CRJ: Class 3 Recap

Thursday March 17th, 2016 we had our third meeting to study “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.” This session consisted of four main parts: The quiz The discussion of chapters 6-7 A debate rebuttal A case study The Quiz Everyone did very well on this week's quiz but there was one question that kept a few folks from acing it. Out of the nine questions the average score was 7.1 and this week MIT has taken to cumulative quiz score lead with many close behind! "Opposing Theories: Mind Games" and "More Critical Comebacks" (Chapters 6-7) We quickly went through the slides (they can be found here) to make sure we had time to watch part of the debate and also do a case study. So below are a list of the proposed theories we discussed along with some of their main problems. Hallucinations: This theory says that the disciples had false perceptions of Jesus who was, in reality, not risen from the dead. This theory attempts to explain the fact that the disciples genuinely believed they saw Jesus risen from the dead. (Five problems with this theory...) Hallucinations are individual and subjective not shared among a group as in the case of the disciples Does not explain the empty tomb Paul wasn't in the mindset for hallucinations Nor was James There were too many personal variances in the post-mortem appearances Delusions: The disciples were deluded to believe something even though they had evidence for the contrary--like being a brain-washed cult member. (Three problems here...) Paul was not a Christian brain-wash candidate Same with James Does not explain the empty tomb Visions: The theory of "visions" as an explanation is vague. If "visions" mean an objective sighting they the disciples really did see Jesus risen from the dead. If "visions" means a subjective perception then see Hallucinations above. Either case they don't explain the empty tomb. And plus, the appearances were physical (more on this next week). Psychological Theories that Target Paul: A number of proposed explanations are based on a psychoanalysis of Paul. They say he had conversion disorder, or conversion due to guilt, or was really just seeking power, or had some sort of epiphany. These sorts of theories are covered in the debate video was watched later. Combination Theories: The big problem with combining theories is that it further reduces the probability (it's like trying to roll the same number on a die multiple times in a row). Plus it is ad hoc to just tack proposed theories together. Discrepancies in the Gospels: At most the claim of discrepancies in the Gospels calls inerrancy into question. But that's not our argument. We are using minimal facts. Plus there are very plausible explanations for many, if not all, of the discrepancies. The Resurrection Accounts are Biased: We discussed this in our case study so we will come back to that. A Risen Jesus Would Have Made a Greater Impact: The truth is that we simply have few very few records from two thousand years ago for (Christian or non-Christian). But what we do have is relatively high amount of records of Jesus! He did make a lot of impact for a traveling rabbi with only a three-year ministry! "The Disciples Experienced Something, What it was we will never know." This really isn't an explanation at all. It just affirms the facts and gives up from there. But, as we will later see, the resurrection hypothesis is a really good explanation. Jesus was an Extraterrestrial Alien: Jesus really wasn't like an alien. Plus this theory doesn't deny the resurrection but rather the cause saying it was aliens, not God. But given who Jesus was, God being the explanation make much more sense than aliens playing a cosmic trick on us.  William Lane Craig vs. Gerd Ludemann: They debatedover the possibility of the resurrection. Craig argued for the resurrection and Ludemann argued against it instead arguing for a theory based on a psychoanalysis of Peter and Paul. We watched Dr. Craig's 10-minute counter-argument. Watch here to understand the problems with Gerd Ludemann's theory. Also you can read Dr. Craig's scholarly response here.  Case Study: "The Bible is Biased!" We concluded our time formulating a response to a fictional skeptic who criticizes our minimal facts argument by saying that the Bible is biased. Below are a few points we might make in response: We are not trying to prove the BIble Our argument is based on widely accepted and well proven facts - not inerrancy of the Bible If you neglected history written by people with bias you'd throw out all of history! Just because something is biased, doesn't mean it is wrong The NT (and Bible) really is a trustworthy source

For next time (March 24, 2016 in rooms 13-15 of Mt. Zion UMC Education building): Read chapter 8 and 9 Review chapters 6 and 7 for a short quiz