In dealing with the NT Resurrection accounts, atheists take the position that a genuine resurrection is out of the question. That's not open for consideration. Therefore, any explanation is preferable to that. The swoon theory. The disciples went to the wrong address. The body was stolen. Jesus had a twin brother. Jesus was a space alien.
Now for a striking parallel. Arminians take the position that Calvinism is out of the question. That's not open for consideration. Therefore, any explanation is preferable to that.
Open theism is preferable. Repudiating inerrancy is preferable. Positing that God has middle knowledge of what nonexistent persons, many of whom will never exist, would do. Somehow, these nonentities have a shadowy independence in relation to which God intuits the nonexistent choices of nonexistent agents.
Stipulating simple foreknowledge despite the admitted contradiction between foreknowledge and libertarian freedom.
In fact, many Arminians have made it abundantly clear that if the alternatives boiled down to Calvinism or atheism, they'd opt for atheism. The Calvinist God is "unworthy of their worship." A "moral monster." Atheism is their ultimate fallback position. Kinda like shooting yourself in the head before the police nab you.
Both Arminians and atheist will grasp at any explanation whatsoever to evade the remaining explanation, even if it happens to be right.
God's absolute sovereignty over all things, including all aspects of salvation, is pretty offensive to man's innate sinful pride.
ReplyDeleteIf you've conversed with many (any) atheists on the resurrection, you'll know there are many better theories than "Jesus swooned". One of the most likely, of course, is "Jesus never existed at all", though a plausible alternative is "Jesus existed, Jesus died, his followers claimed to have met him post death without actually having done so".
ReplyDeleteAnyone who has granted you so much accuracy to the gospels that they have to actually theorise on what happened to a body is either being very generous in debate, or not particularly well informed.
@Slow Learner
DeleteYour comment lives up to your name:
1. You make assertions sans argumentation. Where's your argument either "Jesus never existed at all" or "Jesus existed, Jesus died, his followers claimed to have met him post death without actually having done so"?
2. Many experts have already dealt quite successfully with arguments against the historicity of Jesus' existence, claims his disciples were either lying or deluded, and/or the reliability of the gospels. Just to name a few off the top of my head: Richard Bauckham, Darrell Bock, James Dunn, Bart Ehrman, Craig Evans, Larry Hurtado, Robert Van Voorst. Have you interacted with their scholarship?
There's likewise plenty of material on Triablogue. Just do a search.