Podcast now available for TableTalkRadio — Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

As a followup to TableTalkRadio — Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, the show has taken place and is available on their website here.

I’ve also included it below for your listening pleasure.

Debate with Dr. David Scaer of Concordia Theological Seminary and Dr. Robert Price of Coleman Theological Seminary on the topic “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?”

[podcast]http://tabletalkradio.org/content/sites/default/files/audio/scaer_price_debate.mp3[/podcast]

 

About Norm Fisher

Norm was raised in the UCC in Connecticut, and like many fell away from the church after high school. With this background he saw it primarily as a service organization. On the miracle of his first child he came back to the church. On moving to Texas a few years later he found a home in Lutheranism when he was invited to a confessional church a half-hour away by our new neighbors.

He is one of those people who found a like mind in computers while in Middle School and has been programming ever since. He's responsible for many websites, including the Book of Concord, LCMSsermons.com, and several other sites.

He has served the church in various positions, including financial secretary, sunday school teacher, elder, PTF board member, and choir member.

More of his work can be found at KNFA.net.

Comments

Podcast now available for TableTalkRadio — Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? — 16 Comments

  1. Anyone got a summary of this debate? Why is someone who believes Jesus is dead a Seminary Professor?

  2. I appreciate how Dr. Scaer stuck and argued within the confines of Scripture and not going down the different applogetic rabbit trails. If we would have, Dr. Price would have chewed up those arguments and spat them back out. I also think Dr. Price was somwhat taken back Dr. Scaer’s use of Scripture, I got the hint Dr. Price does not usually see that in his debates. I think most of his debates are centered around secular evidence, working back to Scripture, that’s why he’s so well versed in the classics. Dr. Scaer started with Scripture, and stayed there, while Dr. Price was almost reduced to personal attacks, but just stopped short in doing so. I believe we have alot to learn from Dr. Scaer’s example.

  3. On a side note, a friend of mine at the seminary quoted Scaer as saying, “Trying to have a rational grown-up discussion about Q is like trying to have a rational grown-up discussion about Santa Claus”

  4. What a wonderful debate! Dr. Scaer’s knowledge of Scripture is profound, and his logic is unsurpassable.

  5. Dr. Price’s arguments were based entirely off of the theory that the documents aren’t authentic. He could (and did) refute every argument simply by saying, “Well, I don’t believe it’s real.” But then he used Q as his authority. He is Jesus Seminar through and through.

  6. @Michael Mapus #2
    Actually, Dr. Scaer was doing precisely the apologetic task. He made it clear he was *not* talking about *faith*, but about the historical reality (or non-reality) of Christ’s resurrection. [The bit about Matthew’s brilliant development of the silver coins point of connection between Judas and the Chief priests and then the soldiers demonstrates that Matthew himself was engaging in the apologetic task, even as he was proclaiming/preaching Christ crucified and risen. The bit where Matthew says, “and that field is called ‘the field of blood’ *to this day*” is a challenge to the contemporary hearer/reader to go to Jerusalem and find that field, and investigate the circumstances of its naming, which is no secret. then, since it’s established that the chief priests are willing to use silver to buy off Judas, it isn’t so hard to believe that they’d use silver to buy off the guards to get them to lie about the body of Jesus.]
    It’s just that Price hasn’t faced anyone who could use historical criticism’s own arguments and assumptions against the text against him so well.

  7. @Rev. David Mueller #7
    That is my point, Dr. Scaer started with and stayed within the confines of scripture, then working out as an historic fact, but only where the scripture dictated. Many apologists start with “evidence” first and it can be from any source, and then work to the scripture, sometimes. This is what I think Dr. Price is use to in his debates and thought Dr. Scaer would be different. I think Dr. Price is very good at debating about outside sources, but he doesn’t know how to handle someone who knows the nuances of the text of scripture like Dr. Scaer, especially the points you brought out. Paster Eckstein, who you hear on Issues and KFUO, is also very good at aplogetics using only the text of scripture and bringing the historical as needed. What was most amusing, Dr. Scaer at the end of the debate, stated he wasn’t an apologist, just a bible scholar!

  8. @Rev. David Mueller #7
    That is my point, Dr. Scaer started with and stayed within the confines of scripture, then working out as an historic fact, but only where the scripture dictated. Many apologists start with “evidence” first and it can be from any source, and then work to the scripture, sometimes. This is what I think Dr. Price is use to in his debates and thought Dr. Scaer would be no different. I think Dr. Price is very good at debating about outside sources, but he doesn’t know how to handle someone who knows the nuances of the text of scripture like Dr. Scaer, especially the points you brought out. Paster Eckstein, who you hear on Issues and KFUO, is also very good at aplogetics using only the text of scripture and bringing the historical as needed. What was most amusing, Dr. Scaer at the end of the debate, stated he wasn’t an apologist, just a bible scholar!

  9. @Michael #1
    Why is someone who believes Jesus is dead a Seminary Professor?

    Have you looked up that seminary?
    I don’t understand the acronyms but I would guess Universalist?

  10. Dr. Scaer evidently traveled light. He was teaching from a borrowed book and got impatient because it was the synoptics in English. So someone loaned him the same thing in Greek and he was happily chewing the nuances of that in all the Gospels for the rest of the course. (I daresay the recent grads came for just that.) 🙂

    I wonder how many scholars of that calibre Robert Price comes up against.

  11. The best line of Dr. Scaer’s in the whole debate (and I’m paraphrasing from memory) was “When the text becomes inconvenient, blame it on interpolations.” This is something Dr. Price did constantly throughout the debate when he had no answer for something.

    Dr. Price put all of his debating eggs in two baskets: interpolations and borrowing from the mythology of the time. While he asserted interpolations, he never offered proof for them (just that other scholars believed the same thing). He offered parallels with Greek mythology of the day, but never offered proof that Gospel writers borrowed from them. (I realize that the short debate forum did not allow for full blown explanations. However, I thought that Dr. Scaer at least attempted to prove his assertions within the restrictions of the debate format.)

    Dr. Price’s methodology of denying the truth of the Gospels because it “maybe” could have been this (an interpolation) or it “maybe” could have been that (borrowing from mythology) is not offering evidence based on fact, but promoting an ideology based on “faith” (ironically, something he accuses Christians of doing).

    (Oh, no. I just noticed that the first paragraph of this response talks about only of interpolations while the second and third paragraphs talk about interpolations *and* mythology. It makes me wonder if my post has had interpolations added to it. I wonder how I can find out.)

  12. The genius of Dr Scaer’s approach is nopt whether he uses Scripture vs. outside sources. Like Dr. Montgomery and others, he spoke from sola Scriptura because it is equally valid evidence with anything and above anything else. He established the case that Scripture is and should be considered valid testimony and, thereafter, did not have to go beyond it for hs points. That, in itself, is a proper use of apologetcs. See also 1 Cor. 15 especially verses 3-11, Acts 26, etc. In these cases, folks could go back to the elocations which the apostle Paul mentions and interview the people who were there. Of course, Luke mentions how He did this (Lk. 1:1-4, Acts 1:1ff). So, we have Luke-Acts declaring to first century hearers and to us the saving person and work of Jesus Christ.

    Dr. Scaer did not have to present anything or or “aha” like. He simply stuck the text in all its demonstrated inerrancy and declared Christ Jesus indeed risen.

  13. I have to say, from my perspective as a non-theologically trained layperson, I was not impressed at all with Dr. Scaer’s argument. Even though I don’t agree with his point of view, I felt that Dr. Price clearly won this debate and I fear that someone who was not sure about the truth of the resurrection would likely feel the same way. I was very disappointed.

  14. @KDF #14
    I felt that Dr. Price clearly won this debate …

    Having heard, as it were, a preview of Dr. Scaer’s themes, I only got around to listening to the podcast without interruption this afternoon. Given KDF’s comments, I expected Dr. Price to produce some evidence that I hadn’t heard for his position.

    Instead, his attitude seemed to be, “Well, no reasonable person would believe any of this, so it didn’t happen.” He had no evidence to back up his assertions, just a condescending, “oh you poor creature, if you believe this stuff.”

    That wouldn’t win a debate for me.

Leave a Reply

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

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.