Chris Hallquists New Book: UFOs, Ghosts, and a Rising God: Debunking the Resurrection of Jesus.

This book is unique in that it compares the claim that Jesus arose from the dead with other paranormal claims. Since modern claims to the paranormal have better attested evidence to them than Jesus rising from the dead, if we reject the former we should also reject the latter. This is a very informative book. He has done his research. I heartily recommend it. You can get it here.

64 comments:

K said...

I always wonder how theists contend with the eyewitness accounts surrounding UFOs and alien abductions. When there are millions who have attested to seeing UFOs, photographs of the craft, several independent eyewitness accounts of events, and many who claim to have been personally abducted - to me that screams the virtue of being critical of anecdotal evidence.

Anonymous said...

Without having read the book I can almost guarantee Hallquist runs into Pannenberg's principle. The religio-historical context of the resurrection lends weight to the probability of it being veridical.

The problem with UFO and abductions, ghost, etc. explanations is that they are so ad hoc.

K

Luke said...

Yay! But... no copies in stock...

Chuck said...

"The religio-historical context of the resurrection lends weight to the probability of it being veridical."

Okay, why don't you just say something like the religious climate relative to the historical context of the resurrection makes it probably true.

The pretentiousness of Christian apologetics is comical.

If you say something simply it might be better received.

I understand that some concepts demand arcane language but yours didn't.

I've come to this site after a recent journey checking out William Lane Craig's debates. I experienced them in transcript form and found him comical too. I checked him out because an elder at my church raved about him. The ironic thing is that reading Craig's debate with Ehrman made me respect Ehrman and doubt Craig. I doubted Craig because he couched his arguments in the same whiz-bang smarty pants rhetoric Kevin H practices and in so doing made me doubt him. The kind of verbosity you practice Kevin (I assume in a hero-worship of either Craig or CS Lewis) is empty rhetoric posing as truth.

Please explain your premise in simple terms so someone feeble-minded like me might consider the truth (or veracity if you like) of it.

Gandolf said...

Kevin H said..."The religio-historical context of the resurrection lends weight to the probability of it being veridical."

Hi Kevin.

So does this then mean that in years to come as more historical context with regards to ghosts and UFO`s etc become available,it will automatically then suggest these things are actually true facts as well ?

We are talking about suggestion of things by people over and over again but no real decent evidence need be presented , right?

dvd said...

I don't know too many theists, christian theists who deny the UFO phenomena. With Alien abductions however, there is a stark contrast. With most Alien Abductions, they rely on hypnosis, and there are usually very few witnesses. There are a few exceptions but in those cases the evidence is not clear.

IF the disciples had to rely on hypnosis to recall seeing Jesus, the we could cast doubt on such rightfully.

Anonymous said...

Please explain your premise in simple terms so someone feeble-minded like me might consider the truth (or veracity if you like) of it.

I admit it read rather "egg-headed". I hoped it would send people to Wolfhart Pannenberg, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, who explains it better than I.

Anonymous said...

So does this then mean that in years to come as more historical context with regards to ghosts and UFO`s etc become available,it will automatically then suggest these things are actually true facts as well?

KH> Pannenberg argues that it wasn't just somebody or anybody who allegedly rose from the dead, but that it was Jesus Christ, who claimed to speak for God and was executed for it, etc. The resurrection would be a divine vindication of Jesus' radical truth claims. It came as a climax to Jesus' own life and teachings. So this wasn't an anomalous event occuring without context.

I would add that Jesus' impact, that he's the great moral paradigm, and that he fulfilled prophecies written of him adds to the religio-historical context.

I fail to see how this applies to ad hoc explanations of ghosts and UFO's

Admin said...

Well stated Chuck. Kevin is saying miracles are true because palestiian jews surely wouldn't make it up.

Apparently Kevin hasn't read his old testament or apocryphal texts recently to see the absurd things jews believed.

Ufo claims are often more credible than relying on a bunch of primitive superstitious folks. However neither has provided sufficient evidence to overcome the improbability of their claims.

Anthony said...

Kevin wrote: that he fulfilled prophecies written of him adds to the religio-historical context.

Can you identify some of these prophecies that were explicitly fulfilled by Jesus? I'm asking because this opens up the entire discussion of the nature of these old testament prophecies, in what sense are they fulfillments, what hermeneutical principles were applied by the NT writers pointing to the fulfillment, what was the nature of the messianic hope of the Jews pre-exilic, exilic, post-exilic, inter-testamental, etc.?

One of the reasons why I ended up rejecting Christianity was due to all of the issues and problems related to the question of Jesus being the fulfillment of the ancient Jewish messianic hope. If he wasn't the messiah then one of the major foundations of Christianity has been undercut.

