Mark was written as a propaganda piece. There was a need when the authority of Paul--who's very personality stood behind his letters in the eyes and hearts and memories of those churches who knew him personally -- ...the authority of Paul potentially would wane after his death. There was a need to do what Paul tried personally to do twice; to convince the Jerusalem church that the Kingdom--the Church--was bigger than the nationality. The challenge was to convince someone who mattered! Peter was the target--great authority, and could be convinced. Mark, who knew both sides, was chosen to write in an intentionally "scripture-esque" way, recalling the literary style of the scriptures of Genesis and Isaiah. The Transfiguration stood in the middle of this "scripture"; the same point in the plot as the burning bush was in the first scripture--Genesis--and hidden in the whole plot was the outline of Paul's ministry. (Remember him knocked off his horse on the road to Damascus: drama and literary form to boot.)
My point in this winding journey? Peter, though embarrassed by all the accounts in Mark of denying Christ, and the Jews being passed over for faithful gentiles STILL was asked by that document to believe that He, Peter, has seen the risen Lord. "Asked," unless he actually had and he knew it for fact. Then he only had to give over his ethnic piety to the Spirit's leading. (Hard enough.)
If anyone tries to use those texts as if they were hidden microphones they do violence to the very why of how they were written.
A different matter was how the three accounts were used by the church. They showed people their need and God's graciousness. It wasn't until after they were baptized and they had renounced the devil and put on the Holy Spirit that they even began to hear the gospel of John.
We can't take the Bible unless we take those who gave it to us and teach us how to use it.
PotOnWheel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 7/28/2001 7:00 AM (GMT -6) | | !!!Warning: non sequitur!!!
PotonWheel, my personal favorite authorship theories are that Priscilla is the author of the book of Hebrews, and that a woman in Solomon’s court wrote the book of J (this one is espoused by literary critic Howard Bloom and JPS editor David Rosenberg). pia
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/28/2001 10:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Pia:
Message boards are new to me, and receiving criticism is part of this.
Pia, you commented: "!!!Warning: non sequitur!!!"
What doesn't follow?
Is it bad because it is a theory?
When I asked, "Would you be convinced?" it was _Peter_ I was empathizing with. Nothing I wrote has to _prove_ anything to moderns. The literary part of his theory seems pretty hard to deny--it either does or doesn't follow form. Since I believe him that Mark actually wrote it in a style that self-declared it to be scripture (being a Lebanese Antiochian Orthodox they guy knows his Semitic world view), and find the plot aspect to be both probable and engaging, to me personally it is moving to try imagining Peter reading this book that has himself in it!!!
I just thought that faith and action, then, for Peter, was a bit different from how the modern world frames "faith." (My opinion on that last aspect.)
No, doesn't prove to us, maybe. But to the Peter in the plot...that would be another thing.
PotOnWheel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
nelson
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 7/30/2001 9:31 AM (GMT -6) | | “1. Couldn't the accounts of the resurrection appearances be explained by hallucinations?”
How could over 500 persons hallucinate seeing the same person? How does one explain how more than one person at the same time can have rational conversation and eat with the hallucination?
“2. Can the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection (as well as other episodes in Jesus' life) be trusted, given the unreliability of eyewitness testimonies, in general?”
One must place their trust in the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ life as that which is reliable if one is to possess any hope of salvation. If all were absolutely certain, what is there to have faith in?
Edited by - nelson on 07/30/2001 2:32:05 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/30/2001 2:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Nelson, you respond to Curious' question about the trustworthiness of the accounts by saying:
One must place their trust in the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ life as that which is reliable if one is to possess any hope of salvation.
But the question is WHY trust the biblical accounts, when there are other possible things one could believe. While your first answer regarding the hallucination theory has merit, it seems to me your response to the second question is a bit circular.
Curious, I would encourage you to check out the sections on "For Skeptics" on this web site. Also, I have addressed these issues in Letters From a Skeptic, Cynic Sage and Son of God (if you want real heady stuff for your psychologist friend, and Jesus Under Seige (but no longer in print).
In brief, some of the reasons why I think the accounts are trustworthy are (off the top of my head)
* the remarkable presence of incidental details
* the presence of historically relevant details (e.g. Mk 15:23 presupposes the kids of Simon who carried the cross are known by his audience).
* the sobriety of the accounts (compare the 2nd and 3d century legedary accounts, or other ancient legends for that matter !)
* the presence of damaging details (e.g. Jesus' cry on the cross; the dull disciples; women discovering the tomb empty; Jesus' offensive sayings, etc.)
* the lack of substantial contradictions (with enough differences to show independent sources)
* archeological confirmation
* pre-70AD environment presupposed
* At least 27 "aramaisms" -- pointing to original Palestinian environment
* the unanimous traditional authorship ascriptions in the second century
* the lack of time for legendary accretion
* the impossible of legends developing so quickly in a Jewish environment, amidsts eyewitnesses and hostile witnesses
* the lack of credible alternative theories to account for the disciples faith in Christ, how the Gospels came about, how the tomb got empty, etc.
If we judge the Gospels with the same criteria we judge other ancient documents, they come out VERY well. Indeed, we have better historical grounds for claiming knowledge of the historical Jesus that most other ancient figures and events. (I would go so far as to say he is without parrallel in this regard!)
All this is overturned by historical skeptics primarily because of the supernatural features of the Gospel. But that is simply a metaphysical prejudice, not solid historical reasoning.
For what its worth
Doc
Edited by - nelson on 07/30/2001 2:32:05 PM
"Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." C.S.Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
nelson
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 7/31/2001 4:53 AM (GMT -6) | | [quote by Boyd]
Nelson, you respond to Curious' question about the trustworthiness of the accounts by saying:
One must place their trust in the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ life as that which is reliable if one is to possess any hope of salvation.
But the question is WHY trust the biblical accounts, when there are other possible things one could believe. While your first answer regarding the hallucination theory has merit, it seems to me your response to the second question is a bit circular.
[quote]
I see your point. I just wanted to keep my answers simple.
My answer imagined someone one who, when studying the Bible, discovered areas that occasioned a dilemma, which put to doubt the reliability of the texts to some degree, and wherein no ironclad answer could be found. I would think that one would need to wait for more information rather than dismiss any judgment on the texts as being unreliable.
I guess my response was not from a skeptics postion since, in my view as a believer, God calls us to believe in the testimony of the Word despite the seeming inconsistencies.
I have your book on "Letters From a Skeptic." I'll look into it, also.
Please, advise how you would engage a simple response. Thanks.
Edited by - nelson on 07/31/2001 09:54:53 AM | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:36 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|