I extend a formal, heartfelt apology to Steve regarding what I wrote about my non-homophobia. He took offense at it as a character attack, and I understand why. Steve has been a complete gentleman and is extremely respectful and polite. I meant to defend my non-homophobia. I did not perceive Steve’s comment as a personal attack. If my Christianizing converted me to fearing homosexuals, Christianity ought to be an issue for producing negative sentiment toward fellow humans. The fact is that Christianity did not convert me to homophobia, as you can tell from my earlier response. I e-mailed Steve a private apology. I also apologize to our readers for my poor wording.

In Steve’s initial post, he wrote, "I am not seeking a debate and will not harangue you with arguments (put me in your killfile if I do!), rather I have to ask people on both sides of the question if I am to do honest research."

Steve, in his most recent post, proposed diverting from his initial "research" (The Resurrection) regarding my conversion. Nonetheless I am keeping him on track with "arguments" he introduced about scholarship. I welcome them, and am grateful that he walked himself right into a bona-fide "debate."

Steve wrote:

Rules of Engagement

Jordan insists that non-theists who write to him follow certain guidelines. It is a good idea to keep people on track and unabusive and I try hard to keep decorum, although occasionally emotions rise in some email discussions. I am not entirely happy with Jordan's stipulations however, feeling that not only does Jordan not stick to them himself,

[Reply: An example from Steve would be helpful. Is he referring to my correspondence with Temy? I addressed Temy's points in the order he presented them. That was long before Steve contacted me and before I laid out rules. I met Temy’s challenges but, as I wrote in conclusion of that debate:

In summary, my faith rests on the Resurrection. We have covered many points, many of which I find irrelevant. Because you [Temy], raised them, I answered them. If Jesus Christ is real, as evidenced by the Resurrection, other points are side issues. Now that I have addressed each of your points, I must limit my debating to the Resurrection.

Yes, Steve and I discussed other matters before I responded to Resurrection Part One. Where, in my response to Resurrection Part One (http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/locks.htm), did I not "stick to" my stipulations?

I constructed my Rules of Engagement to keep skeptics from circumventing the issue (e.g., keeping the Steves of skepticism "on track"). He approached me about the Resurrection. Well, the old cliché warns, "Be careful what you ask for; you might get it."]

but more importantly, I feel my research is hindered without a truly free rein.

[Reply: Then I turn the Resurrection reins to Steve while advising him to hold on tightly; he has a rough ride ahead.]

1. Stick with the Resurrection. It is pivotal. I think it is important to be allowed to discuss anything that one wishes to and in the way one believes is most appropriate.

[Reply: In other words, let contenders babble when lacking answers.]

For most of Jordan's writings, both in his debate with Temy Beal and his response to me he discusses issues that are important to him and not about the resurrection.

[Reply: Again, I ask, where in my response to Resurrection Part One (http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/locks.htm) did I discuss issues "not about the resurrection?"]

Indeed, his resurrection material is actually quite slight,

[Reply: Indeed, he can show us. Why is he attempting to avoid dealing with something slight?]

especially in his debate with Temy Beal. In his "eight points" Jordan has to start at point 7 admitting that "omitted items addressed different issues." I will do the same, especially as there are issues raised that criticise what I have written. As for the resurrection being pivotal, incase you have jumped here, read this.

[Reply: Steve overlooks that Birth and Death of an Atheist and my Point-by-Point Response to Temy dealt with Christianity in general, not just the Resurrection. He later contacted me about the Resurrection. When I referred to documents written prior to his contacting me about the Resurrection, I omitted unrelated matter.

Steve is attempting to slither out of the Resurrection by convincing himself that he has a license to go in other directions. He approached me about the Resurrection. Therefore, he should deal with it. It starts at its earliest element: New Testament scholarship.]

Steve further wrote:

Regarding our readers

Jordan says: I consider it crucial for our readers that we provide references and links as they arise in this exchange. Bear in mind, however, most persons do not have time to read the exhaustive material. It is important we make our points on our pages. Therefore, I include direct quotations of pertinent statements along with corresponding site links. I respond to this in a similar way to the "rules of engagement." I wish to do serious research

[Reply: Then why does Steve not get around to doing exactly that? In fact, he can try including http://www.tektonics.org/.]

and I try to provide quality reading material that gets to the heart of the matter.

[Reply: Is he claiming that http://www.tektonics.org/ does not get to the heart of the matter? If Steve is "serious" about his Resurrection inquiry, he should stick with it.]

"What is unclear?"

Jordan queries my extra probing into what convinced him about the resurrection, saying:
"Steve read my article Birth and Death of an Atheist. What is unclear about the following points I presented regarding my reasoning?"

What I was referring to was Jordan's remark:
"Because I wanted to avoid overshadowing it by frivolous diversions, I refrained from covering the Resurrection in detail."

[Reply: Again, that quotation of mine above had nothing whatever to do with Birth and Death of an Atheist, and it pertained to a different debate long before Steve approached me. I do not know what other research procedures Steve incorporated into his study, but I have personally experienced his quoting me out of context. Is Steve that desperate to avoid dealing with the issue at hand? Apparently, he is. However, I insist we stay on track. He had much to offer regarding New Testament scholarship. Let us examine that. I am adamant that we go one step at a time (a plan Steve avoids). I ended my last response with, "I ask that Steve challenge or concede its [New Testament scholars] authority." I am willing and eager to deal with the rest of Steve’s points (e.g., female witnesses, hoaxers, hallucinations, etc.) in due course. However, I refuse to be sidetracked in his diversions. I am only dealing with the next step, New Testament scholars. Pasted below is Steve’s response to my challenge regarding New Testament scholarship. I will repeat myself each time he swayed (which was often) from the challenge.]

Steve’s response to my New -Testament-scholarship challenge follows:

"The consensus of scholars"

Jordan very directly asks me: "To start at the earliest element, we must examine New Testament scholarship. I have yet to witness any of Craig’s opponents correct him when he referred to this scholarship. I ask that Steve challenge or concede its authority." I find this rather an odd challenge for two reasons. Firstly it is exactly what I have done on my previous resurrection page.

[Reply: No, it is not; he wrote, ". . . my discussion of the resurrection with links to many further resources laying out some reasons for the resurrection not being a physical event." (I just reread Part One in its entirety and it is not clear if Steve rejects Christ’s human existence). I specifically claimed that, "Nearly all New Testament scholars [and provided an academic operational definition of such], regardless of their theological leanings, agree:

a. Jesus Christ existed.

b. He faced crucifixion.

c. By Godly hook, earthly crook, or whatever, there is no body.

d. Jesus' followers saw SOMETHING they believed to be a risen Jesus."

All Steve has presented in Part Two is skeptic "scholars" who deny Christ’s divinity but do not deny any of the above points. Steve is very hesitant to assume and defend a position. Is Steve a Christ-myther (i.e., one who believes Jesus did not exist even in human form)? Or does he concede his accepted scholars’ authority? I still do not know Steve’s position—does he? I can only guess that he presented a section titled "The Consensus of Scholars" because he disagrees with my points. However, no where in the section did he present any refutation whatever.]

Secondly, in his misleading denigration of "atheist scholars"

[Reply: Where and how did I misleadingly denigrate atheist scholars?]

Jordan ridicules the Sea of Faith as "fallen clergypersons,"

[Reply: Where did I ridicule? Is "fallen" not the proper term for "leaving the fold?" If not, I apologize for my ignorance. One could claim that they are not "fallen," because some remain in the church. However, they have fallen from Christ’s divinity claim, which is paramount to Christianity. Retaining a desire to continue wearing pretty robes does not acquire them non-fallen status. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Again, an atheist by any other name is still an atheist.]

and says: "Personally, my evaluation of the facts lies outside whether one Catholic priest, the Pope, or one thousand Protestant ministers have fallen away. I invite any of them to address the points presented above." Either the numbers of skeptical scholars are important or not. It appears Jordan wants both.

[Reply: "Appears" to Steve, perhaps, but I am not a complicated individual by sticking with my points. I want Steve, in particular, rather than his spokespersons, to argue the points I made above. Is Steve claiming that they claim Jesus did not exist, did not face crucifixion, left no body, and His followers did not see what they perceived to be a risen Jesus? It is crucial to know his position, assuming he has one.]

If he truly invites the Sea of Faith to address his points then he should ask them and read their books

[Reply: Steve approached me, asking what about the Resurrection I found convincing. I explained exactly that. The Sea of Faith site denied Christ's divinity but not His existence. How about Steve presenting his thoughts in his words? Perhaps I missed something; if so, may Steve enlighten us. I do not mean to be rude, but I do not give a diddly about the Sea of Faith. They are welcome to address my points if they have nothing better to do, which I expect they do. However, just because Steve finds them to be some almighty fountain of theological knowledge does not mean they are worthy of any more of my time. So far, they have not refuted my claim that Christ existed, faced crucifixion, there is no body, and His followers saw something. Currently, I have no argument with them other than the direction we may take from there. I am not in the practice of arguing with people with whom I agree. Once Steve concedes scholarship, we will discuss their explanations about what happened after the Cross.]

(many of these "fallen clergy persons" are able scholars!) Contact details are available at their website and the most relevant book is possibly (I haven't read all their books) "Resurrection - Myth or Reality?" - John Shelby Spong, ISBN 0060674296 (reviewed and summarised here).

 [Reply: Steve (I am sure it was just an oversight) neglected to inform you that you may also read a review and summary here and here and here and here.]

They should not be thought of as avoiding his challenge if Jordan does not let them know about it or if he does not read what they have already written in answer to his exact questions. A snippet is here.

[Reply: I do not think they are avoiding my challenge; I have not even challenged them. I clearly see, though, that Steve is. They are a non-issue to me. If I am an issue to them, so be it. They are Steve's almighty--not mine. Again, I am not at odds with them on the basics that Steve cannot seem to accept. So, Steve can now enlighten us as to which of his referenced "scholars" have works used in academia rather than merely in pop readership and skepti-mania’s la-la-Webland. Further, is Steve claiming that these individuals are fully and formally studied in linguistics, archaeology, literature, anthropology, and so on, pertaining to New Testament times, as real New Testament scholars are? Either way, no where in his response (and I just reread his snippet) has he discredited my claim that, nearly all New Testament scholars agree Christ existed, faced crucifixion, there is no body, and His followers saw something. Such circumlocution around that base merely supports my claim by presenting skeptics who concede that Christ existed, faced crucifixion, there is no body, and His followers saw something. I thank Steve; I will use his work in further debates to strengthen my case. Or is he claiming that the Jesus of history never existed? If so, will he explain why to our readers? If not, he concedes Christ's earthly existence, crucifixion, absent body, and followers’ visions. Then we can examine what happened after the Cross.]

If most Islamic scholars thought that the angel Gabriel dictated the Koran to Mohammed, should this be thought of as evidence for Islam?

[Reply: Steve is comparing apples to oranges. All any "Islamic scholars" know is that Mohammed claimed he entered a cave then exited with paper and ink from a God via an angel. This is not in any way what happened with Jesus; other people and documents are involved.]

However, if many hundreds of their most able scholars deconverted during their studies, arguing that the Koran was a mere cultural production, should that make us think?

[Reply: Think what? My point is made. Steve seems to be hung up on the mistaken idea that scholarship equals sharing a faith. Islamic scholarship would consist of non-Islamic scholars also. Further, using his line of reasoning (as my Rules of Engagement employ—applying the same rule of measure to both sides), I present that thousands of Jews did, in fact, convert to Christ (after centuries upon centuries of non-conversion to competing religions) as a result of the Resurrection, be it myth or fact. These converts, throughout their numerous centuries of rejecting other religions, abandoned their faith and embraced Christ. Now, if he thinks that an example of hundreds converting should make us "think," then what about a conversion of thousands? There are many non-theistic factors that could account for a conversion or non-conversion. We will deal with that as we "think" together.]

Maybe we should wonder if the evidence in favour of Islam is not as good as we may have previously thought.

[Reply: "Ifs" and "maybes" do not make strong arguments. Steve can do better than that, I hope. He will lose by continuing to equate Islam with Christianity when attempting to discredit Christianity.]

Jordan says that what really matters is the quality of the arguments. Before making his mind up about the Jesus Seminar being wrong

[Reply: Where did I claim they are wrong? I exposed their minority status.]

because they are believed to be a minority opinion by fundamentalists,

[Reply: It is not that they are "believed" a minority opinion by fundamentalists; it is that they are a minority opinion, even compared to moderates—period. Face it.]

I repeat my quote of what happened to a previous Christian apologist,

[Reply: No, an aspiring apologist]

of much greater learning than Jordan, when he decided to eventually actually read carefully what the Jesus Seminar had to say:

"I was planning to be a professional apologist and was taking three courses in my fall quarter relating to biblical studies.

[Reply: I remind you that we are discussing scholarship, not "planning" for such. Also, Steve's statement implies he embraces the Jesus Seminar’s position. Is he prepared to defend it?]

I thought the best way to defeat the Jesus Seminar and the source critics of the Pentateuch was to know their arguments as well as they did. Ironically, I was won over to the historical-critical method. Given my background in comparative religions and my training as an apologist who liked to ask difficult questions, my view of the Bible and the religious communities that produced it quickly changed. More and more, I saw the Bible as a mere cultural production...

[Reply: Hmm, not unlike the religion of Secular Humanism.]

I wanted my apologetic to have a firm historical angle.

[Reply: Unlike the Resurrection? Hmm, how interesting. No history to be found there, right? We shall see.]

In effect, everything for which I had been working for the past decade came to a drastic halt when the historical-critical method poked holes too large for me to ever repair in my conservative brand of Christianity."

