Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

William Lane Craig makes false claims about swoon hypothesis!

Posted by


 Prof. William Lane Craig is an American Evangelical Christian apologist, theologian, and analytic philosopher known for his work in the philosophy of religion, historical Jesus studies, and the philosophy of time. I applaud and honor much of his work for the cause of theism, but, when he makes tall and false claims about Jesus, I need to expose him. Swoon hypothesis , which I will be arguing for in this paper, means that Jesus did not die on the cross; he only went into a coma or a swoon. In his much publicized debates with Dr. Peter Slezak and Christopher Hitchens, about existence of God, Prof. Craig cites the so called resurrection of Jesus, as proof for existence of God and claims that other explanations for an empty tomb and sighting of Jesus after crucifixion have been universally rejected. He has perhaps not read the early history of Christianity thoroughly or he would not have made such an exaggerated claim. He calls the assumed resurrection a divine miracle and a great proof for the existence of God. He suggests that belief in resurrection is based on three historical facts but completely overlooks alternative and more plausible explanations for these facts. Given his theological and doctrinal biases, he has an axe to grind. Prof. Craig highlights in his presentations exorcisms performed by Jesus, may peace be on him, as miracles and feels that in doing so he is buttressing his claims about resurrection of Jesus, but as every student of allopathic medicine knows that exorcisms, demons and witches were a creation of the medieval mind, and so is the claim of resurrection!
Prof. William Lane Craig
In his debate with Dr. Peter Slezak of University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, about existence of God, Prof. Craig nicely outlines the proof for God from the argument of the First Cause or the Big Bang and the biophyllic characteristics of our universe:

I thank him for an eloquent presentation of arguments for theism and I will gladly accept all of them except for his insistence on resurrection of Jesus.  In the second clip of this debate, after discussing the proof of God based on absolutes of morality that exist in humans, he moves into fairy tales and cites the so called resurrection of Jesus, as proof for existence of God and claims that other explanations for an empty tomb have been universally rejected.  He has perhaps not read early history of Christianity thoroughly or he would not have made such an exaggerated claim.  He calls the assumed resurrection a divine miracle and a great proof for the existence of God. He suggests that belief in resurrection is based on three historical facts but completely overlooks alternative and more plausible explanations for these facts. Given his theological and doctrinal biases, he has an axe to grind.  First hear his claims, towards the second half of this clip:

His thesis and claim about resurrection of Jesus continue into the third clip of this debate.  In addition to the empty tomb and sighting of Jesus after crucifixion, he cites the zealous belief of the early followers of Jesus as a proof for resurrection.  Craig self-indulgently announces, “Attempts to explain away these three facts like the claim that disciples stole the body or Jesus was not really dead, have been universally rejected by contemporary scholarship.”  This is gross generalization on Craig’s part and a complete failure to recognize the strong evidence that has accumulated in favor of the swoon hypothesis in the last 130 years, which is collected below in this very post.  But first the claims of Prof. Craig:

The first two facts of Craig thesis, empty tomb and sighting of Jesus after crucifixion, are extensively examined in the articles linked below.  The logic in the third element of his thesis is also weak. The zealous belief of the early followers of Jesus does not prove the theory of resurrection. If a zealous belief could be used to prove the truth of a faith, then the religions of Orthodox Jews, Muslims and Mormons, who also zealously believe in their faith, should also be taken as true religions. The point is that sincerity of belief does not necessitate a resurrection like miracle, Jesus’ resuscitation or survival from extreme vulnerability and punishment meted out to Judas, the informant against Jesus, could have served the same purpose.
Review the articles linked below, where I have accumulated clear proofs that Jesus did not die on the cross.  There has been sufficient traffic on these posts, but no refutation of the thesis that Jesus did not die on the cross.

Jesus did not die on the cross:

If Jesus did not die upon the cross: A study in evidence:

In this book, Judge Ernest Brougham Docker has very lucidly explained the swoon hypothesis and the inference that the apostles were seeing the resuscitated body of Jesus and not resurrected body.

The Swoon Hypothesis:

Did Jesus rise in a physical body or a spiritual one?

Dr. Peter Slezak highlights in his refutation that even if there was no historical discrepancy in the empty tomb story and even if it were recorded in a recent documentary, we should still not call it resurrection. He said that a lot could be said about the facts in the case but in the debate his emphasis was on their interpretation. Are they best explained by miracle or some other way? He is amazed that Prof. Craig cannot think of any other explanation besides the miraculous one, whereas he himself and other creative minds can think of several alternative explanations. For example, Jesus was not dead but was only sick or in a swoon and some friends got him out of the cave, while no one was looking! Slezak very wisely also issues the disclaimer that Craig may not particularly like his hypothetical version of the story, but that does not matter, as any other explanation that is consistent with laws of nature is more likely to be true than the typical interpretation of the empty cave by the Christian apologists. If you can have an explanation consistent with the laws of nature why would you go for a miraculous one and say it is more plausible, while in Christian theology a miracle implies violation of the natural law! This brings me to the metaphor to understand resuscitation as opposed to resurrection; Timothy James McVeigh was convicted of crimes against humanity. He was sentenced to electric chair. A few days after his supposed execution, he was seen roaming the streets of Oklahoma. Did he resurrect or escape or survive his punishment? If facts similar to the resurrection story were presented to Christians by replacing Jesus with Timothy McVeigh or any other character, they will come up with a secular and non-miraculous explanation of such facts. It is merely the stubborn insistence on part of the apologists, to interpret the facts about Jesus in a given theological fashion, to uphold the failing dogma of Christianity, as more and more in the West opt for agnostic or atheistic positions, which is upholding the structure of resurrection!In a later clip Prof. Craig suggests again that the only explanation of empty tomb that the Christian theologians have accepted is the miraculous one. This does not amount for much as it only reflects the pre-existing biases and prejudices of these theologians. Additionally the Christian apologists use the label of ‘theologian,’ only for those who agree with their premise. Craig equates other explanations for the empty tomb with flat-earth theory and by implication his own interpretation and emphasis on resurrection to very well founded scientific realities.  Such analogies are unfair propaganda only.  To raise Christian dogma to the level of completely proven and fully established scientific realities, for which evidence abounds, whereas, the evidence for resurrection is only well meaning and pious stories from 20 centuries ago, amounts to religious fundamentalism only and no scholarship of any kind.  It is unfortunate that highly accomplished people like William Lane Craig do not carefully examine the ramifications of their belief in resurrection of Jesus, may peace be on him. Craig nicely explains the proof from First Cause and the Big Bang, banking on the information from science; if he were to examine resurrection in the same scientific scrutiny he will find that his belief system implies a nuclear explosion several times more powerful than Nagasaki and Hiroshima!

Mushroom cloud

If we assume that Jesus died on the cross and then came to life again three days later, we have to imagine that his soul returned to a putrefying and decaying body three days after death, which is hard for any student of biology to conceptualize.  I would suggest that those who have seen refrigeration in funeral homes in the Western world should visit tropical areas and find out what happens to dead bodies three days after death in lack of refrigeration.   But, this is not the only difficulty for Prof. William Lane Craig’s stubborn insistence on resurrection.  There is ascension of Jesus also!  Now, remember that Jesus is a hybrid, a perfect man and fully divine according to the Trinitarion understanding.  As he leaves the planet earth at the time of ascension, we have to find out what happens to his earthly physical body.  The eye witnesses do not report that he left his body behind on the planet earth as is usually the case for all of us, the mere humans.  His body must have disappeared in thin air and that did not raise a dilemma in the medieval world but these days we believe in E = mc2 and that raises the stakes tremendously, it brings in the nuclear option and the mushroom cloud.  That is precisely what William Lane Craig and other Christian apologists have not thought about!

Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmed explains in his book, as he examines, what happened to Jesus body at the time of ascension, in his book Christianity a journey from fact to fiction:
A closer critical examination from the point of view of common sense and logic reveals further absurdities inherent in the episodes of the Crucifixion and Ascension as presented by the Christians of today. As far as the question of Jesus’ return to his human body is concerned, enough has been said. We only want to add to the issue of what might have happened to that body when Jesus finally ascended, if he ever did.
When confronted by the question as to what happened to the body of Jesus Christ, it is suggested by some Christians that as he ascended to his heavenly Father his carnal body disintegrated and disappeared in a glow. This raises a fundamental question. If the departure of Jesus from the human body was to result in such an explosive event, why did it not happen at the instant of his first reported death? The only reference we have in the Bible to Jesus’ death is when he was still hanging on the cross and in the words of St. Matthew ‘he gave up the ghost’. Apparently nothing else happened other than a smooth departure of the soul from the body. Are we to assume that he did not die upon the cross after all, because if he had left the body, it should have exploded in a similar fashion even then? Why did it only happen the second time Jesus left his body? Under the circumstances only two avenues are open to proceed further.
1. That the person of Jesus did not remain eternally confined to the human body after his soul returned to it and that during his ascent he cast away his human body and ascended purely as a spirit of God.
This is neither supported by facts nor is it conceivable because that would lead into a blind alley of believing that Jesus died twice. The first time on the cross and the second time on Ascension.
2. That he remained confined within the human shell eternally.
This cannot be accepted because it is utterly repulsive and inconsistent with the dignity and majesty of the image of God.
On the other hand, we have a point of view of common sense; ‘It would be a mistake to understand Jesus’ ascension as a sort of ancient space trip, and heaven as a place beyond the sun, moon and the galaxies.’ The truth is neither here nor there. The concoction of such a bizarre story, therefore, could only have been motivated by the insoluble dilemma that the Christians faced during the nascent period of Christianity. When Jesus disappeared from view, naturally the question would have been raised as to what happened to him. The early Christians could not have resolved the quandary by openly professing that as he had never died so there was no question of a body being left behind and that his body had in fact gone along with him during the course of his migration. In this way the problem of the disappearance of the body could have been easily resolved. But this confession was impossible to make. Those who would have dared to admit that Jesus was seen alive and gradually moving away from Judea faced the peril of being condemned by the Roman Law as an accessory to the crime of escape from justice. To seek refuge in the concoction of a story like the ascent of Jesus to heaven offered a safer option, however bizarre the idea. Yet of course it would involve indulgence in falsehood. We must pay our tribute to the integrity of the early disciples who despite this predicament did not seek refuge in a false statement. All writers of the Gospels chose to remain silent on this issue rather than take refuge behind a smoke screen of misstatements. No doubt they must have suffered the jeering of their adversaries but they chose to suffer in silence.[1]
If Jesus’ carnal body was saved at the time of his assumed death on the cross, his soul must have returned to his decaying body three days later, which does not stand to scientific scrutiny.  Now, examine the event of ascension, as his body disappeared into thin air at that time, according to E = mc2, assuming an average body mass of 120-140 pounds this would have been a nuclear explosion of unprecedented proportions.  Is Prof. Craig’s science only limited to the Big Bang and suitable physical constants that make our universe biophyllic or does he believe in Einstein’s theories also that suggest a certain quantitative relationship between mass and energy?
Until we know historically, philosophically and scientifically what happened to Jesus carnal body, there is no resurrection!  There is no logical room for Trinitarian Christianity, only for Judaism, Unitarian Christianity and Islam.
In a different debate in April of 2009 with Christopher Hitchens, does God exist, Prof Craig makes the same comments about resurrection:

It seems he uses the same words about swoon hypothesis, in all his presentations, as he parrots the same message in a third debate:
Prof. Craig brings forth science as a proof for God in his arguments but then terribly violates scientific principles in proposing the resurrection of human flesh, namely Jesus, allegedly a perfect man and God in one.  This is the general vulnerability of the Christian faith where miracles are presented as a violation of the laws of nature with resurrection being the biggest of them all.[2]  This misinterpretation of miracles in Christianity is grounded in her history and tradition and the Christians find no easy way out of it.  In order for genuine intellectual unification of their religion and science and peaceful and harmonious co-existence of faith and reason, the only solution for Christians is to accept that Jesus also worshiped Allah and he was a Jewish prophet in a long chain of prophets, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Samuel, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Ezra and John the Baptist!
When constrained by time and strong opposition by articulate atheists, William Lane Craig chooses not to mention resurrection as a proof for God.  Listen to the following debate his opening statement is within the first 20 minutes of the video. This debate took place in Mexico and is titled, Does the Universe have a purpose?

