Easter is coming soon, and some related issues are prominent in the news because of the claims being made about the discovery of Jesus' tomb, so I thought I'd post some recommended resources on Easter-related issues. If anybody wants to add any recommendations to mine, you can do so in the comments section of this thread.
Steve Hays' e-book This Joyful Eastertide has been updated since the original edition. It has hundreds of pages of searchable text and covers a large variety of topics related to the resurrection. There's a lot of material in the archives of this blog as well, especially during the Easter seasons of previous years. Glenn Miller and J.P. Holding have a lot of relevant material at their web sites, such as articles on the physical nature of the resurrection in the New Testament documents, the subjective visions hypothesis, and harmonization of the resurrection narratives (here and here). Christian CADRE has a lot of good material as well. See, also, David Wood's web site, Gary Habermas', Michael Licona's, and William Craig's.
One of the best resources I'm aware of in book format is Gary Habermas and Michael Licona's The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2004). Anything by Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, or William Craig is likely to be good, and N.T. Wright's The Resurrection Of The Son Of God (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2003) is useful.
Ah yes, thank you for reminding us. It'll soon be time to resurrect the Easter Bunny!
ReplyDeleteI would add Richard Carrier as an excellent resource. Certainly his is a good place to start when first considering basic objections to this central Christian claim.
ReplyDeleteAlso offers many insights worth considering.
Carrier's has a lot of other good material.
I guess I'm not setting up the links properly.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I have three links in the above which are worth checking out. They include his "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story", "Was Christianity Too Imporbable to be False", and his general library at the sec web. Links are:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/
http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/
http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/
Oh, and don't forget Richard Carrier's dicussion with Gary Habermas and Mike Licona...where Richard is made to look like a fool.
ReplyDeletePart 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4.
It should be noted that making someone "look like a fool" and refuting his position are in fact two different things altogether. Christians are adept at making people look like fools, for foolishness is their stock in trade. But their foolishness does not refute a non-Christian's position.
ReplyDeletejon curry said:
ReplyDelete---
I guess I'm not setting up the links properly.
---
At least that matches the argumentation provided when one clicks the links...
Panther said:
---
It should be noted that making someone "look like a fool" and refuting his position are in fact two different things altogether.
---
Actually, this doesn't always follow. When someone is the argument, demonstrating him to be a fool demonstrates the argument to be a fool too.
Likewise, if you hold to foolish arguments you're a fool. To quote the only "theologian" you probably ever listen to (Stephen Colbert): "That's a stupid thing to say, and you're a stupid person for saying it."
It should be noted that making someone "look like a fool" and refuting his position are in fact two different things altogether.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry I actually have to responds to this...they made Carrier look like a fool because of the "arguments" he was throwing around (they were certainly not making fun of him). With that kind of comment, I'm assuming you didn't listen to the show.
Jeff Downs
For a critical analysis of many of Carrier’s unsupported claims and interpretations, the CADRE has been quite busy in the past. No wonder Carrier often avoids publishing in peer-reviewed journals. See here:
ReplyDeletehttp://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/10/seed-analogy-in-1-corinthians-15.html#comments
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/10/is-carrier-wrong-about-2-corinthians.html#comments
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/01/assumption-of-moses.html
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/01/is-richard-carrier-wrong-about-what.html
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/01/is-richard-carrier-wrong-about-what_21.html
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/02/is-richard-carrier-wrong-about-qumran.html
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/01/is-richard-carrier-wrong-about.html
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2005/02/according-to-alan-segal-recommended-to.html
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/09/is-carrier-wrong-about-paul-and.html#comments
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/04/is-richard-carrier-wrong-about-what.html#comments
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/04/is-richard-carrier-wrong-about-what_27.html#comments
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/02/is-richard-carrier-wrong-about.html
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/02/is-richard-carrier-wrong-about-scribes.html
"No wonder Carrier often avoids publishing in peer-reviewed journals."
ReplyDeleteCarrier isn't really cut out for the scholarly world. He occasionally slips something under the radar, but it's rare.
So making someone look like a fool is the same thing as refuting his argument? A lot of atheists are going to be happy to see Christians affirming this! Thanks Jeff and Pete!
ReplyDeleteSo making someone look like a fool is the same thing as refuting his argument? A lot of atheists are going to be happy to see Christians affirming this!
ReplyDeleteYou obviously can not, or refuse to comprehend what I've said. I have no interest in continuing with someone who twists my words.
Nesbitt said:
ReplyDelete---
So making someone look like a fool is the same thing as refuting his argument?
---
In your case, yes. After all, you've offered no argument, so all we are left with is to show that you're a fool (which you actually do for us by not using the reading skills you have, as demonstrated by the fact that you can write but have no clue how to read anything that either Jeff or I have actually written).
Nesbitt,
ReplyDeleteI think the point about Carrier would go something like this:
(1) It's easy to pass off a bad argument as a good argument, as long as you're presenting the argument to people who don't know much (i.e. just about all of Carrier's readers).
(2) The test of a good argument comes when it is submitted to scholars in a particular field, who are capable of pointing out flaws in the argument.
(3) Habermas and Licona opened the show with their case for the resurrection of Jesus.
(4) Carrier had an opportunity to raise some objections.
(5) We can only assume that, going up against Habermas and Licona, Carrier would raise his best objections.
(6) The objections he brought up were utterly ridiculous.
(7) Hence, Carrier probably has no significant objections to the resurrection (at least, no objections that are relevant among scholars).
I would add that, as bad as Carrier's objections were, they would have worked quite well if he had brought them up among atheists. That is, the objections would have seemed good to atheists, even though the objections were ridiculous.
So as far as the Carrier-Habermas-Licona exchange goes, we have (a) Habermas and Licona presenting a case for the resurrection, (b) Carrier can't raise a single significant objection, (c) Carrier raises a number of points, and (d) all of these points are blown out of the water.
Atheists, of course, don't think this matters at all, and they continue to pretend that Carrier's arguments are a threat to the resurrection.