Saturday, August 25, 2007

Professors of fraudulent history

Wade ran across a "god-fearer" blogger this morning who has an interesting perspective on me and other "professors of fraudulent history."

"The God Fearin' Fiddler" writes:
Third - in spite of the two facts listed already, there IS substantial evidence to validate the claims of Christ's resurrection. So much so, in fact, it's uncanny.

See debates from William Lane Craig vs (insert loser here) or NT Wright's book "Jesus and the Victory of God" (not apologetic in nature yet carries more apologetic weight that most apologetic books). Then go read the professors of fraudulent history: James Tabor, April DeConick, Dominic Crossan, James Crossley etc... The history of the matter is so one-sided in favor of Christianity it's really surprising. God didn't have to give us so much evidence - but because of our weak faith He did.
At least I'm in good company!


Jim Deardorff said...

This "God-Fearing Fiddler," who seems to be anonymous in his blog, made a number of very good points. When it came to the topic of resurrection, however, he just claimed that the evidence in favor was overwhelming despite the claim applying to only one man out of millions or billions, and despite his omission of any mention of Paul/Saul's single-handed dominant influence on the course of earliest Christianity.

Some of the Fiddler's argumentation could be relevant if applied to evidence that Jesus survived 3 nights in the tomb, with help, and then. But this dare not be given any consideration, even though, during Saul's conversion event, the men with Saul also heard the voice that spoke to Saul and to whom Saul replied as if he knew to whom he was speaking (Acts 9).

And what about claims of evidence backing up the reality of past-life remembrances? That evidence truly is overwhelming (e.g., look up under Google, "reincarnation Stevenson" and "reincarnation 'past-life therapy'"). By now there are several thousand cases of researched past-lives, each of which was confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt. Hopefully, this is not a forbidden topic on a Forbidden Gospels blog!

David A. Large said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David A. Large said...

Congratulations on being named among such a significant group of fraudulent historians.

Judy Redman said...

I am finding the rhetoric difficult to follow. Is he saying "even these professors of fraudulent history support this?" If so, you have to wonder about claiming support from people whose method he is suggesting is suspect. However, as David says, you're in interesting company and you have to suspect that you're being fairly convincing when people who don't like what you're saying resort to ad hominem.

Anonymous said...

My name is Tim Troutman if you're worried about anonymity. The post was a critique of someone else's very specific argument which had nothing to do with the gospels or of the resurrection. Just mentioned your name (April) in passing.

I don't intend to insult you personally, but in order for my beliefs about history to be true, your historical work, and that of the other mentioned secular scholars must be completely bogus. (Which I think they are).

Jim Deardorff said...

Thanks for your name, Tim. Let's get at the truth through logic and careful analysis of all available evidence and information, while suppressing prior beliefs.

Nick Kiger said...

Dom Crossan eh? Congrats Professor DeConick!

gdelassu said...

Did you ever debate William Lane Craig, Dr DeConick? I just have a hard time picturing such an event.


April DeConick said...

I find that those types of events do not lead anywhere constructive. The point is for each party to grind out their positions which are never on the same page. The debaters come from such different approaches, there is no possible way to find common ground or to really "talk" with each other. These events are meant to be soap boxes, and no one convinces anyone who is not already convinced. The result is predetermined by the audience's predispositions.