Resurrection is based on the eye-witnesses’ accounts in the Bible but that is half the time based on forgery:

One can easily fall in the trap of becoming penny wise and pound foolish.  William Lane Craig has invested his life time, in studying logic and philosophy and in precisely stating the case for God but when he makes a case for resurrection, his situation with the new information that has piled in the last few decades has become increasingly of one who is penny wise and pound foolish.  How reliable his case for resurrection can be when it rests on 2000 year old text that is not reliable.  It seems Prof. Bart Ehrman is carrying the day at least on the issue of reliability of the New Testament.  He has written several books on the issue.  His most recent book was covered as follows by CNN:

A frail man sits in chains inside a dank, cold prison cell. He has escaped death before but now realizes that his execution is drawing near.
“I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come,” the man –the Apostle Paul – says in the Bible’s 2 Timothy. “I have fought the good fight. I have finished the race. I have kept the faith.”
The passage is one of the most dramatic scenes in the New Testament. Paul, the most prolific New Testament author, is saying goodbye from a Roman prison cell before being beheaded. His goodbye veers from loneliness to defiance and, finally, to joy.
There’s one just one problem – Paul didn’t write those words. In fact, virtually half the New Testament was written by impostors taking on the names of apostles like Paul. At least according to Bart D. Ehrman, a renowned biblical scholar, who makes the charges in his new book “Forged.”
“There were a lot of people in the ancient world who thought that lying could serve a greater good,” says Ehrman, an expert on ancient biblical manuscripts.In “Forged,” Ehrman claims that:
* At least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries.
* The New Testament books attributed to Jesus’ disciples could not have been written by them because they were illiterate.
* Many of the New Testament’s forgeries were manufactured by early Christian leaders trying to settle theological feuds.

 

Christianity a journey from fact to fiction:

What is true and genuine in the New Testament can be better explained by resuscitation than adamant insistence on resurrection that has no historical precedence and is anti-thesis of science at several different levels. For a more plausible understanding of some of the details after crucifixion read the book titled, Christianity a journey from fact to fiction online:

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/christianity_facts_to_fiction/index.html

References

  1. http://www.alislam.org/library/books/christianity_facts_to_fiction/chapter_5.html#pgfId-1000917
  2. http://knol.google.com/k/zia-shah/february-2011-alislam-egazette/1qhnnhcumbuyp/330#
Posted by on April 22, 2011. Filed under Christianity. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

22 Responses to William Lane Craig makes false claims about swoon hypothesis!

  1. Zia H. Shah

    December 22, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    Allopathic Medicine’s long struggle with the Bible
    In Matt. 17 Jesus, on whom be peace, gives recipe for casting out the demons:

    When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. “Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.” “O unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.” Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment. Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”

    He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you. ( Matt 17:14-20)

    The world of the New Testament compilation was one with abundant demons and ghosts. Here are a few verses from the conclusion of the Mark, which talks of Mary Magdalene being possessed by seven demons, one may have metaphorical interpretation of these today but when these verses were written demons meant demons:

    When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it. Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either. (Mark 16:9-13)

    Two of the four canonical gospels carry the story of a woman who asks Jesus to exorcise a demon from her daughter. Unfortunately for her, she isn’t from Israel. (She is ‘Canaanite’ in one gospel, ‘Syrophoenician’ in another.) Jesus takes this into account and replies, with one of his less flattering allegories, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” Pathetically, the woman answers, “Yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table,” (Matthew 15:27) after which Jesus relents and tosses her some crumbs by tossing out the demons.

    Defenders of Jesus universalist status might say he was just driving home the fact that Gentiles can find salvation through faith. Indeed, that is the way the story plays out in Matthew, as Jesus exclaims, ‘Great is your faith!’ But in Mark, the earlier telling of the story, there’s no mention of faith. What wins Jesus’s favor, it seems, is the woman-master-dog metaphor; with the woman bowed before him, Jesus answers only, ‘For saying that, you may go -- the demon has left your daughter.’ (Matthew 15:28 and Mark 7:29)

    http://knol.google.com/k/zia-shah/allopathic-medicine-s-long-struggle/1qhnnhcumbuyp/233#

    Prof. Craig highlights in his presentations exorcisms performed by Jesus, may peace be on him, as miracles and feels that in doing so he is buttressing his claims about resurrection of Jesus, but as every student of allopathic medicine knows that exorcisms, demons and witches were a creation of the medieval mind, and so is the claim of resurrection!

  2. Zia H. Shah

    December 22, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    Resurrection is based on the eye-witness’ accounts but that is based on forgery
    Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says:

    By John Blake, CNN

    A frail man sits in chains inside a dank, cold prison cell. He has escaped death before but now realizes that his execution is drawing near.

    “I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come,” the man –the Apostle Paul -- says in the Bible’s 2 Timothy. “I have fought the good fight. I have finished the race. I have kept the faith.”

    The passage is one of the most dramatic scenes in the New Testament. Paul, the most prolific New Testament author, is saying goodbye from a Roman prison cell before being beheaded. His goodbye veers from loneliness to defiance and, finally, to joy.

    There’s one just one problem -- Paul didn’t write those words. In fact, virtually half the New Testament was written by impostors taking on the names of apostles like Paul. At least according to Bart D. Ehrman, a renowned biblical scholar, who makes the charges in his new book “Forged.”

    “There were a lot of people in the ancient world who thought that lying could serve a greater good,” says Ehrman, an expert on ancient biblical manuscripts.In “Forged,” Ehrman claims that:

    * At least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries.

    * The New Testament books attributed to Jesus’ disciples could not have been written by them because they were illiterate.

    * Many of the New Testament’s forgeries were manufactured by early Christian leaders trying to settle theological feuds.

    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/half-of-new-testament-forged-bible-scholar-says/?

  3. Zia H. Shah

    December 22, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    Prof. Richard Dawkins refusing to debate Prof. William Lane Craig!
    Prof. Richard Dawkins refusal to debate Prof. William Lane Craig is a compliment in disguise to the well chosen words of Craig to present theistic point of view:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFamS4RGE_A&feature=related

    Once again I acknowledge and applaud all the proofs that Prof. Craig presents and insist that he has only one flimsy argument and that is resurrection of Jesus and that I have refuted in this and other knols. Let me link at least three of those here:

    http://knol.google.com/k/zia-shah/the-pope-benedict-s-account-of/1qhnnhcumbuyp/355?collectionId=1qhnnhcumbuyp.217#
    http://knol.google.com/k/jesus-did-not-die-on-the-cross#
    http://knol.google.com/k/if-jesus-did-not-die-upon-the-cross-a-study-in-evidence#

    Prof. Victor Stenger in his debate with Prof Craig, in Hawaii, nicely demystifies the fact of empty tomb of Jesus, by giving a metaphor that if Napolean remains were not found in the traditional place to honor him, would that mean that he has resurrected:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRadlJH67D0&playnext=1&list=PL8437042672988686

    Narrated by Ḥaḍrat Abū Hurairah, Allāh be pleased with him: I heard the Prophet of Allāh (peace and blessings of Allāh be on him) say:

    “The word of wisdom is the lost property of a Muslim, so that wherever he finds it, he should take it, as he is the most entitled to it.” (Tirmidhī)

    So, in keeping with this injunction of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, I adapt for myself and Islam the case for theism as presented by Prof. Craig in his debates, while exposing the vulnerability of his tall claims about resurrection of Jesus, as there are better naturalistic and historical explanations for the so called facts, like the empty tomb that he presents for resurrection, both inside and outside the Bible.

  4. Zia H. Shah

    December 22, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    The so called facts about resurrection are merely contradictory hearsay
    Christian apologists try to use the label of ‘facts,’ to create credibility for the hearsay evidence that they present for resurrection. But, the facts of one apologist differ in some ways from the facts of another apologist and in this comparison we can see that all the evidence mounts to no more than hearsay.

    The first apologist that I want to bring here as a witness is Michael Licona. He debated Prof. Bart Ehrman and was trying to prove the historic validity of resurrection, he had the first opening statement. He suggested three (so called) facts to make the sum total of his thesis:

    1. Jesus’ death by crucifixion.
    2. Sighting of Jesus by the Apostles after Crucifixion.
    3. Sighting by Paul.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyHA3K_6H0g

    It turned out that the first fact was a red herring and had no relevance to the debate, as Ehrman simply mentioned that Jesus did not have to be crucified but could have been drowned or died of cholera and could have been raised from the dead. So the first fact goes away fairly quickly and the other two facts are in fact only one fact as these imply witnessing by certain people including Paul. So much for the three facts of Licona. We will return to his only remaing fact some other time but let us move to the facts of William Lane Craig and address one of his facts in this comment. He makes a big deal out of the so called fact of the empty tomb and its relevance to resurrection. His fact is easily negated by a little quote from the chief apologist, Pope Benedict XVI:

    “Jesus traveled the path of death right to the bitter and seemingly hopeless end in the tomb. Jesus’ tomb was evidently known. And here the question naturally arises: Did he remain in the tomb? Or was it empty after he had risen?

    In modern theology this question has been extensively debated. Most commentators come to the conclusion that an empty tomb would not be enough to prove the Resur¬rection. If the tomb were indeed empty, there could be some other explanation for it. On this basis, the com-mentators conclude that the question of the empty tomb is immaterial and can therefore be ignored, which tends also to mean that it probably was not empty anyway, so at least a dispute with modern science over the possibility of bodily resurrection can be avoided. But at the basis of all this lies a distorted way of posing the question.

    Naturally, the empty tomb as such does not prove the Resurrection. Mary Magdalene, in John’s account, found it empty and assumed that someone must have taken Jesus’ body away. The empty tomb is no proof of the Resurrec¬tion, that much is undeniable. Conversely, though, one might ask: Is the Resurrection compatible with the body remaining in the tomb? Can Jesus be risen if he is still lying in the tomb? What kind of resurrection would that be? Today, notions of resurrection have been developed for which the fate of the corpse is inconsequential. Yet the content of the Resurrection becomes so vague in the process that one must ask with what kind of reality we are dealing in this form of Christianity.

    Be that as it may: Thomas Soding, Ulrich Wilckens, and others rightly point out that in Jerusalem at the time, the proclamation of the Resurrection would have been completely impossible if anyone had been able to point to a body lying in the tomb. To this extent, for the sake of posing the question correctly, we have to say that the empty tomb as such, while it cannot prove the Resur¬rection, is nevertheless a necessary condition for Resurrection faith, which was specifically concerned with the body and, consequently, with the whole of the person.”

    So, the punch line is that the empty tomb does not prove resurrection hypothesis but may be necessary for considering such a hypothesis.

    Pope Benedict XVI. Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem To The Resurrection. Ignatius Press, 2011. Pages 253-254.

  5. Zia H. Shah

    December 22, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but none provided by the Pope
    The scientific case against resurrection is pretty straightforward: once dead you stay dead — that’s just the way it works. Coming back to life after having been dead (I mean really dead) would constitute a violation of natural law — a miracle — and miracles just don’t happen. Fair enough. But in his recent book on the last days of Jesus (Jesus of Nazareth Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem to the Resurrection), Joseph Ratzinger (aka Pope Benedict XVI) argues that reckoning Resurrection as resuscitation of a corpse is to misunderstand its true significance. Jesus’ Resurrection, he contends, was an utterly singular event, straining the very limits of human understanding:

    “Anyone approaching the Resurrection accounts in the belief that he knows what rising from the dead means will inevitably misunderstand those accounts and will then dismiss them as meaningless” (p. 243).

    In fact, if Jesus’ Resurrection were “merely” coming back to life in any way that we might comprehend, then it would be of little significance.

    “Now it must be acknowledged that if in Jesus’ Resurrection we were dealing simply with the miracle of a resuscitated corpse, it would ultimately be of no concern to us” (p. 243).

    So what then does Resurrection mean? For Benedict it represents a new dimension of reality breaking through into human experience. It is not a violation of the old; it is the manifestation of something new.

    “Jesus had not returned to a normal human life in this world like Lazarus and the others whom Jesus raised from the dead. He has entered upon a different life, a new life — he has entered the vast breadth of God himself…” (p. 244).

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-j-rossano/does-resurrection-contrad_b_848577.html

    In short Pope’s writing is a hotch potch of details to appeal to the naive and already converted and for non-Christians has little to offer, nothing more than myths or legends of old polytheistic societies!

    The good news, however, is that the Pope at least is trying to explain the swoon hypothesis, as in the past they would just adamantly deny it and just insist on their paradigm, however irrational!

  6. Zia H. Shah

    December 22, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    Christians accepting Jesus was a great teacher and not divine!
    CNN 2011-02-27 09:52:38(CNN) — One of his first fan letters came from someone who declared:

    “If Hell were not already created, it should be invented just for you.”

    Other critics have called him “demonic,” “blasphemous” and a “schmuck.”

    When John Dominic Crossan was a teenager in Ireland, he dreamed of becoming a missionary priest. But the message he’s spreading about Jesus today isn’t the kind that would endear him to many church leaders.

    Crossan says Jesus was an exploited “peasant with an attitude” who didn’t perform many miracles, physically rise from the dead or die as punishment for humanity’s sins.

    Jesus was extraordinary because of how he lived, not died, says Crossan, one of the world’s top scholars on the “historical Jesus,” a field in which academics use historical evidence to reconstruct Jesus in his first-century setting.

    “I cannot imagine a more miraculous life than nonviolent resistance to violence,” Crossan says. “I cannot imagine a bigger miracle than a man standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/02/27/Jesus.scholar/index.html?hpt=C1

    There are priests who have openly and completely converted to Islam, for example:

    Jerald F. Dirks

    I will also keep a list of those priests or scholars of Christianity, who have converted to Islamic concepts about Jesus, may peace be on him, without taking the final steps towards conversion:

    Prof. Bart Ehrman
    Bishop John Shelby Spong
    Prof. Mark W. Muesse
    Prof. Burton Mack

  7. Zia H. Shah

    December 22, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    Ehrman-Licona Debate: Can Historians Prove Jesus Rose From The Dead
    In my view Prof. Bart Ehrman very satisfactorily establishes in this debate that historically we cannot prove Jesus’ resurrection. Here is a 1.5 hour debate, it has three parts:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyHA3K_6H0g

    Prof. William Lane Craig is making a case similar to Michael Licona and should be considered to have the same fate, both offer similar arguments and are mainly banking on the naivity of the audience and the fact that the dogma of resurrection has been indoctrinated in the Christian mind for centuries. Otherwise, extra-ordinary claims like resurrection require extra-ordinary proofs and the Christian apologists offer very little!

    As Michael Licona was trying to prove the historic validity of resurrection, he had the first opening statement. He suggested three (so called) facts to make the sum total of his thesis:

    1. Jesus’ death by crucifixion.
    2. Sighting of Jesus by the Apostles after Crucifixion.
    3. Sighting by Paul.

    The one and a half hour debate is alive and entertaining and worth watching. In a couple of sentences Ehrman reduces the three supposed fact to one. He suggests that crucifixion is not fundamental to resurrection as Jesus (may peace be on him) could have been stoned to death or drowned and yet resurrected, so his crucifixion is not directly related to any proof of resurrection. Ehrman then lumped the sightings into one group and one fact only.