[Reply: Steve and I are going to deal with those pesky, hole-poking, historical-critical-method buggers as soon as he concedes or effectively challenges established scholarship, particularly his own scholars.]

I hope Jordan's research is commensurate with his pronouncements on the validity of different scholars.

[Reply: Then Steve may enlighten us as to where I am wrong regarding New Testament scholarship. So far, his "scholars" have failed to present that even they disagree with me on the facts New Testament scholars have established (e.g., His existence, crucifixion, disappearance, and followers’ visions.]

It should be bourn in mind that many ex-Christians are well studied, and include fine scholars in their ranks, such as Don Cuppit and Michael Goulder.

[Reply: Just what makes them "fine scholars" and by whose standards? Do they claim (and I repeat myself, yet again) that Jesus did not exist, face crucifixion, leave no body, and His followers did not see something they believed to be a risen Jesus?]

Since many have subsequently left Christianity and others still in the fold do not hold with the idea of a physical resurrection,

[Reply: By the way, just what is "many?" The minority percentages presented later in this post? "Some" would have been a more appropriate word. As that sentence stands, it implies a majority left Christianity. Also, just what is "still in the fold?" Still donning pretty robes and collecting paychecks over something they do not believe? Further, do they claim He never existed, and on and on?]

Jordan really must ask himself why what is so obvious to him is not obvious to them too.

[Reply: C. S. Lewis (who was far more learned than Steve and I) became an ex-agnostic. He had been a front-runner in atheist apologetics. He, too, knew all the arguments. He debated theists before converting to Christ. Nonetheless, what is so obvious to me is as obvious to Steve's skeptic "scholars:" Christ existed, faced crucifixion, there is no body, and His followers saw something they believed to be a risen Him. Make no mistake; I will continue repeating myself until Steve gets the picture. I start where skeptics agree. What is in question here is what happened after the Cross. Steve is the one who seems to find difficulty in starting at the "obvious" that is so clear to his authorities and me.]

Also remember the asymmetry of conversion.

Here, from part 1, is a repetition of the lack of conservative consensus: (to skip, click here).

...the quest for the historical Jesus from such famous figures

[Reply: Adolf Hitler (Darwinism’s survival of the fittest—might makes right), and Josef Stalin (outlaw churches and religion) are "famous figures." Let us see what we can learn from them and the fruits of their labor—their victims.]

as David Friedrich Strauss, Albert Schweitzer, Rudolf Bultmann, etc. to Geza Vermes, E. P. Sanders, and the Jesus Seminar. This has produced many ex-Christians like Gerd Lüdermann and Michael Goulder and radical "non-realist" Christians such as those at the Sea of Faith. The theologians who take a very different approach to the one Jordan sees as the consensus are indeed legion....Lloyd Geering at How Did Jesus Become God - and Why writes: "There is general agreement, among all but conservative scholars, that the Easter faith began with visions in Galilee and not with the discovery of an empty tomb in Jerusalem."

[Reply: An empty tomb is not needed to make the case for Christ (though a case can be made for it). Let us not stray from my points. Does their "general agreement" (and I just reread Geering) imply that Jesus did not exist, face crucifixion, and leave followers seeing something they believed to be a risen Christ? Sorry for Steve, but we are not going to sway from my points before we move on. If his position is that Christ never existed, he can state it and we will examine that together.

By the way, Steve also overlooked http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_BDB.html regarding Bultmann. Oh, and he overlooked http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_CSFS.html regarding Strauss.]

To quote the radical bishop John Shelby Spong "The defensiveness of the hierarchy [of the Church of England to the revelation that many bishops do not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus] revealed a startling unwillingness to share common-place biblical scholarship with a questioning public. Most biblical scholars regard the emptiness of the tomb to be an early Christian legend but they don't actually believe there ever was an identifiable tomb in which Jesus was buried in the first place." Also, as Anthony Freeman says "How is it, for example, that not a single professor of divinity in Cambridge is currently an ordained member of the Church of England? And how is it that the English clergy have so effectively insulated their congregations from the fruits of critical scholarship over the past hundred years? Is the reason perhaps that 'no priest dare admit officially to things which every first year theological undergraduate needs to know'?" The Internet Infidels have a similar article here.

[Reply: Readers, please note that there is no argument above against Christ’s existence, crucifixion, and followers’ visions. Steve is hard-pressed to make a case against those points.]

More evidence that current scholarship rarely filters through to the Christian laity is the following from religious tolerence.org. "The beliefs of mainline Christian clergy and academics tend to be between those of the liberals and conservatives. A survey of mostly mainline Protestant clergy shows that many doubt Jesus' physical resurrection. Percentage of doubters are: