Dr. Hector Avalos recently left a comment on a previous blog post of mine, informing me that he has responded to critiques of an argument of his, namely his argument that arguments for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus can be used to justify the appearances of Mary at Medjugorje. The blog post in question was a draft of my dissertation on the resurrection of Jesus, where I used some of the main arguments, and also included a critique of Avalos' argument. Dr. Avalos' blog post was actually written in response to somebody else, but it nonetheless did address some of the points raised in my blog post, which is why I assume he let me know of such a response. Let's start with a brief summary of the arguments for the historicity of Jesus, followed by a brief summary of Avalos' original argument, followed by a summary of the critique of Avalos' argument. The argument for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection is fairly simple: a) there are a set of generally agreed upon facts regarding the life and death of Jesus b) the best explanation of these facts is the hypothesis that the God of Israel resurrected Jesus. These facts are: a) Jesus was crucified b) Jesus was buried in a tomb c) the tomb was later found empty d) people later saw visions of the risen Jesus. It is argued that the resurrection hypothesis satisfies the criteria for the best explanation. Those criteria being: a) explanatory scope b) explanatory power c) plausibility d) less ad-hoc e) disconfirmed by fewer existing beliefs. A second argument is that: a) Christianity was massively offensive to 1st century socio-cultural values, and got its followers persecuted b) despite this massive obstacle, Christianity nonetheless spread and thrived c) there therefore had to have been some kind of convincing evidence that Christianity was true to persuade so many people.
Helping to equip Christians to be loving, reasonable, respectful and knowledgeable ambassadors for Jesus
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Sunday, 16 June 2013
Saturday, 15 June 2013
The Socio-Cultural Background of the New Testament Period: Understanding Christianity in its 1st Century Context
Introduction
The origins of Christianity are a subject that has attracted a considerable amount of ink over the past few centuries. For believers and non-believers alike it is a subject of great interest, but also controversy. Frequently, we hear of sensationalist books declaring some new theory about Jesus and the origins of Christianity, some fringe authors even declaring that Jesus was a mythological figure based on pagan deities. Whilst any full study would take multiple books, my focus in writing this dissertation will be on the socio-cultural background of the 1st century. This is a subject that has been oft neglected, and few scholars in recent years have attempted to tackle with these issues. One of the biggest problems of studying early Christianity is that many scholars have approached it from a 21st century Western perspective. It might seem obvious to the point of being trivial, but 1st century Greco-Roman social and cultural values were different.
Some scholars, however, have attempted to get closer to the 1st century mindset. It might seem initially surprising, but a number of American evangelical scholars have stressed various differences between 1st century culture and our own, such as a low view on women.[1] British scholar and former Bishop, N. T. Wright, in his work The Resurrection of the Son of God, has offered a comprehensive survey of Jewish and non-Jewish beliefs from the Old Testament period, up until the New Testament period.[2] A number of scholars, including but not limited to Richard Bauckham and Michael Licona, have compared the Gospels to other written works from the same time period.[3] The problem with these writers is that these elements are only bought up in isolation, or are not the main focus. One group of scholars, however, known as the ‘Context Group’ have published a series of commentaries and volumes exploring 1st century culture.[4]
The origins of Christianity are a subject that has attracted a considerable amount of ink over the past few centuries. For believers and non-believers alike it is a subject of great interest, but also controversy. Frequently, we hear of sensationalist books declaring some new theory about Jesus and the origins of Christianity, some fringe authors even declaring that Jesus was a mythological figure based on pagan deities. Whilst any full study would take multiple books, my focus in writing this dissertation will be on the socio-cultural background of the 1st century. This is a subject that has been oft neglected, and few scholars in recent years have attempted to tackle with these issues. One of the biggest problems of studying early Christianity is that many scholars have approached it from a 21st century Western perspective. It might seem obvious to the point of being trivial, but 1st century Greco-Roman social and cultural values were different.
Some scholars, however, have attempted to get closer to the 1st century mindset. It might seem initially surprising, but a number of American evangelical scholars have stressed various differences between 1st century culture and our own, such as a low view on women.[1] British scholar and former Bishop, N. T. Wright, in his work The Resurrection of the Son of God, has offered a comprehensive survey of Jewish and non-Jewish beliefs from the Old Testament period, up until the New Testament period.[2] A number of scholars, including but not limited to Richard Bauckham and Michael Licona, have compared the Gospels to other written works from the same time period.[3] The problem with these writers is that these elements are only bought up in isolation, or are not the main focus. One group of scholars, however, known as the ‘Context Group’ have published a series of commentaries and volumes exploring 1st century culture.[4]
Wednesday, 13 February 2013
Christians and Abortion - Ignorance, apathy and shame
Christianity and Slavery
It shouldn't be a particular surprise to anyone that most Christians ethical views are influenced and informed far more by the media and the cultural zeitgeist than by a Christian world-view. What this means is that most Christians tend to be ignorant about a number of things that are shaping the minds and practices of people here in the UK. One example I will focus on specifically is that of abortion. I don't think it would be an overstatement to claim that abortion is the twenty first centuries ethical equivalent of the chattel slavery so prevalent in the nineteenth century. If anything it is far worse, and like slavery it has serious cultural consequences with respect to how we view certain groups of people within our society. In Wilberforce and Clarksons day the big question was whether or not it was wrong to treat black people as inferior to whites and therefore justifiably use them as a means for their desired profitable ends as slaves. The answer to this questions would affect how you would view and therefore treat them, because if they weren't a human 'person' with moral value then there really was little problem with chattel slavery.
It shouldn't be a particular surprise to anyone that most Christians ethical views are influenced and informed far more by the media and the cultural zeitgeist than by a Christian world-view. What this means is that most Christians tend to be ignorant about a number of things that are shaping the minds and practices of people here in the UK. One example I will focus on specifically is that of abortion. I don't think it would be an overstatement to claim that abortion is the twenty first centuries ethical equivalent of the chattel slavery so prevalent in the nineteenth century. If anything it is far worse, and like slavery it has serious cultural consequences with respect to how we view certain groups of people within our society. In Wilberforce and Clarksons day the big question was whether or not it was wrong to treat black people as inferior to whites and therefore justifiably use them as a means for their desired profitable ends as slaves. The answer to this questions would affect how you would view and therefore treat them, because if they weren't a human 'person' with moral value then there really was little problem with chattel slavery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