    Michael Licona may be a good debater but he had very flimsy evidence to make his case on. The whole case of resurrection and indirectly the whole of Christianity is hanging by a very thin thread. The testimony of the apostles, transmitted through oral tradition and written at least 40 years after the occurrence, in a politically and religiously charged environment is all that Licona had available to him. Realizing the vulnerability of his case he banked on the religiosity and naivety of his audience and tried to make his case from theology rather than history. His main claim to fame in the debate seemed to be that God can do anything!

    Ehrman gives a certain line of reasoning against the validity of the sightings of Jesus after crucifixion, he claims that these were based on visions what Licona prefers to call hallucinations. Ehrman’s explanation is far more satisfying than that of Licona. But, a better explanation could be that they were meeting the resuscitated Jesus as Judge Ernest Brougham Docker explains in the booklet under consideration.

    In my opinion the swoon hypothesis is a more satisfying explanation of the sighting. The only limitation of the theory is that it is not popular in the Western world yet. Judge Ernest Brougham Docker has very lucidly explained the swoon hypothesis, in one of the knols mentioned above, and the inference that the apostles were seeing the resuscitated body of Jesus and not resurrected body.

    In my opinion that is why Jesus had all the scars of crucifixion that a resuscitated body should have, whereas a resurrected or a supernatural body that can walk through the wall, could have been without blemish.

  8. Pingback: Jesus’ miracle: Surviving the Cross | The Muslim Times: A Blog to Foster Universal Brotherhood

  9. Pingback: Jesus’ miracle: Surviving the Cross – Collection of Articles by Zia H Shah MD

  10. Pingback: Did Jesus rise in a physical body or a spiritual one? – For Christians, To be Born Again in Islam!

  11. Pingback: Did Jesus rise in a physical body or a spiritual one? | The Muslim Times: A Blog to Foster Universal Brotherhood

  12. Pingback: Coverting Prof. William Lane Craig to Islam | The Muslim Times: A Blog to Foster Universal Brotherhood

  13. Pingback: Converting Prof. William Lane Craig to Islam – For Christians, To be Born Again in Islam!

  14. Pingback: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? – Debate – Mike Licona vs Richard Carrier | The Muslim Times

  15. Pingback: I Own George Washigton Bridge … | The Muslim Times

  16. Pingback: Would You Believe Stories from 2000 Years ago or Albert Einstein and E = MC2? | The Muslim Times

  17. TDA

    February 27, 2013 at 5:43 am

    Dear Zia H. Shah,

    I find the title of your “paper” very misleading.

    William Lane Craig’s original (and as far as I can tell only direct) claim on the swoon-hypothesis is as follows:

    “Attempts to explain away these three facts like the claim that disciples stole the body or Jesus was not really dead, have been universally rejected by contemporary scholarship.”

    You claim:

    “William Lane Craig makes false claims about swoon hypothesis!”

    So, in other words you are claiming:

    WLC is wrong to claim contemporary scholarship has universally rejected the “swoon hypothesis”.

    NOT ONCE did you prove your claim that WLC made a false claim -- let alone claimS -- about the swoon theory! To prove your claim should be quite simple (and shorter):

    By providing names and quotes of reputable contemporary scholars, who proclaim or even defend the swoon hypothesis to be a plausible or even a probable option.

    As you have not done this, this “paper” fails miserably at discrediting William Lane Craig’s argument, in my opinion.

  18. Pingback: Bringing people back from the dead | The Muslim Times

  19. Pingback: Adopting and Recruiting Christian Apologists for Islam | The Muslim Times

  20. Pingback: Adopting and Recruiting Christian Apologists for Islam – For Christians, To be Born Again in Islam!

  21. Pingback: The Most Popular Video in the Muslim Times: Govt of India Documentary on Jesus in Kashmir! | The Muslim Times

  22. Pingback: Dan Barker’s Challenge to Every Christian about Resurrection and Ascension | The Muslim Times

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>