Bart Ehrman and James Crossley, two critical biblical scholars, both argue that there are no good grounds to believe in the resurrection of Jesus as reported in the New Testament.  They say that by using the process of methodological naturalism, the approach to investigation that searches for natural causes for events and phenomena, we cannot make any historical fact claims about the resurrection.  In his article on the subject on his blog Saints and Sceptics, David Glass writes,

Neither Crossley nor Ehrman claim to be able to demonstrate that the resurrection definitely did not happen. Rather, they claim that from the perspective of the historian there are no good reasons to believe in the resurrection. Essentially, they are claiming that historiansas historians cannot seriously entertain the possibility that a miracle might have occurred. Ehrman claims that “it is not appropriate for a historian to presuppose a perspective or worldview that is not generally held”. The problem with miracles then is that they require theological beliefs and “since historians cannot assume these beliefs, they cannot demonstrate historically that such miracles happened.”

In ruling out supernatural explanations from the start, are they begging the question?  Read more of the article here: http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/ehrman-and-the-resurrection/.

Advertisements