Jurgen Moltmann April 8, 1926 (age 92 years), Hamburg, Germany
In this essay I am evoking Motmann's concept of the Resurrection as history making to make the point that Bowen's attack on all of Christian apologetic is just ignorant of the options a Christian apologist has to put in play. Let it be understood from the outset I believe in the historicity of the resurrection and I will defend it. But some great theologians have other approaches as well. Bowen's attack in so far as it only see evangelicals as Christian is ignorant, This is why I clouded other views with which I disagree. But Moltmann is not one of them. Moltmann believes in the historical resurrection.
In arguing with Bradly Bowen of the secular outpost over his defense of the "swoon theory" he expands his attack on Christian apologetics to encompass all Christian apologists:"By the way, this is a LITMUS TEST for any Christian philosopher or apologist, and it is a test that virtually EVERY Christian philosopher and apologist FAILS."[1] By philosopher I include theologians.
This led to the following exchange:
Brad:
"The widely used apologetic argument based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus is intended to show that Jesus was divine and that his death provides a way of salvation and for obtaining eternal life to any human being who believes that Jesus is divine, and that Jesus died for our sins and that God raised Jesus from the dead. My interest in the question "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" has to do with evaluation of this widely used apologetic argument."
Joe: so it is more than just get Kreeft? It is about apologetic after all.
Brad:I couldn't care less about whether the story of the resurrection "works as a powerful symbol".
Joe: Yes I figured as much. but you don't care about its truth content either, why do you think that apologetically argument is the key to truth? Without the theological content the argument is meaningless.If the symbolism school is right then the arguments are unnecessary and waste our time,
Brad: The fact that some story "works as a powerful symbol" tells us NOTHING about whether the story is historical or factually TRUE. Even if the story of the resurrection of Jesus "works as a powerful symbol" it could still be JUST A FICTIONAL story, and therefore it would FAIL to provide factual information about what actually happened to Jesus, and whether there was actually a miracle connected with the death of Jesus.
Joe what if the story is fictional (I don;t believe that but for argument;s sake) the story is fiction but the thing it communicates is true wouldn't you want to know that truth? why would we need a historical event if it points to something beyond itself?
Brad: Thus Tillich's theological musings about the resurrection are IRRELEVANT, at least in terms of figuring out whether the story of Jesus' resurrection is FACTUAL or FICTIONAL.
Joe Why do you call them "musings" when you don;t know what they are ? why would the truth of the event be reliant if a rater truth is there beyond it?Hey you are railing against how lame Christian thinkers are but you are ignorant of the major thinkers,[2]Bowen's arrogance and ignorance in attacking all Christian apologetic leads to my desire to expose the fact that there is a whole wing of Christian apologists he doesn't even understand and knows nothing about. Toward this end I discuss Jurgen Moltmann's approach to the historicity of the resurrection.
Historians have argued that a view like that of the resurrection of Christ can't be understood as a historical event, thus can't be proved by historical evidence because history is intrinsically naturalistic. Historians must make naturalistic assumptions thus a miracle can't play a role in history. The first thing to notice about this argument is that far from contradicting what I've said, it supports my position in that I argue that atheist's only have ideological objections to the resurrection. There's no historically based disproof. If untrained non-historian apologists mistakenly argue "this is historical" the atheists objections are not based upon disproving the historically based evidence they are only based upon ideological assumptions. Evoking the rules of history is also ideological assumption.[3]
Eschatology in Theology of Hope.
In his great ground breaking work, Theology of Hope (1964) [4] Jurgen Moltmann re-positions eschatology transforming it from a lose appendix (last things) to a dynamic aspect of the Hegelian understanding of history. The Hegelian aspect is not important, what is important is that "the last things," the eschatological element becomes: the horizon of hope; the point from which we take our focus of history not the past where we have been but the future where we are headed. The Resurrection is a focal point or a "strange attracter"as it were for the point to which history moves, the consummation of creator and creation. That is not a Moltmonnian phrase, but put it in Moltmann;s terms, "eschatology means the doctrine of Christian Hope which embraces both the object hoped for and the hope inspired ny it...the medium of Christian faith as such..."[5]
The History Making Concept.