Vinny said...

Pannenberg argues that it wasn't just somebody or anybody who allegedly rose from the dead, but that it was Jesus Christ, who claimed to speak for God and was executed for it, etc. The resurrection would be a divine vindication of Jesus' radical truth claims. It came as a climax to Jesus' own life and teachings. So this wasn't an anomalous event occuring without context.

I guess that makes the Scientologists' story about aliens more likely to be true since it too fits in to a well developed narrative.

Chuck said...

Kevin,

I hate to say it but you didn't read "egg-headed" to me. I like "egg-heads". You read pretentious. Hitchens is an "egg-head"; Loftus is an "egg-head"; even Frances Collins is an "egg-head". There is a difference between a smart person sharing honest discovery and a rhetorical one using a slanted conclusion as honest discovery. You are like Craig. You obfuscate with rhetorical argument. This might work to dazzle less literate people but those seeking truth want a clear and simple argument. They don't want an entertaining pitch. I am glad I chose to read Craig's debates rather than watch them. I found while watching him to be incredibly enjoyable and charming and stopped listening to what he said. He sure did sound smart though, why wouldn't I trust him. But I had pause when reading him urge the audience to discount historical methodology as a means to understand history and instead advocate for a premise that, "if you feel it, then it is true" argument regarding the historicity of the resurrection. Truly sad and intellectually pretentious.

Chuck said...

Vinny,

Watch out what you say about Scientologists they may start monitoring you. LOL.

Philip R Kreyche said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Philip R Kreyche said...

One of the reasons why I ended up rejecting Christianity was due to all of the issues and problems related to the question of Jesus being the fulfillment of the ancient Jewish messianic hope.

This was also my primary reason for leaving Christianity. The Jewish responses to Christian messianic claims made too much sense to me. The more I read about the situation, the more it became apparent to me that the Christian "prophetic" verses were often taken out of context or were assigned a new context based on the assumptions of the Christian worldview (I'm referring here specifically to examples like the seed-of-woman-striking-the-serpent verse in Genesis).

The more I read, the less convincing (and the more desperate) the Christian position appeared to me.

Philip R Kreyche said...

And my Christian friends, when I would mention this, would just respond "well Jesus didn't fulfill it the way they THOUGHT it would be fulfilled, and that's why it's so amazing!"

No. It means that the prophecies aren't worth anything even in the Christian or Jewish worldviews. The whole point of prophecy is that it's supposed to be predictable years in advance, and therefore evidence of a non-terrestrial source of that knowledge. Otherwise, there is literally no way to tell the difference between divinely-sanctioned fulfillment and someone coming up with their own interpretations, convinced that the prophecy has been fulfilled.

In the Jewish worldview, there is the potential for prophets to do miracles, and yet not be from God. Only if the prophet adheres to what the Torah says, is he a worthy prophet (see Deuteronomy). So what do Christians think God was expecting of the Jews, when according to them He Himself inspired the texts that told them to be wary of people like Jesus?

Chuck said...

So what do Christians think God was expecting of the Jews, when according to them He Himself inspired the texts that told them to be wary of people like Jesus?

I made the same point to a few friends recently who were wondering why I have gone from believer to skeptic.

I'm still waiting for the answer.

K said...

With Alien abductions however, there is a stark contrast. With most Alien Abductions, they rely on hypnosis, and there are usually very few witnesses.
If you are going to discount this, do you also discount anyone who claims to have spoken to God personally? Especially as no two people ever seem to hear the same message from God. With alien abduction stories, you get very good descriptions of the aliens and their practices that give the same account. Can all those who talk of a bright light, paralysis, little grey men, alien probing, human / alien hybrid breeding programs, and lost time all be wrong? The story seems very consistent...

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

trying to put the res in the same company as third rate misconceptions of the supernatural is a totally dishonest tactic. It's nothing more than guilt by assocaition. that really shows the bankruptcy of atheism.

this is why you are only 3% and not ever gonna be more than that because everyone isn't a sucker for bad arguemnts informal fallacies.

Anonymous said...

G.I Joe, lighten up already. You act as if we seriously want to debunk Christianity or something. ;-)

K said...

trying to put the res in the same company as third rate misconceptions of the supernatural is a totally dishonest tactic.
Can you demonstrate why Christianity should not be put in that category? Or are you simply belittling those who have had genuine abduction experiences or have seen UFOs?

Anonymous said...

Well stated Chuck. Kevin is saying miracles are true because palestiian jews surely wouldn't make it up.

KH> Huh?

Apparently Kevin hasn't read his old testament or apocryphal texts recently to see the absurd things jews believed.

Ufo claims are often more credible than relying on a bunch of primitive superstitious folks.


KH> Unwarranted Presumption, Chronological Snobbery, Genetic Fallacy (for starters).

However neither has provided sufficient evidence to overcome the improbability of their claims.

KH> There is nothing improbable about God's existence and therefore the Resurrection.

I think that Pannenberg's principle shows that the Resurrection is far less ad hoc than explanations regarding ghosts and alien abductions.

Landon Hedrick said...

My main concern with this book is that it was written by an undergraduate.

Chuck said...

"this is why you are only 3% and not ever gonna be more than that because everyone isn't a sucker for bad arguemnts informal fallacies."

Really, were are you getting your stats son?

"The survey finds that the number of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith today (16.1%) is more than double the number who say they were not affiliated with any particular religion as children. Among Americans ages 18-29, one-in-four say they are not currently affiliated with any particular religion." (Pew Research Center)

Chuck said...

"Ufo claims are often more credible than relying on a bunch of primitive superstitious folks.

KH> Unwarranted Presumption, Chronological Snobbery, Genetic Fallacy (for starters)."

Kevin, I've admitted you have a real live teetering on the brink skeptic in me and you try to win an apologetics argument misusing the concept of genetic fallacy?

Why not try to speak to me straight and let me in on why your faith matters and is better than other modes of developing?

You just throw terms around as if the insulation of intellectualism will somehow warm you from the chilling fears we face each day.

Here are a few questions that you can answer which will help me out and maybe sway me to the side of your faith.

How does your faith motivate you to help those who are hurting more than you?

What acts do you take to pursue social justice when faced with the truth of child-hood hunger and infant mortality?

Does your faith motivate concern over these things or do you only find joy in postulating apologetic rhetoric in service of your idea for God?

The Uncredible Hallq said...

Hail Crom: I think Kevin's right that you misread his comments. Be a little more careful next time.

J.L. Hinman: How do you know the book's dishonest if you haven't read it? If you like, I can ask the publisher to send you a free copy so you can read it, and tell everyone your reasons why you think it's dishonest. But don't spout off like that out of ignorance.

Kevin: I've heard forms of Pannenberg's argument from Craig and Swinburne, and it never struck me as very well thought-out. I talk about it a little in my review of Craig's book Reasonable Faith, though people here add some details I hadn't heard before. All you really need to do see what's wrong with the argument is run it through John's Outsider Test, but to get down in a little more detail:

1) Jesus is "the great moral paradigm": no one thinks this outside of Christians. Compare to the Buddha: he gets a fair amount of respect by people who aren't self-identified Buddhists, but it would be a misrepresentation for Buddhists to claim, on this basis, "Oh yeah, we all agree Buddha was the greatest moral teacher EVAR!!!!11111!111"

Worse, most Christians who read the Gospels carefully realize that a lot of the sayings of Jesus are, at first glance, crazy: poke out your eyes rather than stare at a girl's boobs? Really? This gets spun as a good thing in sermons with titles like "The Hard Sayings of Jesus," "The Radicalism of Jesus," etc. but no one would do that spinning if they weren't pre-committed to seeing Jesus in the best light possible. I sympathize because I did this back when I was a Christian, but it isn't reasonable by a long shot.

2) Jesus' impact: Shorter story here: in any endeavor, there's a tendency for a few people to succeed big time in a way that looks way out of whack at first glance. The best tend to do not just a little better, but way better, than the competition. In the software world, no one comes close to matching Bill Gates' success. In the atheist/science blogging world, no one comes close to matching PZ Myers. The fact that one sect would dominate the world of religion isn't something we need a miracle to explain, it isn't something that's even suggestive of a miracle.

The Uncredible Hallq said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Uncredible Hallq said...

Oh, and some somewhat more banal stuff:

The reason it's out-of-stock is because the editor told Barnes&Nobel it would be out on April 1st, but there are still some last-minute things that need to happen before it can be released. Hence, BN thinks it's out of stock, when really it's releasing in a couple weeks.

On me being an undergraduate: This is not a book that required special expertise to write. The issues are not hard to understand. The information is out there in a relatively easy-to-understand sources, if you know where to look. The main thing that makes me special is that I put it all together in one book. Oh, and I'm smarter than most of my fellow undergraduates--I have the GRE scores to prove it.

Finally, huge thanks to John for promoting this.

K said...

We now know that the universe has at least 10^23 stars, the majority of them much like our sun. We know now that planets orbit stars, and the better we get at looking the more we find. We now know of how life can arise and how complex beings can be built. So given everything that we have observed, surely there being hyper-intelligent aliens isn't a far stretch.

