Theism.net
Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster
e-mail: jordantheistDELETETHIS@bellsouth.net
e-mail-Mail-Bag
Meet Michael
Monroe
From: "Michael Monroe" <MMonroe@GentleGiant.com
Date: 2004/11/10 Wed AM 10:38:01 EST
To: jordantheist
About Biblical Inerrancy (with which I find textually impossible given the evidence) I'd be happy to debate that as well incase you are a biblical internist. Biblical "regency" however, doesn't mean the biblical testimony is to be discounted. Not in the least!
Anyway, I attended graduate school at Wesley Theological Seminary, having previously become an evangelical born-again fundamentalist Christian when I was 15 (raised in an agnostic household), but left the faith at the age of 26 (I am now 28 years-old). By the way, I'm happier than I've ever been in my life before having left the Christian faith. Anyway, I maintain the resurrection indeed happened due in large part to the historicity of the events combined with the latest scientific and forensic studies on the Shroud of Turin (www.shroud.com) , but I challenge you (without appealing to some supreme infallibility of the Bible) to make a cogent case why that necessitates a belief in God or Jesus as God. Jesus of Nazareth is not the only one that has risen from being dead-as-a-doornail throughout history.
I do believe there are metaphysical events, even spiritual realities, but to me it is pure arrogance to think we can create or are in possession of some system that explains the myriad conflicting events that transpire in the world at large. I believe the "soul," psychic powers (the ones that are legitimately impossible to simply explain away), ghosts etc. are simply phenomenon that will eventually be measurable with equipment. Until that time, disparate groups put different (often superstitious) labels on a diverse (and impossible to harmonize) array of happenstances that occur across the globe.
There has been a long tradition of this. Christians used to be convinced right down to the marrow of their bones that blood transfusions were of the devil and opposed such evil things on moral and spiritual grounds (citing various clever "proof texts" in the bible to boot). I am of the mind that there can be spiritual, paranormal, or metaphysical realities that can and do result in things like resurrections. But to me, the if-then statement of: "If Jesus claimed he was God/the Messiah, and died and came back to life after 3 full days of rotting then he must be God" is a logical fallacy.
Why? Jesus could have been in touch with some powerful metaphysical stuff as a human being, but being bound by his culture (as we all are), the nomenclature he put on his experiences, the direction and way in which he crafted his mission(s) in life, were limited to the concepts he was raised with, the times he lived in, and the culture he was part of. The fact that healings occurred, and people like Lazarus came walking out of tombs, would to Jesus only confirm that he was right, making him a very confident and charismatic person indeed! Somebody that would have many followers. He would, therefore, not be a liar (because he'd be believing it sincerely), nor a lunatic (because these things were really happening right in front of his and everyone else's face), but it's not a forgone conclusion that in Truth, in actual
Reality, he'd have to be the Lord.
If you're still out there, write back and let's discuss this.
Peace,
Michael J. Monroe
mmonroe@gentlegiant.com
-----Original Message-----
From: jordantheist
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 04:21 PM
To: Michael Monroe
Hi there,
Overall, I tend to not dogmatize upon alternate hypotheses of the meaning of the Resurrection's veracity. That is not to claim I disrespect other opinions as to what explains its veracity. I am of the view that if He resurrected, He would know best how and why He did. His resurrection evidenced to me that He is God.
I agree there are other stories of non-Christian resurrections but they do not (to my knowledge) meet the credibility of historians and scholars (theists or not) that Christ's resurrection accommodates. As best I can tell, non-theistic authorities would reject the claims of other resurrections. I am open to correction. In my reference to "authorities" I mean by the guidelines presented in my opening page.
I don't really concern myself over Old Earth Creation vs. New Earth Creation vs. Evolution. Nor do I concern myself over “Pre-Trib.” vs. “Post-Trib.;” Second Coming, or, in response to your inquiry, biblical errancy vs. inerrancy. I am comfortable with the apologetics presented by other apologists who delve into such.
I trust this satisfies your inquiry. If not, by all means, write me back. Please, stick to Resurrection concerns. That's my apologetics concern. There are as I expect you know links from my pages to sites where your issues are addressed. I would welcome whatever your findings there might produce.
Thanks much for allowing me an opportunity to comment on your concerns.
In truth,
Jordan
"Michael Monroe" MMonroe@GentleGiant.com
Sent:: 2004/11/15 Mon AM 09:35:19
EST
You said, "Overall, I tend to not dogmatize upon alternate hypothesis's of the meaning of the Resurrection's veracity" & "I am of the view that if He resurrected, He would know best how and why He did. His resurrection evidenced to me that He is God."
From the above comments you made, it seems to me that you're simply comfortable with your particular view and it serves you well. I would submit to you that biblical inerrancy *is* a crux because how you look at that book, the only book
I might add that contains testimony of Jesus' alleged acts, will inform you on how you evaluate evidence for a resurrection. If you accept the apologetics of others pro inerrancy without giving it a second thought yourself, then you're cutting yourself off from a whole world. If you say, or even feel emotionally (without having reasoned it out yourself, but on the acceptance of those other apologists) that the bible is inerrant, then you'll always be swayed in that direction. In other words, "The Bible said it; I believe it that settles it."
I, on the other hand, am of the mind that one shouldn't dogmatize *anything* whether it be a reason for a resurrection and its implications, or an alternative reason and its implications! Neither one should get special treatment. It is an *assumption* that Jesus would know best how and why he did the resurrection.
I know you probably get a lot of emails, but I don't feel you quite understood or adequately responded to my statement below:
"Being bound by his culture (as we all are), the nomenclature he [Jesus] put on his experiences, the direction and way in which he crafted his mission(s) in life, were limited to the concepts he was raised with, the times he lived in, and the culture he was part of. The fact that healings occurred, and people like Lazarus came walking out of tombs, would to Jesus only confirm that he was right, making him a very confident and charismatic person indeed! Somebody that would have many followers. He would therefore not be a liar (because he'd be believing it sincerely), nor a lunatic (because these things were really happening right in front of his and everyone else's face), but it's not a forgone conclusion that in Truth, in actual Reality, he'd have to be the Lord."
A resurrection does not the Lord God make. That's all I'm saying, that it's not a foregone conclusion. To be a true and healthy skeptic who exercises the critical thought and logical reasoning skills God gave us the potential to use -- free of (hopefully) most fallacies, presuppositions, and rhetorical errors, one cannot blindly accept that Jesus is somehow the "God of the Cosmos." Remember, "Skeptic" is not a dirty word. I had a great philosophy professor once in college (who I believe was a resurrection believing Christian), who said that, "Skepticism is not a freebie." He explained that a skeptic has as much of a burden to prove why s/he is skeptical as a proponent has to explain their position as well. In other words, you can't just sit there with your arms crossed and say, "Well I'm just a skeptic." Discourse, reasoning, evidence, evaluation, logic -- all must be employed by all parties in a consistent fashion. If biblical inerrancy is The Paradigm you follow, then nothing I say will be able to permeate that apriori assumption.
So while it may seem unrelated, I assure you it's most related. You may not concern yourself with the apologetics, but I'm asking whether you believe the bible to be the infallible inerrant "word of God." If you do, then it really doesn't matter what I say about the resurrection because you've already put your eggs in the all-informing basket of biblical inerrancy.
So get back to me and let me know if you're a biblical innerrentist. If you are, just be aware that usually that means that biblical inerrancy will be your foundation before you've done anything else, thought anything else, reasoned anything else, or critiqued anything else. It's a default position that informs, by domino affect, everything else you believe -- including and especially about the resurrection.
Peace,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: jordantheist
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 02:45 PM
To: Michael Monroe
Hi,
I'm updating the Theism.net Jordan pages this weekend. I invite you to allow our interaction to be added to the E-mail Mailbag including your name and e-mail contact information. With that approval, I'll comment further. Should you decline, I'll keep it anonymous then cut it off after my upcoming reply. I appreciate your understanding.
Jordan
"Michael
Monroe" MMonroe@GentleGiant.com
2004/11/15
Mon PM 03:15:43 EST
Sure, throw it on!
e-mail-Mail-Bag
e-mail: jordantheistDELETETHIS@bellsouth.net
Theism.net Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster