Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Scape211]

I recently found a researcher named Tim O'Neill. He seems to have done quite a bit of research into history and has a website with a lot of his findings here: https://historyforatheists.com/

Most of what that site does is point out flaws in the atheist perspective today and classify areas that are clearly myths they use in arguments like the idea that Jesus himself was not historical (commonly becoming a theory thanks to people like Richard Carrier). He seems genuine in his intent and somewhat un-biased. However, he is an atheist and will write articles himself like this one: https://www.quora.com/What-evidence-is- ... m-ONeill-1

I find it thought provoking and compelling even though I can find plenty of areas to disagree, but it makes me think - how do we trust research of certain scholars? Tim appears to look at research from those who he believes are un-biased, but I honestly think all researchers have a way they lean (some stronger than others of course). That said, where does the body of work come from with scholarly research? I'm sure its not just in one location, but what are good ones to utilize and cross check various claims in this landscape?

Also curious to hear any thoughts you have on the above article related to the resurrection.

[jimwalton]

> how do we trust research of certain scholars?

Like anything else, especially the modern media machine, you have to be widely enough read to be able to discern where the problems and accuracies occur. When Tim talks about "the Gospels writers struggling to...(blah blah blah)," he's just parroting the atheist mantra. How does he know they were "struggling"? It's just a slam to deprecate the Gospel accounts.

> Tim appears to look at research from those who he believes are un-biased, but I honestly think all researchers have a way they lean (some stronger than others of course).

All researchers are biased. The past always comes to us fragmented and incomplete. Mike Licona writes, "For better or worse, historians are influenced by their culture, race, nationality, gender and ethics; their political, philosophical and religious convictions; their life experiences, education, and even their community of scholars. No one looks at history objectively. Geoffrey Elton writes, “The historian who thinks that he has removed himself from his work is almost certainly mistaken.” Objectivity is unattainable in history; the historian can hope for nothing more than possibility or plausibility, which assumes that the historical account relates to a historical reality, no matter how complex and indirect the process is by which the historian approximates this reality. Particularly with Jesus: it is impossible to be objective."

My brother and nephew write, in Demons and Spirits in Biblical Theology: "Ancient historians did not pretend or aspire to be objective. Their documents were written for the specific purpose of interpreting the events they describe in a particular way. Their message is not 'here is how it happened,' but instead 'this is how one ought to understand what happened.' The event is significant not in itself but in what it represents and signifies."

Good scholarship is about convincing others to espouse our view instead of merely asking them to do so. In other words, good scholarship is always apologetic.

But not all bias is bad or detrimental. Of course the victims of the #MeToo movement are biased, but we dare not ignore them because they are women victims. Of course the witnesses to the resurrection are biased: they saw Jesus. But we dare not ignore them, either. Bias is only a problem when it skews the information. It's not a problem just because it relates the information from a certain perspective.

So we do our best to be as objective as possible and to be as widely read as possible. But it's true with any of us: once we form an opinion and a perspective, we tend to see and filter all future information through that lens. The only way to avoid that is to never take a position, but that's not good scholarship either.

I hope you're catching the difficulty of all this.

[Scape211]

> I hope you're catching the difficulty of all this.

I honestly do. Its also one of the reasons I find Christianity so compelling. Knowing the reality of how Christianity started in the early church right after the death of Jesus and the record growth (especially in the Jews) give good reasoning for its truth. The Jews already had a worldview; everything was framed by it and they rallied against Jesus in his lifetime. Yet somehow they still converted above all this after he died. That still boggles my mind given how strong we view our initial worldview and stake everything against it. Something massive must have happened and I cant see a better explanation than the resurrection.

Even when I read what Tim talked about in how cults hold to their beliefs even after the hoax is revealed and uses this reasoning for Christianity. This STILL cant explain away the mass conversion and specifically the Jews. It goes against their 'cult' belief in Judaism.

So sure maybe I am biased in that thinking, but I still think the evidence for God and Jesus are far stronger than whats presented against or specially those that try to knock it down.