We understand that alien life if a possibility, and that there could be species off other planets around distant worlds that are scanning the galaxies for other forms like them. We have a strong empirical basis for believing in aliens, yet we don't have that for a God. Yet it's more improbable that aliens that exist in our reality are coming to earth than it is for a deity that is alleged to be transcendent to reality coming to earth in human form only to get martyred and conquer death?



I'm not saying that alien abduction stories are true, far from it. I find them far too unlikely for the scant evidence that supports such claims. But can someone really honestly argue that aliens - something that could exist in our reality, are more improbable than a human being a mangod? The simple fact is that both events are propagated by eyewitness accounts and personal tales. To me, it seems nothing more than special pleading.

Anonymous said...

Can you identify some of these prophecies that were explicitly fulfilled by Jesus?

Being that scholars have identified various forms of prophecy (literal,typological,partial, etc.)
I simply refer to Isaiah 53.

Walter said...

Being that scholars have identified various forms of prophecy (literal,typological,partial, etc.)
I simply refer to Isaiah 53.


I believe a Jew would disagree with you about Isaiah 53 having anything to do with Jesus.

Landon Hedrick said...

Chris,

I had already known you were a bright student (and by the way, GRE scores are irrelevant to how smart a person is), but that doesn't convince me that this book is valuable. I'm not saying it's not valuable, since I don't know, but I'm sure you can understand my skepticism here. I mean, how many undergraduates (whether they're smart or not) will actually write a good book?

I'm an undergraduate myself, and a couple of years ago I imagined that I would be writing a non-fiction book and getting it published even before graduation. What I realized though is that even the papers I write aren't actually good. If I write an A+ paper and go back to it two months later I think "God this is awful, I could do so much better than that now." If my own writing just keeps getting better, and my old writing looks worse and worse, I have to conclude that any book I would have written as an undergraduate would not have been very valuable.

But maybe it's different for you, which is why I'm not judging your book, merely expressing my reservations. Perhaps I'll have an opportunity at some point to look it over and review it. In any case, congratulations for the accomplishment!

The Uncredible Hallq said...

Different people are going to get different amounts of mileage out of the book. It's written for people who find the topic interesting but don't know much about it. If you don't understand why anyone would pay attention to this debate, I can't promise you'll like it, if you're already an expert, I can't promise you'll find much that's new.

Then again, I've still gotten positive feedback from people like John, who obviously knows the issues pretty well, and Richard Carrier (who has a Ph.D. in ancient history) even said he's citing one especially good section of my book in his new book on Jesus.

As for generally being well-written, if you've read my stuff you have an idea of how well (or poorly) I write. I'm not always happy with what I produce, but I've gotten enough compliments from people who know what they're talking about to feel confident that I can produce great material, at least on my better days.

Personally, since it took more than a year to find a publisher after I had basically finished writing, I was afraid I would want to make massive revisions, but I found I was pretty pleased with myself, re-reading the manuscript. I've definitely had that "now that I've improved, I see that almost all my old stuff sucked" experience, but I think I dodged that bullet this time. I think.

Admin said...

Kevin said...

"The religio-historical context of the resurrection lends weight to the probability of it being veridical."

and i responded...

"Kevin is saying miracles are true because palestiian jews surely wouldn't make it up."

That was my assessment of the statement, maybe I am off the mark. Perhaps Kevin can elaborate on how the religio-historical context increases the probability of the resurrection being true.

Kevin said...

"There is nothing improbable about God's existence and therefore the Resurrection."

Kevin apparently thinks yahweh is the only contender for this god position. I'm feeling generous, if we grant the possibility of a god kicking off the universe and setting its laws (deism), how do we get from there to a god who desired to become a human, get killed, and resurrect himself?

Kevin, what is probable in your mind is clearly tainted by your christian goggles.

Kevin, you can try to impress people with your fancy christianese, but it does not win arguments. So unless you can explain what "pannenberg's principle" is and why it is relevant, you aren't getting very far.

Kevin maybe you need a refresher on what ad hoc means...

Taken from m-w.com

1 a: concerned with a particular end or purpose
b: formed or used for specific or immediate problems or needs
2: fashioned from whatever is immediately available : improvised

Ad hoc, an after the fact explanation which does not apply to other situations.

Now how do we explain primitive, superstitious, and religious people in the first century believing that someone was raised from the dead.

Kevin's answer = their god must have raised someone from the dead

Notice Kevin uses an Ad hoc explanation, which is created for the specific purpose of explaining this phenomena. Would Kevin use this explanation to explain the belief in the ascension of Hercules to Mt. Olympus? or the belief in the ascension of Mohamed into heaven on a horse?

Try again Kevin

a helmet said...

"We now know of how life"

Really????

K said...