He argues, the rules of history exclude the miraculous. This is because historians, as heirs to the enlightenment, automatically exclude the supernatural. For this reason the resurrection cannot be seen as historical, a priori, for the rules of making history are set by an ideology of metaphysical assumptions which dogmatically excludes anything miraculous. History must be predicated upon the assumption of a coherent natural world, therefore, the supernatural cannot be part of history.[6] Yet he felt it was important to make a place for the resurrection in modern thought. So he argued for changing the rules. Rather than calling the resurrection "historical" he calls it "history making." The belief itself has shaped the outline of historical event. This is apart from the question of its truth content, the fact of belief in it made history what it is. This introduces the concept of understanding the belief as history making thus the evidence that supports the belief is also history making. His solution: change the rules. We wont call it "historical" but "history making."
Skeptics are too quick to argue that the resurrection is not historical fact. In modernity we have gained an anti-supernatural bias, and so the believer is forced to ask rhetorical questions like "did Jesus raise form the dead?" and then to answer them rhetorically. Moltmann changes the rules. Rather than ask if the resurrection is "historical" he merely argues that it doesn't have to be, it is history making. We change the rules of the debate because predicated upon the preaching of the resurrection is one of the most profound developments of world history; the growth of the Christian faith which has shaped the entire Western tradition. We view the Resurrection of Christ as history making because the belief in it did change history, the doctrine of it has made history, and belief today shapes the basis of all Christian doctrine. We put aside the hypocritical skepticism of naturalistic circular arguments and allow ourselves to accept the verdict of a history that has been made by faith in the event, in light of the fact that there is enough there to base faith upon. (see Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, 1968).
The doctrine furnishes the basis for hope, when grasped in faith, that offers a much more profound answer to any of questions about life and death than any form of skepticism or pride in confusion ever could. Rather than merely declare a rules change, I will argue that this rules change is warranted based upon the evidence. In other words, not that the resurrection can be "proven" in the same sense that any other aspect of historical research can be proven, but that the resurrection evidence is credible enough that one can feel confident in asserting its truth as a tenet of faith. The actual case can never be proven, or disproved, but the evidence allows one to believe with impunity.
In keeping with my policy of enlightening the reader about my sources, I must point out that I do lean heavily upon two major evangelical sources here: F.F. Bruce, and William Lane Craig. Bruce is, however, one of the most highly respected Evangelical scholars, even among the liberal camp, and Craig is renown as a highly credible and effective apologist. The other sources such as D. E. H. Whiteley, Stephen Neil, Gaalyah Cornfeld, and Luke Timothy Johnson are basically liberal or moderate.A few major liberal theologians, such as Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg have defended faith in the resurrection.
Historical Verdict Reversed
As William Lane Craig puts it:
Before the apologist can even posit the turth of the resurrection, his truth is refuted by the very nature of historical "facts" as modern thought construes them; supernatural events cannot be part of history. But Moltmann turns this around on the nature of modern thought by arguing that before modern thought can posit a naturalistic history, the content of history is already shaped by supernatural claims.
He argues, the rules of history exclude the miraculous. This is because historians, as heirs to the enlightenment, automatically exclude the supernatural. For this reason the resurrection cannot be seen as historical, a priori, for the rules of making history are set by an ideology of metaphysical assumptions which dogmatically excludes anything miraculous. History must be predicated upon the assumption of a coherent natural world, therefore, the supernatural cannot be part of history.[6] Yet he felt it was important to make a place for the resurrection in modern thought. So he argued for changing the rules. Rather than calling the resurrection "historical" he calls it "history making." The belief itself has shaped the outline of historical event. This is apart from the question of its truth content, the fact of belief in it made history what it is. This introduces the concept of understanding the belief as history making thus the evidence that supports the belief is also history making. His solution: change the rules. We wont call it "historical" but "history making."
"The resurrection of Christ does not mean a possibility within the world and its history, but a new possibility altogether for the world, for existence, and for history. Only when the world can be understood as contingent creation out of the freedom of God...does the rising of Christ become intelligible as nova create [new creation]. ...it is necessary to expose the profound irrationality of the rational cosmos of the tech scientific world..."[7]
"The resurrection of Christ is without prattle in the history known to us. But it can be for that very reason regarded as a 'history making event' in the light of which all other history is illumined, called into question and transformed." [8]
Skeptics are too quick to argue that the resurrection is not historical fact. In modernity we have gained an anti-supernatural bias, and so the believer is forced to ask rhetorical questions like "did Jesus raise form the dead?" and then to answer them rhetorically. Moltmann changes the rules. Rather than ask if the resurrection is "historical" he merely argues that it doesn't have to be, it is history making. We change the rules of the debate because predicated upon the preaching of the resurrection is one of the most profound developments of world history; the growth of the Christian faith which has shaped the entire Western tradition. We view the Resurrection of Christ as history making because the belief in it did change history, the doctrine of it has made history, and belief today shapes the basis of all Christian doctrine. We put aside the hypocritical skepticism of naturalistic circular arguments and allow ourselves to accept the verdict of a history that has been made by faith in the event, in light of the fact that there is enough there to base faith upon. (see Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, 1968).
The doctrine furnishes the basis for hope, when grasped in faith, that offers a much more profound answer to any of questions about life and death than any form of skepticism or pride in confusion ever could. Rather than merely declare a rules change, I will argue that this rules change is warranted based upon the evidence. In other words, not that the resurrection can be "proven" in the same sense that any other aspect of historical research can be proven, but that the resurrection evidence is credible enough that one can feel confident in asserting its truth as a tenet of faith. The actual case can never be proven, or disproved, but the evidence allows one to believe with impunity.
In keeping with my policy of enlightening the reader about my sources, I must point out that I do lean heavily upon two major evangelical sources here: F.F. Bruce, and William Lane Craig. Bruce is, however, one of the most highly respected Evangelical scholars, even among the liberal camp, and Craig is renown as a highly credible and effective apologist. The other sources such as D. E. H. Whiteley, Stephen Neil, Gaalyah Cornfeld, and Luke Timothy Johnson are basically liberal or moderate.A few major liberal theologians, such as Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg have defended faith in the resurrection.
Historical Verdict Reversed
As William Lane Craig puts it:
The real case for skepticism of the resurrection of Christ was actually developed by 19th century liberal theology, and though they don't know it, the objections of most Internet skeptics today are echoes of those arguments. But in the postwar era even major liberal theologians began to defend the resurrection. Ernst Kasemann, student of Bultmann, at Marburg in 1953 argued that Bultmann's skepticism toward the historical Jesus was biased and Kasemann re-opened a new Quest for the historical Jesus. The great modern liberal theologian Wolfheart Paennberg argued for the resurrection of Jesus. Hans Grass argued that the resurrection cannot be dismissed as mere myth, and Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen defended the historical credibility of Jesus empty tomb....Equally startling is the declaration of one of the world's leading Jewish theologians Pinchas Lapid, that he is convinced on the basis of the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. Lapide twits New Testament critics like Bultmann and Marxsen for their unjustified skepticism and concludes that he believes on the basis of the evidence that the God of Israel raised Jesus from the dead.
According to Jakob Kremer, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb" and he furnishes a list, to which his own name may be added, of twenty-eight prominent scholars in support. I can think of at least sixteen more names that he failed to mention. Thus, it is today widely recognized that the empty tomb of Jesus is a simple historical fact. As D. H. van Daalen has pointed out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." But assumptions may simply have to be changed in light of historical facts.[9]
Before the apologist can even posit the turth of the resurrection, his truth is refuted by the very nature of historical "facts" as modern thought construes them; supernatural events cannot be part of history. But Moltmann turns this around on the nature of modern thought by arguing that before modern thought can posit a naturalistic history, the content of history is already shaped by supernatural claims.
My answer summed up in the following points
(1) Gospels are historical artifact that ques us in to a historically validated set of readings that can be understood as even older artifacts.
(2) these artifacts testify to the early nature of the empty tomb as a belief of the community.
(3) community contained eye witnesses. so this fact would have been screened out if it as false.
(4) It was spread about from an early time thus we can infer form it that the eye witnesses to the situation approved.
(5)not proof but it is a good reason to assume it's valid as a belief.It has historical verisimilitude.
The standard I set my arguments:The Resurrection was a history making event. Whatever truly happened, the actual events which are make by the claims of witnesses and faith in the veracity of those witnesses, the upshot of it all is that the historical probabilities suggest the likelihood of an event, and that event shaped the nature of history itself. The faith claims cannot be historical claims, but they don't have to be. The faith itself is justified, it cannot be ruled out by history, but instead lies at the base of modern history in some form. We can suggest throughout the strength of the evidence that those actual events were the very events attested to in the Gospels. We cannot prove this claim with absolute certainty, but the warrant provided by the evidence itself is strong enough to make the historical nature of the religious hope valid. Some religious hopes are just ruled out by the facts. For example, the idea that the Native Americans are part of the 10 lost tribes of Israel; this can be dispelled by genetics as well as dentistry. The Resurrection, on the other hand, can be accepted as likely Given the suspension of ideological objections of Naturalism.
Born: April 8, 1926 (age 92 years), Hamburg, Germany
Joe: Skeptics are too quick to argue that the resurrection is not historical fact.
ReplyDeleteAnd already you have lost all pretence of a legitimate historical discuss. It absolutely is NOT a historical fact. It is an unproven hypothesis, not a fact.
What skeptics are too quick to argue is that the resurrection is highly unlikely or even impossible. I know I do. I argue that because the alternatives are far more likely. I will allow that a miracle is possible, but delusion is far, far more plausible.
Joe: In modernity we have gained an anti-supernatural bias...
And rightly so. Astrology and homoeopathy have been shown to be nonsense. There is no evidence for ghosts or fairies. If you want to claim a supernatural miracle, the onus is on you to provide the convincing evidence. a second-hand anecdote about a guy who saw fairies one time is not going to cut it.
Joe: We put aside the hypocritical skepticism of naturalistic circular arguments and allow ourselves to accept the verdict of a history that has been made by faith in the event, in light of the fact that there is enough there to base faith upon.
As long as we are clear this is your faith-base opinion, and not a historical fact, then fine.
Joe: Skeptics are too quick to argue that the resurrection is not historical fact.
ReplyDeleteAnd already you have lost all pretence of a legitimate historical discuss. It absolutely is NOT a historical fact. It is an unproven hypothesis, not a fact.
My Point is they are not basing "historical fact" upon truth but upon ideology.
What skeptics are too quick to argue is that the resurrection is highly unlikely or even impossible. I know I do. I argue that because the alternatives are far more likely. I will allow that a miracle is possible, but delusion is far, far more plausible.
Obviously the most likely thing is what the evidence indicates
Joe: In modernity we have gained an anti-supernatural bias...
And rightly so. Astrology and homoeopathy have been shown to be nonsense.
those are not supernatural. the consequence of trashing SN is you forget what it is
There is no evidence for ghosts or fairies.
that doesn't disprove SN any more than disproving the steady sate theory disproves cosmology
If you want to claim a supernatural miracle, the onus is on you to provide the convincing evidence. a second-hand anecdote about a guy who saw fairies one time is not going to cut it.
why is proving it important?
Joe: We put aside the hypocritical skepticism of naturalistic circular arguments and allow ourselves to accept the verdict of a history that has been made by faith in the event, in light of the fact that there is enough there to base faith upon.
As long as we are clear this is your faith-base opinion, and not a historical fact, then fine.
quite so
Joe: My Point is they are not basing "historical fact" upon truth but upon ideology.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that they are perfectly right to reject the resurrection as "historical fact", because it is NOT a "historical fact".
Joe: Obviously the most likely thing is what the evidence indicates
Absolutely. And the evidence points to supernatural miracles being exceedingly rare, and possibly never happen at all.
Joe: those are not supernatural. the consequence of trashing SN is you forget what it is
It all comes under the heading of things outside of naturalism.
Joe: that doesn't disprove SN any more than disproving the steady sate theory disproves cosmology
Not that one sentence you ripped out of context, no. Read the whole paragraph and you will see why we expect your claims to be very well supported if they are to be taken seriously.
Joe: why is proving it important?
You are the one claiming it is a "historical fact". Perhaps you could finally admit it is just something you take on faith, and that the evidence for it is pretty minimal.
Joe: My Point is they are not basing "historical fact" upon truth but upon ideology.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that they are perfectly right to reject the resurrection as "historical fact", because it is NOT a "historical fact".
You have no basis in fact to say that,you only say it because it contradicts your ideology,
Joe: Obviously the most likely thing is what the evidence indicates
Absolutely. And the evidence points to supernatural miracles being exceedingly rare, and possibly never happen at all.
You have to go case by case and in this case there are several reasons to accept hte resurrection.
Joe: those are not supernatural. the consequence of trashing SN is you forget what it is
It all comes under the heading of things outside of naturalism.
right your ideology, you have to make it an ism you are not doming fact but ideology,
Joe: that doesn't disprove SN any more than disproving the steady sate theory disproves cosmology
Not that one sentence you ripped out of context, no. Read the whole paragraph and you will see why we expect your claims to be very well supported if they are to be taken seriously.
you can't beat my resurrection arguments, it's well supported, I;ve argued it hudreds of times no one has beaten it,
Joe: why is proving it important?
