I've commented before that currently I'm studying intensively the best literature (in English and German) for and against the case for Jesus' Resurrection. In addition to books on atheism, philosophy, parasychology, and UFOs, my library is becoming increasingly filled with books, papers, videos and audios on New Testament scholarship and biblical criticism (something that 15 years ago was unthinkable for me).
I've been astonished by what appear to be the fact that most people (Christians and non-Christians) who has studied the evidence for and against the resurrection of Jesus in a more or less unbiased manner (specially, without naturalistic-atheistic prejudices), comes to the conclusion that at least something paranormal (or even supernatural) happened in that case.
For example, in my interview with Michael Prescott, when asked about Jesus and his putative Resurrection, Michael commented: "I do think he was a real historical figure and that the gospels provide at least a generally reliable overview of his ministry, though undoubtedly with omissions and embellishments. As for the resurrection, I do believe that Jesus' followers witnessed his reappearance after his death. I think what they were probably seeing is what spiritualists today would call the etheric body, which can have physical attributes and yet do things that an ordinary earthly body can't do, like vanish at will. I suspect that Jesus chose his disciples in large part because they had latent psychic abilities of their own, which might have helped them to perceive the etheric body"
Michael, who is not himself a Christian, has a good command of the relevant literature and his conclusion is not only that the gospels provide at least a generally realiable overview of his ministry, but in addition that one of the facts mentioned as evidence for Jesus' Resurrection (namely, Jesus' apparitions after his death) was historical and hence explainable in terms of the "Etheric body hypothesis" (not the hypothesis of Jesus' literal resurrection).
Robert Perry, another author who is not himself a Christian, when asked about Jesus' Resurrection, comments: "I think the evidence for it is surprisingly good, and should not be dismissed on the grounds that such a thing is impossible. I have found value in the arguments of conservative scholars on this, whose work I otherwise disagree with. I have especially been influenced by the testimony of Paul in this regard, who within a few years of Jesus’ death spoke with those who were there and witnessed the risen Jesus. And I have also been heavily influenced by the Shroud of Turin, the evidence for which is actually quite remarkable, notwithstanding the (now discredited) 1988 carbon dating"
Robert is convinced by the evidence that Jesus' Resurrection was a real historical event. In addition, he brings to the debate the consideration of the Shroud of Turin as part of the evidence. I admit that previously I've considered the Shroud of Turin a fraud. Currently, however, I'm more open to the view that it could be real, but I'm still agnostic about it. This is still a topic which I haven't researched in depth.
I mentioned Michael and Robert because they're people familiar with parapsychology, afterlife research and the literature for and against Jesus' Resurrection, and they are convinced by the evidence that it was a real event, or that something real (from a paranormal origin) is the cause of it (like in Michael's case).
I've been astonished by what appear to be the fact that most people (Christians and non-Christians) who has studied the evidence for and against the resurrection of Jesus in a more or less unbiased manner (specially, without naturalistic-atheistic prejudices), comes to the conclusion that at least something paranormal (or even supernatural) happened in that case.
For example, in my interview with Michael Prescott, when asked about Jesus and his putative Resurrection, Michael commented: "I do think he was a real historical figure and that the gospels provide at least a generally reliable overview of his ministry, though undoubtedly with omissions and embellishments. As for the resurrection, I do believe that Jesus' followers witnessed his reappearance after his death. I think what they were probably seeing is what spiritualists today would call the etheric body, which can have physical attributes and yet do things that an ordinary earthly body can't do, like vanish at will. I suspect that Jesus chose his disciples in large part because they had latent psychic abilities of their own, which might have helped them to perceive the etheric body"
Michael, who is not himself a Christian, has a good command of the relevant literature and his conclusion is not only that the gospels provide at least a generally realiable overview of his ministry, but in addition that one of the facts mentioned as evidence for Jesus' Resurrection (namely, Jesus' apparitions after his death) was historical and hence explainable in terms of the "Etheric body hypothesis" (not the hypothesis of Jesus' literal resurrection).
Robert Perry, another author who is not himself a Christian, when asked about Jesus' Resurrection, comments: "I think the evidence for it is surprisingly good, and should not be dismissed on the grounds that such a thing is impossible. I have found value in the arguments of conservative scholars on this, whose work I otherwise disagree with. I have especially been influenced by the testimony of Paul in this regard, who within a few years of Jesus’ death spoke with those who were there and witnessed the risen Jesus. And I have also been heavily influenced by the Shroud of Turin, the evidence for which is actually quite remarkable, notwithstanding the (now discredited) 1988 carbon dating"
Robert is convinced by the evidence that Jesus' Resurrection was a real historical event. In addition, he brings to the debate the consideration of the Shroud of Turin as part of the evidence. I admit that previously I've considered the Shroud of Turin a fraud. Currently, however, I'm more open to the view that it could be real, but I'm still agnostic about it. This is still a topic which I haven't researched in depth.
I mentioned Michael and Robert because they're people familiar with parapsychology, afterlife research and the literature for and against Jesus' Resurrection, and they are convinced by the evidence that it was a real event, or that something real (from a paranormal origin) is the cause of it (like in Michael's case).
The Etheric Body Hypothesis of Jesus' Resurrection:
I must confess that I was sympathetic for this hypothesis, according to which the Resurrection was actually the vision of Jesus' etheric body by his disciples.
Also, I think this hypothesis is widely shared by spiritualists, since they tend to interpret the putative resurrection of Jesus in terms of known in spiritualistic circles (namely, in terms of etheric bodies and mediumship materializations).
Currently, I don't find this hypothesis convincing anymore. The main reason is that I think this hypothesis (in comparison with the hypothesis of Jesus' Resurrection) lack explanatory scope, because it only accounts for the vision by the disciples of Jesus after his death, but it doesn't account:
1-For the empty tomb
2-If Robert is right, for the Shroud of Turin
Let's stick just to point 1, the empty tomb (point 2 is even more controversial).
My current assesment of the literature suggests that the empty tomb is accepted as a probable historical fact by most New Testament scholars, Christians and non-Christians alike (by "most scholars", I'm simply suggesting more than 50% of them. I doesn't require to be an overwhelming majority).
Just consider what agnostic New Testament scholar and critic of the resurrection Bart Ehrman (in his work/lecutres The Teaching Company 2003, lecture 4) has to say about the empty tomb:
We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later. This is attested in all of our gospel sources, early and late, and so it appears to be a historical datum. As so I think we can say that after Jesus’ death, with some (probably with some) certainty, that he was buried, possibly by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and that three days later he appeared not to have been in his tomb" (emphasis in blue added).
Ehrman considers that with "probably some certainty" we can assert the historiticity of the empty tomb. This is everything what a historian needs (since a 100% certainty about historical events is almost never available for a historian).
If we follow Erhman in this sense, then whatever hypothesis we use to explain the historical data relevant to assess Jesus' Resurrection has to account for the empty tomb. The resurrection hypothesis accounts for it, for the visions of the disiciples (and other individuals) and by the origin of the Christian belief.
But the "etheric body hypothesis" accounts only for the visions of the disciples and, possibly, for the origin of the Christian belief, but not for the empty tomb (the etheric body is different than the physical body) and hence the defender of the etheric body hypothesis has to add another ad hoc hypothesis (not supported by independent historical evidence) to account for the empty tomb (e.g. to say that the corse was stolen) which implicitly concedes that its explanatory scope is inferior to the resurrection hypothesis. Or, alternatively, he has to deny the empty tomb (and in this case, he has to provide arguments for this view and show why Erhman's conclusion, shared by most scholars, is false).
There are scholars who have made tried hard to argue against the empty tomb. For example, in his amazingly erudite book Resurrecting Jesus , Dale Allison examines several arguments for the empty tomb and find them wanting. However, he admits that at least a respectably case could be made for the empty tomb but, he adds, also a respectable case could be made against it (Allison mentions just 2 arguments against it, which I found largely unconvincing).
I was even more convinced of the empty tomb, as a probable historical fact, after reading Allison's argumentation (that a amazingly erudite intellectual and sophisticated scholar like Allison cannot refute this evidence actually tends to reinforce the evidence for the empty tomb).
In conclusion, I do share with Erhman and Robert Perry that "the evidence argues for an empty tomb" as the most probable historical conclusion.
This is why I cannot accept the etheric body hypothesis, unless the evidence for it (and against the empty tomb) were stronger. And I think this evidence doesn't exist.
This is why I think, in this point, that the hypothesis of Jesus' Resurrection only could be rejected on a priori philosophical grounds, namely, appealing (like Erhman) to Hume's arguments against miracles (an argument which also has been used by "skeptics" against paranormal and afterlife claims).
But Hume's argument is unconvincing, and this is why I accept the best evidence for afterlife and other paranormal claims. Therefore, on the same grounds, I have to be open to Jesus' Resurrection if the evidence for it (as it appears) is reasonably good (better than the alternatives).
For a non-technical critique of Hume's argument against miracles from a point of view of parapsychology, see Chris Carter's chapter in his book "Parapsychology and the Skeptics" (now entitled Science and Psychic Phenomena). For a more technical critique, see agnostic philosopher of science John Erhman's book "Hume's Abject Failure" (this was the book that William Lane Craig mentioned in his debate with Bart Erhman, which destroyed Bart totally. Bart Erhman simply hadn't any technical reply at all and ineptly misrepresented Craig's argument against Hume as a "mathematical argument for God's existence" which obviously was not the case. Craig made use of the contemporary Bayesian calculus of probabilities in order to show that the improbability of a miracle is partially determined by the improbability of God's existence. Bart Erhman main reply was that a historian, qua historian, cannot claim that a miracle has happened, which is a red herring since the topic of the debate wasn't "Can a historian in his function as historian to explain a historical event in miraculous terms?" Rather, the topic was about if the hypothesis Jesus' Resurrection is the best explanation of the evidence or not, regardless of whatever are the historian's methodological contrains).
I've mentioned purely evidential reasons to think that the spiritualistic "etheric body hypothesis" is inferior than the resurrection hypothesis.
But there is another reason why I think it is the case. In the context of Jesus' teachings and religious social enviroment (which was prepared in advance by the Jewish history and the persistent interventions of "Yahve" in the Old Testament), the resurrection seems to be a kind of validation of his moral and doctrinary claims about God's Kingdom. Put simplistically, it is as if he was saying "Look, as I told you in advance, I've been resurrected, therefore believe in what I taught you and trust me. I cannot give you more details but I hope you trust me based on the resurrection as the ultimate proof that I've given to you.".
Now, if Jesus' putative "resurrection" wasn't a resurrection at all but simply the expression of his etheric body as seen by the disciples, then I see no reason why such an event would validate Jesus' teachings in particular. After all, spiritualists have given evidence that the etheric body exists, and not "God's Kingdom" is needed to believe in this (in fact some spiritualists are atheists and hence for them the God's Kingdom has to be literally false).
I simply see no comparison between Jesus' Resurrection (and its spiritual and even theological implications) with what spiritualists, by purely empirical means, have discoveried.
I suspect that Jesus was talking about something even more profound (and hard to understand to our minds) that the spiritualistic findings of the existence of an afterlife and related matters (e.g. "spirits", "etheric bodies", mediumship communications, etc.).
My conclusion is that if Jesus' Resurrection was real, then we have in presence of an exceptional and special historical event with astonishing implications, a lot more important and trascendental than whatever the afterlife research has shown or could show.
Also, I think this hypothesis is widely shared by spiritualists, since they tend to interpret the putative resurrection of Jesus in terms of known in spiritualistic circles (namely, in terms of etheric bodies and mediumship materializations).
Currently, I don't find this hypothesis convincing anymore. The main reason is that I think this hypothesis (in comparison with the hypothesis of Jesus' Resurrection) lack explanatory scope, because it only accounts for the vision by the disciples of Jesus after his death, but it doesn't account:
1-For the empty tomb
2-If Robert is right, for the Shroud of Turin
Let's stick just to point 1, the empty tomb (point 2 is even more controversial).
My current assesment of the literature suggests that the empty tomb is accepted as a probable historical fact by most New Testament scholars, Christians and non-Christians alike (by "most scholars", I'm simply suggesting more than 50% of them. I doesn't require to be an overwhelming majority).
Just consider what agnostic New Testament scholar and critic of the resurrection Bart Ehrman (in his work/lecutres The Teaching Company 2003, lecture 4) has to say about the empty tomb:
We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later. This is attested in all of our gospel sources, early and late, and so it appears to be a historical datum. As so I think we can say that after Jesus’ death, with some (probably with some) certainty, that he was buried, possibly by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and that three days later he appeared not to have been in his tomb" (emphasis in blue added).
Ehrman considers that with "probably some certainty" we can assert the historiticity of the empty tomb. This is everything what a historian needs (since a 100% certainty about historical events is almost never available for a historian).
If we follow Erhman in this sense, then whatever hypothesis we use to explain the historical data relevant to assess Jesus' Resurrection has to account for the empty tomb. The resurrection hypothesis accounts for it, for the visions of the disiciples (and other individuals) and by the origin of the Christian belief.
But the "etheric body hypothesis" accounts only for the visions of the disciples and, possibly, for the origin of the Christian belief, but not for the empty tomb (the etheric body is different than the physical body) and hence the defender of the etheric body hypothesis has to add another ad hoc hypothesis (not supported by independent historical evidence) to account for the empty tomb (e.g. to say that the corse was stolen) which implicitly concedes that its explanatory scope is inferior to the resurrection hypothesis. Or, alternatively, he has to deny the empty tomb (and in this case, he has to provide arguments for this view and show why Erhman's conclusion, shared by most scholars, is false).
There are scholars who have made tried hard to argue against the empty tomb. For example, in his amazingly erudite book Resurrecting Jesus , Dale Allison examines several arguments for the empty tomb and find them wanting. However, he admits that at least a respectably case could be made for the empty tomb but, he adds, also a respectable case could be made against it (Allison mentions just 2 arguments against it, which I found largely unconvincing).
I was even more convinced of the empty tomb, as a probable historical fact, after reading Allison's argumentation (that a amazingly erudite intellectual and sophisticated scholar like Allison cannot refute this evidence actually tends to reinforce the evidence for the empty tomb).
In conclusion, I do share with Erhman and Robert Perry that "the evidence argues for an empty tomb" as the most probable historical conclusion.
This is why I cannot accept the etheric body hypothesis, unless the evidence for it (and against the empty tomb) were stronger. And I think this evidence doesn't exist.
This is why I think, in this point, that the hypothesis of Jesus' Resurrection only could be rejected on a priori philosophical grounds, namely, appealing (like Erhman) to Hume's arguments against miracles (an argument which also has been used by "skeptics" against paranormal and afterlife claims).
But Hume's argument is unconvincing, and this is why I accept the best evidence for afterlife and other paranormal claims. Therefore, on the same grounds, I have to be open to Jesus' Resurrection if the evidence for it (as it appears) is reasonably good (better than the alternatives).
For a non-technical critique of Hume's argument against miracles from a point of view of parapsychology, see Chris Carter's chapter in his book "Parapsychology and the Skeptics" (now entitled Science and Psychic Phenomena). For a more technical critique, see agnostic philosopher of science John Erhman's book "Hume's Abject Failure" (this was the book that William Lane Craig mentioned in his debate with Bart Erhman, which destroyed Bart totally. Bart Erhman simply hadn't any technical reply at all and ineptly misrepresented Craig's argument against Hume as a "mathematical argument for God's existence" which obviously was not the case. Craig made use of the contemporary Bayesian calculus of probabilities in order to show that the improbability of a miracle is partially determined by the improbability of God's existence. Bart Erhman main reply was that a historian, qua historian, cannot claim that a miracle has happened, which is a red herring since the topic of the debate wasn't "Can a historian in his function as historian to explain a historical event in miraculous terms?" Rather, the topic was about if the hypothesis Jesus' Resurrection is the best explanation of the evidence or not, regardless of whatever are the historian's methodological contrains).
I've mentioned purely evidential reasons to think that the spiritualistic "etheric body hypothesis" is inferior than the resurrection hypothesis.
But there is another reason why I think it is the case. In the context of Jesus' teachings and religious social enviroment (which was prepared in advance by the Jewish history and the persistent interventions of "Yahve" in the Old Testament), the resurrection seems to be a kind of validation of his moral and doctrinary claims about God's Kingdom. Put simplistically, it is as if he was saying "Look, as I told you in advance, I've been resurrected, therefore believe in what I taught you and trust me. I cannot give you more details but I hope you trust me based on the resurrection as the ultimate proof that I've given to you.".
Now, if Jesus' putative "resurrection" wasn't a resurrection at all but simply the expression of his etheric body as seen by the disciples, then I see no reason why such an event would validate Jesus' teachings in particular. After all, spiritualists have given evidence that the etheric body exists, and not "God's Kingdom" is needed to believe in this (in fact some spiritualists are atheists and hence for them the God's Kingdom has to be literally false).
I simply see no comparison between Jesus' Resurrection (and its spiritual and even theological implications) with what spiritualists, by purely empirical means, have discoveried.
I suspect that Jesus was talking about something even more profound (and hard to understand to our minds) that the spiritualistic findings of the existence of an afterlife and related matters (e.g. "spirits", "etheric bodies", mediumship communications, etc.).
My conclusion is that if Jesus' Resurrection was real, then we have in presence of an exceptional and special historical event with astonishing implications, a lot more important and trascendental than whatever the afterlife research has shown or could show.
0 comments:
Post a Comment