It's called the theory of evolution. Note that I didn't say that we know how life began (we are still working that one out) but as for the diversification of life, you can't get a much higher scientific truth than evolutionary theory. It's up there with heliocentric orbit in how well it's supported by the evidence.

Origin of life != diversity of life, but not being able to explain the first protobacteria doesn't negate the evidence of common ancestry among all life on this planet.

Emanuel Goldstein said...

The scientific knowledge atheists claim is hilarious.

While quoting Monod on the origin of life, Loftus, in the last chapter of his book, spells it MONAD twice.

LOL! Obviously, he is not familiar with Monod's work.

MONAD! Priceless!

Teleprompter said...

Yes, Andrew, because all of the common genetic evidence from DNA, all of the fossils, all of the evidence from geology -- all of it can be disproven by a simple spelling mistake.

Chalk up another faulty argument for the existence of God:

ARGUMENT FROM SPELLING

1. John Loftus says that God does not exist
2. John Loftus cannot spell
3. Therefore everything he believes is wrong
4. Therefore God exists

And practically every single one of your comments takes that exact same form, with equally ridiculous assertions, badly misapplied.

K said...

Okay Andrew, what science do atheists claim to know that you feel is wrong?

michael fugate said...

Andrew,
Try this little test. Type Monod into you WP program and then check the spelling. I bet it will not recognize it as a "Monod" and will suggest "monad" as an alternative. Mostly likely a spellcheck error.

How is "atheist science" different from science?

Anonymous said...

I believe a Jew would disagree with you about Isaiah 53 having anything to do with Jesus.

KH> Some do, some don't. Some avoid the passage like the plague!

Anonymous said...

I guess that makes the Scientologists' story about aliens more likely to be true since it too fits in to a well developed narrative.

KH> What is the religio-historical context of Scientology? Relatively, there isn't much, but we find a few things that provide some context. Namely, a Science Fiction Fantasy writer who declared, "If you want to get rich, start a religion...".

He took his own advice.

Anonymous said...

You obfuscate with rhetorical argument. This might work to dazzle less literate people but those seeking truth want a clear and simple argument.

Most people don't know what "obfuscate" means. I would be hard-pressed to give an adequate defintion. Perhaps you should take your own advice! And I assume, like you, that people on this forum are very literate. What exactly is your beef my friend?

Further, you need to spend a little more time reading Craig. He does not say to go with "feeling" as a guage for truth, nor does he encourage the rejection of historical methodology.

Anonymous said...

Only if the prophet adheres to what the Torah says, is he a worthy prophet (see Deuteronomy). So what do Christians think God was expecting of the Jews, when according to them He Himself inspired the texts that told them to be wary of people like Jesus?

First, Deuteronomy says to watch out for prophets who may even pull off something supernatural, yet send people to other gods! The God of Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, et. al.!

Second, if you want to know whether Jesus is the Messiah, concentrate your efforts on Isaiah 53.

Anonymous said...

Worse, most Christians who read the Gospels carefully realize that a lot of the sayings of Jesus are, at first glance, crazy: poke out your eyes rather than stare at a girl's boobs?

Hallq, with all due respect, this simplistic misunderstanding of what Jesus said does not encourage me to read your work. But I will give it a go. I'll check out your review of Reasonable Faith.

Also, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your understanding is better than I thought. You did at least say, "at first glance".

Anonymous said...

Try again Kevin

There are honestly too many misunderstandings in your post. My clarifications would be miles long.

Please read my other posts on John's forum and come to my blog as well.

But are there one or two things we can shorten into a question?

Anonymous said...

Kevin, I've admitted you have a real live teetering on the brink skeptic in me and you try to win an apologetics argument misusing the concept of genetic fallacy?

Well, Chuck, that wasn't addressed to you but to Hail Crom. And for what it's worth, I am certainly making myself available to you in your journey. I would be honored to teeter there on the brink with you!

Evan said...

Kevin you say:

Further, you need to spend a little more time reading Craig. He does not say to go with "feeling" as a guage (sic) for truth, nor does he encourage the rejection of historical methodology.

In fact, some people have spent quite a bit of time dealing with Dr. Craig on this site.

Do you think Craig is giving reason the primary role in the decision process or warranting a deciding role for history when he says:

What is true is that evidence, as it is defined in these discussions, plays a secondary role compared to the role God Himself plays in warranting Christian belief. Should we, then, ignore strong evidence if it shows that our faith is probably false? Of course not! My work as a philosopher exemplifies the effort to confront objections to Christian belief squarely and to answer them. But most Christians in the world don't have that luxury. For them they may have to hold to their Christian belief even though they lack an answer to the alleged defeater. What I insist on is that, given the witness of the Holy Spirit within them, they are entirely rational in so doing.

How can you say that he is not recommending people use their feelings when he states that the Holy Spirit is the most important guide in people's lives.

Craig goes even further in "Reasonable Faith", saying:

I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel.... Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.

I suggest it is you, Kevin, who would benefit from a bit more time reading Dr. Craig.

Walter said...

Second, if you want to know whether Jesus is the Messiah, concentrate your efforts on Isaiah 53.

Isaiah 53 is not even a messianic prophecy. The 'suffering servant' is Israel itself. Christians applied this passage to their beliefs after the fact; much like Nostradamus nuts do to his 'prophecies'.

If Jesus fulfilled so many messianic prophecies it is a wonder why many Jews believed Simon bar Kokhba was the messiah during the Second Jewish-Roman War in 132-135 CE. The Messiah was to be a powerful King.

Further, as of a 2005 survey, only around two percent of Israel's population is Christian. Obviously they are not impressed with the Christian exegesis of Old Testament prophecies.

Anonymous said...

In fact, some people have spent quite a bit of time dealing with Dr. Craig on this site.

I'm aware of that and wasn't addressing "some people".


How can you say that he is not recommending people use their feelings when he states that the Holy Spirit is the most important guide in people's lives.

Bill says that the witness of the Holy Spirit is objective. That is, God objectively impresses himself in various ways on a person.

Further, what Bill is pointing out is the dilemma of, say, the poor, uneducated farmer in a rural area who is not privy to all the evidence, argument, and scholarship on Christ. He is not excluded by God, nor is God limited to reach only those in more educated circumstances.

This would describe most people in the world and in history!

The farmer may later come to know the supporting evidences as part of his Christian growth. They would serve as further support for his view, etc.

So Craig and Plantinga fall on the same side on this.

Geisler and Craig disagree but it is trivial IMO. Geisler thinks that God still uses evidence to reach the uneducated/unenlightened etc. via nature and General Revelation.

Craig doesn't disagree but seems to lean more toward an internal revelation via the Holy Spirit which overcomes the cirucmstances above.

Hear my podcasts with Bill on this. I think there are two of them. This is one of his most often asked questions.

Here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=podcasting_main#rf

Scroll down to "Rationalism and Evidentialism".

Anonymous said...

Isaiah 53 is not even a messianic prophecy. The 'suffering servant' is Israel itself. Christians applied this passage to their beliefs after the fact; much like Nostradamus nuts do to his 'prophecies'.

The reverse is true. This passage has always been held as Messianic by the rabbis until the 10th century AD, when backlash against Christianity spawned the "Suffering Servant is Israel" view.

FWIW, there are many reasons why it cannot be Israel. For example, the Servant is "righteous" (v. 11). But Isaiah goes to great pains to point out Israel is NOT righteous!

Secondly, Isaiah, representing his people, says "we" to "he". "We esteemed him not", "he bore our sicknesses", "we regarded him stricken".


Thirdly, when has Israel, ever, ever been silent before her enemies, laying down before her shearers like a sheep? Never! They are known for courage, fighting tooth and nail against overhwhelming odds, and beating the living daylights out of you!

The Servant is not Israel. And the expectation was for an immediate, conquering, military Messiah (btw, that comes later). So Isaiah 53 has always been hard for the mainstream nation to swallow.

The Uncredible Hallq said...

Hallq, with all due respect, this simplistic misunderstanding of what Jesus said does not encourage me to read your work.

Outsider Test, rinse and repeat: if we were talking about the context of any non-Christian religious text, would you dismiss the plain meanings of the words as a "simplistic misunderstanding" without further comment?

Anonymous said...

Outsider Test, rinse and repeat: if we were talking about the context of any non-Christian religious text, would you dismiss the plain meanings of the words as a "simplistic misunderstanding" without further comment?

You indicated yourself that a "first glance" may render a simplistic reading. I would hope that any of us would try to get beyond a superficial reading.

There is a difference between natural (God-given) sexual desire and lust. Jesus said not to lust.

Walter said...

”The reverse is true. This passage has always been held as Messianic by the rabbis until the 10th century AD, when backlash against Christianity spawned the "Suffering Servant is Israel" view.



In fact, Origen, a prominent and influential church father, conceded in the year 248 CE -- many centuries before Rashi was born -- that the consensus among the Jews in his time was that Isaiah 53 “bore reference to the whole [Jewish] people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations.

-quoted from Outreach Judaism

Philip R Kreyche said...

Geisler thinks that God still uses evidence to reach the uneducated/unenlightened etc. via nature and General Revelation.

Of course this never happens until the person learns about Christianity beforehand, either from literature or people. "Nature"/"General Revelation" has never, to my mind, driven anyone to the conclusion that protestant Christianity is the true religion.

The reverse is true. This passage has always been held as Messianic by the rabbis until the 10th century AD, when backlash against Christianity spawned the "Suffering Servant is Israel" view.

Source please.

Evan said...

Bill says that the witness of the Holy Spirit is objective. That is, God objectively impresses himself in various ways on a person.

The witness of the Holy Spirit is objective, huh?

How?

How is it objective? And if it is objective, why do you need the authority of scripture -- or scripture at all?

If the witness of the Holy Spirit is so objective, how is it that in Thailand it does such a lousy job and yet in America it's convinced 3/4 of the population?

Does the Holy Spirit objectively like living some places and avoid others?

Was Paul's vision of Jesus an objective vision of Jesus, or was it actually a vision of Jesus as seen through the Holy Spirit?

Face it Kevin, there is nothing at all objective about how people feel after the Holy Spirit moves them. The Mormons also feel the burnings in their bosom of the Holy Spirit but it objectively convinces them that Elohim had sex with Mary and that Joseph Smith could read reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Does Bill Craig believe that all Mormons are rejecting the testimony of the Holy Spirit because they want to live licentious lifestyles?

Give me a break.

Anonymous said...

In fact, Origen, a prominent and influential church father, conceded in the year 248 CE -- many centuries before Rashi was born -- that the consensus among the Jews in his time was that Isaiah 53 “bore reference to the whole [Jewish] people,

The following reference from Origen does indicate the interpretation was known:

"Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations".

But Old Testament scholar Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum points out that the overwhelmingly dominant Jewish view throughout history has been that this extended passage speaks of Messiah.

"So to interpret Isaiah 53 as speaking of Messiah is not non-Jewish. In fact, if we are to speak of the traditional Jewish interpretation, it would be that the passage speaks of the Messiah. The first one to expound the view that this referred to Israel rather than the Messiah was Shlomo Yizaki, better known as the Rashi (c. 1040-1105) He was followed by David Kimchi (1160-1235). But this was to go contrary to all rabbinic teaching of that day and of the preceding one thousand years...those closer to the time of the original writings, and who had less contact with Christian apologists, interpreted it as speaking of the Messiah".

- Jesus the Jew (p. 35)

This site is a good source for what the rabbis have said about Isaiah 53:

http://www.hopeinmessiah.org/Isaiah%2053.htm

Anonymous said...

Of course this never happens until the person learns about Christianity beforehand, either from literature or people. "Nature"/"General Revelation" has never, to my mind, driven anyone to the conclusion that protestant Christianity is the true religion.

I think it gets them to God, who gets them to Christ. "Be faithful in little and you will get more...".

As to my source on Isa. 53, see my comments to Walter in this thread.

Anonymous said...

The witness of the Holy Spirit is objective, huh?

How?


Since we are discussing Bill's view, read his answer to "Counterfit Claims of the Spirit's Witness" in the Q&A section where he specifically addresses Mormonism.

Also, you should listen to my podcast with him on "Religious Experience: Subjective or Objective?" in the podcast section. I bring up the "burning bosom" there as well.

These are free at www.reasonablefaith.org.

Evan said...

Kevin -- I'm quite familiar with Dr. Craig's dodges. I don't think he ever mentions why the Holy Spirit is so silent in Thailand -- and you haven't taken a crack at it either.

The Holy Spirit convinces Catholics of catholicism, Baptists of the truth of their local congregations and Jehovah's Witnesses of the truth of the Watchtower.

How is that objective?

Anonymous said...

Kevin -- I'm quite familiar with Dr. Craig's dodges.

Evan, that is just sour grapes! He is famous for NOT dodging and for being thorough! But that is neither here nor there. Let's get to your questions.

If the witness of the Holy Spirit is so objective, how is it that in Thailand it does such a lousy job and yet in America it's convinced 3/4 of the population?

First, this is a question internal to Christian Theology. And I think "3/4" may be high! Being that the Holy Spirit only draws people to Himself and does not convert against the free will of the person, how do you know He's doing a lousy job? Pretty tough burden of proof there!

It is consistent with Christian Theology that relatively few will respond and that nations and people who honor God will produce more fruit, etc.

Speaking of Bill Craig, he offers that it is at least possible (repeat, possible) that God, knowing who will freely respond, causes that person to be born at a time, place, and circumstances that allow that person to freely respond. Paul said something like this on Mars Hill in Athens.

My main thinking on this is God gives General Revelation to all persons, and increases the Special Revelation to those who respond to the former.


Was Paul's vision of Jesus an objective vision of Jesus, or was it actually a vision of Jesus as seen through the Holy Spirit?

It was a physical, objective encounter with the risen Christ. It was heard, to varying degrees among varying people, with the physical ears and blinded Saul's physical eyes, etc.

(Paul is probably not referring to the appearance of Christ on the Damascus Road as "a vision" in Acts 26:19 but was combining his whole experience, including the Macedonian Call, into a "heavenly vision". Paul's description of the encounter with Christ is in physical terms).

Evan said...

Kevin,

So we can end this easily. If Jesus was willing to appear physically in person to Paul and it didn't destroy Paul's free will, he can easily do it again, correct?

Not only that he can appear to people who are not believers, just as Paul was not.

So I expect that soon he will appear to Bart Ehrman physically and in the flesh, as well as John Loftus. He could appear to Hu Jintao, the premier of China and convert him as well. He could also appear to Kim Jong Il and convert him.

I await this with bated breath.

As for Craig's wildly ad hoc explanation for the weakness of the Holy Spirit in Thailand and its relatively smaller weakness here in the US (by your criteria), it presupposes a deep insight into the mind of the creator of the universe on the part of Craig.

Yet I recall Dr. Craig getting quite upset in debates when atheists argued that the problem of evil invalidated the concept of a good God, saying that it was presumptuous on their part to assume they knew the mind of God.

So which is it? Is it presumptuous to assume you know the mind of God, or is it easy to determine the mind of God by showing how the witness of the Holy Spirit is coordinated by God directing soul traffic preferentially -- sending the damned to Thailand and the saved to the southern part of the US?

Finally, as for Dr. Craig being thorough, we simply are seeing two different people I guess.

Dr. Craig's supposed refutation of Dr. Ehrman's explanation of the empty tomb (Roman soldiers find the stolen body with two other people, summarily execute them and place them in a common grave on Saturday night) is ... let's just say less than thorough.

Here's the refutation:

Now he says, “Well, look at these other hypotheses. Perhaps, for example, family members of Jesus stole the body. Isn’t that more probable?” I don’t think so. Notice there’s no motive in that case for stealing the body; the family members of Jesus didn’t believe in him during his lifetime.

They didn't believe he existed? Really. No family wants to bury its members in a family grave, regardless of whether or not they believe their family member to be God?

What an oddly un-thorough refutation.

He goes on:

Nobody else other than Joseph and his servants and the women disciples even knew where the body had been interred.

How does Dr. Craig know this? If this is the case, how the heck did Mark ever find it out?

The time was insufficient for such a conspiracy to be hatched and launched between Friday night and Sunday morning.

"Hey, James, Jesus was crucified last night. Let's go get his body out of the tomb and take it to our family grave."

"Ok."

Yeah. That took 72 hours.

Also the grave clothes in the tomb
disprove the hypothesis of tomb robbery; nobody would undress the body before taking it away.


Yes, the grave clothes in the tomb are one of his 4 established facts. Oh, wait, they aren't. In fact, they're laughably non-historical.

Yes, Dr. Craig is extremely thorough and never dodges tough questions. Foolish of us to have thought otherwise.

For the record, here's Ehrman's response, which eviscerates Craig's explanation and leaves the corpse in a common grave:

Going on to talk about why in fact my scenario doesn’t work, he says it’s more implausible that the family members stole the body than it would be to say that God raised Jesus from the dead. Why? They’d have no motive. Well, in fact, people act on all sorts of motives, and motive is one of the most difficult things to establish. Historically, maybe his family wanted him to be buried in the family tomb. No one knew where he was buried, he says. Well, that’s not true; in fact the Gospels themselves say the women watched from afar, including his mother. There wasn’t enough time for this to happen. It happened at night. How much time does one need? It doesn’t
explain the grave clothes. Well, the grave clothes are probably a later, legendary embellishment. It can’t explain the appearances of Jesus. Yes, people have visions all the time. Once people come to believe Jesus’ tomb was empty, they come to believe he’s raised from the dead, and they have visions. I’m not saying I think this happened. I think that it’s plausible. It could have happened. It’s more plausible than the claim that God must have raised Jesus from the dead. That is not the most probable historical explanation. You will have noticed that Bill had five more minutes to answer my questions, and he refused to answer my questions, and one might ask why.

The Uncredible Hallq said...

There is a difference between natural (God-given) sexual desire and lust. Jesus said not to lust.

Okay, so how do I know when I've crossed the line and need to pluck out my eyes?

gleaner63 said...

In my experience, I've found that most people have no real objection to the possibility of extraterrestrial life. The real problem arises with the idea of them visiting the Earth. Better to have those aliens tucked away in some distant galaxy than poking around somewhere in West Virginia.
It's fear, not a complete lack of evidence, that causes most people to reject the possibility of alien visitations.