You are the one claiming it is a "historical fact". Perhaps you could finally admit it is just something you take on faith, and that the evidence for it is pretty minimal.
N I posted a thing about Moltmann;s ideas,he is saying we don't have to prove it we know it shaped history that's what matters,
8:08 AM Delete
Joe: You have no basis in fact to say that,you only say it because it contradicts your ideology,
ReplyDeleteIf you cannot proven it beyond reasonable doubt, then it is not a "historical fact". And the resurrection certainly has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Do you actually know what a "fact" is? Perhaps you should look it up before replying.
Joe: You have to go case by case and in this case there are several reasons to accept hte resurrection.
No - or at least, not entirely. We have to view it in the context of what we know of the world. If someone claimed Jesus had a digit watch, we would not accept the claim, because in the background context - digital watches not being invented back then - the claim is very unlikely to be true. The background context is that miracles are either very rare or do not happen at all. Like it or not, that has to play a part in evaluating the truth of the claim.
Consider this analogy. One guy you meet down the pub claims to have a dog as a pet. Another claims to have a pet dragon. Do we take both claims on a case-by-case basis? Or do we use the background context - dogs are common pets; dragons do not exist - to evaluate their claims?
Personally, I would not believe the guy claiming to have a dragon; I probably would believe the guy about the dog.
Joe: N I posted a thing about Moltmann;s ideas,he is saying we don't have to prove it we know it shaped history that's what matters,
So give up the nonsense about it being a "historical fact".
Joe: N I posted a thing about Moltmann;s ideas,he is saying we don't have to prove it we know it shaped history that's what matters,
Is that really all that is matters? If the disciples erroneously believed Jesus was resurrected, then that erroneous belief was history changing. Personally, I think whether the resurrection happened is the issue, not whether the belief that it happened changed history.
Joe: You have no basis in fact to say that,you only say it because it contradicts your ideology,
ReplyDeleteIf you cannot proven it beyond reasonable doubt, then it is not a "historical fact". And the resurrection certainly has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
You are right. e ere speaking at cross purposes. I was not thinking f fat but as "individual support for the case."
Do you actually know what a "fact" is? Perhaps you should look it up before replying.
yes I think so
Joe: You have to go case by case and in this case there are several reasons to accept the resurrection.
No - or at least, not entirely. We have to view it in the context of what we know of the world. If someone claimed Jesus had a digit watch, we would not accept the claim, because in the background context - digital watches not being invented back then - the claim is very unlikely to be true. The background context is that miracles are either very rare or do not happen at all. Like it or not, that has to play a part in evaluating the truth of the claim.
Interesting argument.But all you are really saying is "I don;t see miracles." That is the way I used to think the truth is you are not looking
Consider this analogy. One guy you meet down the pub claims to have a dog as a pet. Another claims to have a pet dragon. Do we take both claims on a case-by-case basis? Or do we use the background context - dogs are common pets; dragons do not exist - to evaluate their claims?
Unless you have seen a dragon
Personally, I would not believe the guy claiming to have a dragon; I probably would believe the guy about the dog.
me too bit then I have not seen a dragon
Joe: N I posted a thing about Moltmann;s ideas,he is saying we don't have to prove it we know it shaped history that's what matters,
So give up the nonsense about it being a "historical fact".
you misunderstood because I said it wrong
Joe: N I posted a thing about Moltmann;s ideas,he is saying we don't have to prove it we know it shaped history that's what matters,
Is that really all that is matters? If the disciples erroneously believed Jesus was resurrected, then that erroneous belief was history changing. Personally, I think whether the resurrection happened is the issue, not whether the belief that it happened changed history.
U am also assuming preponderance of the evidence the resurrection has that,
Joe: Unless you have seen a dragon
ReplyDeleteI have not, and no one I know ever has. Similarly, I know of no one who has seen a miracle (besides coincidences and warm feelings, and the resurrection is clearly quite different in nature to that), even when discussing this on-line with Christians.
I have seen a couple of miracles,one I know was because my father's doctor said it was,he was not a Christian he said he had never used that word of something in his practice before.
ReplyDeleteIt is not that rare for a person to "miraculously" get well. It just means we do not understand how is happened. Compare to how often an amputee gets his lost limb back. That would be a real miracle comparable to someone coming back to life... But it never happened.
ReplyDeletethe doctor said it was a miracle, he didn't just get well.his heart didn't beat for 11 minutes.
ReplyDelete