Christian Apologetics

Handsome Bob

What is your view on it? I ask because I've listened to some of Gary Habermas's debates/discussions on Youtube and the man is very good at arguing his case. It didn't convince me of anything but it gave me a better appreciation for why some Christians are confident they have the one true religion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsuczs8BJE8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TBBzTMSUC0

So what do you all think of it? An open question to both the religious and non-religious.

Handsome Bob

Cripes, I didn't think this thread would fail! Seriously though people I think it's a worthy topic. George Habermas really puts forward a reasonable argument as to why he thinks Christianity is the one true religion.

Fanny Cradock

I'll take a look when I get a chance. Have to say that the on-screen graphics remind me a little of something you would see on Fox

Handsome Bob

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'll take a look when I get a chance. Have to say that the on-screen graphics remind me a little of something you would see on Fox

There's a comical "fox moment" from the host at the end of Part 2.:pac:

Gareth37

LZ5by5 wrote: »

What is your view on it? I ask because I've listened to some of Gary Habermas's debates/discussions on Youtube and the man is very good at arguing his case. It didn't convince me of anything but it gave me a better appreciation for why some Christians are confident they have the one true religion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsuczs8BJE8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TBBzTMSUC0

So what do you all think of it? An open question to both the religious and non-religious.

Gary is a good speaker and knows his history. It would be good to hear him give his views in this country. Lets face it; if it could be proved that Jesus/God don't exist we would have the evidence by now. If the story was a myth it would be extremely easy to pull holes in it.

In saying that; I don't really care what history says, which says Jesus does exist and resurected, because even if there was zero physical evidence of Jesus I would still beleive in Jesus and in God.

Handsome Bob

Gareth37 wrote: »

Gary is a good speaker and knows his history. It would be good to hear him give his views in this country. Lets face it; if it could be proved that Jesus/God don't exist we would have the evidence by now. If the story was a myth it would be extremely easy to pull holes in it.

In saying that; I don't really care what history says, which says Jesus does exist and resurected, because even if there was zero physical evidence of Jesus I would still beleive in Jesus and in God.

Do you not think you'd have an easier time defending your beliefs from for want of a better phrase "over-zealous" posters if you were well versed in Christian Apologetics?

Gareth37

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Do you not think you'd have an easier time defending your beliefs from for want of a better phrase "over-zealous" posters if you were well versed in Christian Apologetics?

Yes most certainly. One should know the historical facts very well and one should know the Bible very well. One should also know the history of the church very well. I have only recently been converted fully so I am still learning. Most of the bashers of religeon are just making money as individuals whilst leading God's flock astray.

Gareth37

Thanks for posting it up.

How do I find out more about these and the history?

Handsome Bob

Gareth37 wrote: »

Thanks for posting it up.

How do I find out more about these and the history?

This is a decent source as a start;

http://www.theopedia.com/Gary_Habermas

Gareth37

LZ5by5 wrote: »

This is a decent source as a start;

http://www.theopedia.com/Gary_Habermas

Thanks very much. Very interesting stuff.

PDN

I don't watch online video as Eircom still can't give me proper broadband at my house and I have to use 3's rather slow mobile service.

I like good apologetics, and Habermas is very good.

JimiTime

LZ5by5 wrote: »

It didn't convince me of anything

Why?

Handsome Bob

JimiTime wrote: »

Why?

It still requires a leap of faith. One of the important aspects of the minimal facts approach is that the apostles were convinced that they saw Jesus upon his resurrection.

But I'd be willing to say if any religion is on to a winner it's Christianity that has a very reasonable case.

JimiTime

LZ5by5 wrote: »

It still requires a leap of faith. One of the important aspects of the minimal facts approach is that the apostles were convinced that they saw Jesus upon his resurrection.

What would be your reasoning for not believing them? I've seen people say, 'people don't come back from the dead, so anything else is more plausible'. Would that be your reasoning?

Oh and thanks for posting the video's, good viewing.

Fanny Cradock

You might enjoy reading the following books.

Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis
The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel
Letters with a Sceptic, Greg Boyd

All very light and accessible.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You might enjoy reading the following books.

Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis
The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel
Letters with a Sceptic, Greg Boyd

All very light and accessible.

Off to thailand for a month on 12th december (wahey:)) and bought Mere Christianity, The screwtape letters and Robert Winstons 'the Story of God'. Looking forward to em. Would you recommend those other 2 ahead of screwtape?

Handsome Bob

JimiTime wrote: »

What would be your reasoning for not believing them? I've seen people say, 'people don't come back from the dead, so anything else is more plausible'. Would that be your reasoning?

Oh and thanks for posting the video's, good viewing.

I can't take the word of Paul at face value, even if some of the apostles were willing to die for what they believed in.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You might enjoy reading the following books.

Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis
The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel
Letters with a Sceptic, Greg Boyd

All very light and accessible.

It is something that has become increasingly interesting for me. I'll have those books in mind formy next trip to the Library.

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

Off to thailand for a month on 12th december (wahey:)) and bought Mere Christianity, The screwtape letters and Robert Winstons 'the Story of God'. Looking forward to em. Would you recommend those other 2 ahead of screwtape?

I actually haven't read the Screwtape Letters, it's on the pile, though. The last two books I mentioned may be more of an exploration of the foundations of Christianity - sort of like considered justifications. Maybe this is not what you are looking for.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I actually haven't read the Screwtape Letters, it's on the pile, though. The last two books I mentioned may be more of an exploration of the foundations of Christianity - sort of like considered justifications. Maybe this is not what you are looking for.

Sure, I'm not a fast reader, so I probably have plenty in those 3 anyway. I'll check out the other 2 on my return.
Cheers.

BrianCalgary

Safe trip and happy reading JT.

Screwtape letters was a very insightful book and a bit of a tough read as it requires imagination as you are getting only the one side of the conversation. Well worth it though.

JimiTime

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I can't take the word of Paul at face value, even if some of the apostles were willing to die for what they believed in.

Combined with those of the others though, it becomes a little bit more stable IMO. You wouldn't agree?

Its one of the things that sets Christianity apart IMO. Multiple authors and witnesses. Koran, book of mormon etc Are one man claiming to have recieved the word of God. The bible is written by multiples of people. I am someone who doesn't like the term 'word of God' when referring to the bible. That is a title that John Categorically gave to Jesus. The bible was written by men inspired by Gods Holy Spirit, containing words of God etc, but not wholly 'The Word of God'. This is not a common view, but 'personally' I feel, a more accurate one.

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Safe trip and happy reading JT.

Screwtape letters was a very insightful book and a bit of a tough read as it requires imagination as you are getting only the one side of the conversation. Well worth it though.

Cheers BC. Mere Christianity is the one I'm really looking forward to. though its got such hype on here, i hope it lives up to my expectations:)

Handsome Bob

JimiTime wrote: »

Combined with those of the others though, it becomes a little bit more stable IMO. You wouldn't agree?

Its one of the things that sets Christianity apart IMO. Multiple authors and witnesses. Koran, book of mormon etc Are one man claiming to have recieved the word of God. The bible is written by multiples of people. I am someone who doesn't like the term 'word of God' when referring to the bible. That is a title that John Categorically gave to Jesus. The bible was written by men inspired by Gods Holy Spirit, containing words of God etc, but not wholly 'The Word of God'. This is not a common view, but 'personally' I feel, a more accurate one.

I'm not quite following you. Do you mean that by them willing to die for what they were convinced they saw, it makes the resurrection more plausible? As I said, Christian Apologetics is very convincing and it certainly gives the religion stability.

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

Cheers BC. Mere Christianity is the one I'm really looking forward to. though its got such hype on here, i hope it lives up to my expectations:)

I would temper this by saying that it is only a book. While it was certaily an enjoyable read it is not the be all and end all.

Gareth37

Does anyone know if the work of Bruce McLaughlin is respected/verified?
http://www.christianapologetic.org/

Also, can anybody direct me to academic publications on such theory?

Thanks

Fanny Cradock

LZ5by5, I finally got around to watching the video and I have to say that I was not impressed. There are atheists here who could have done a considerably better job than that Tim Callahan chap. Also, you really can even begin to flesh out such a topic in 15 minutes.

There are other debates available on-line between better matched rivals. Although they don't deal with the same subject matter, you may nevertheless get a kick out of viewing either

The Hitchens D'Souza Debate

or

The Dawkins Lennox Debate (very interesting but quite a restrictive and frustrating format)

ChocolateSauce

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

LZ5by5, I finally got around to watching the video and I have to say that I was not impressed. There are atheists here who could have done a considerably better job than that Tim Callahan chap. Also, you really can even begin to flesh out such a topic in 15 minutes.

There are other debates available on-line between better matched rivals. Although they don't deal with the same subject matter, you may nevertheless get a kick out of viewing either

The Hitchens D'Souza Debate

or

The Dawkins Lennox Debate (very interesting but quite a restrictive and frustrating format)

Though I disagree with him, I think D'Souza is the best debater of his kind and the only one I've ever considered to have beaten Hitchens...highly entertaining.

Fanny Cradock

You should see him do a job on Dennett. After that debate I was was quite shocked at how bad Dennett was, so much so that it put me off reading Breaking the Spell etc.

D'souza is an excellent debater. In the debates I've seen he is generally equal or better than his opponents. However, he does have a style (he can become a little shrill at times) that could turn people off.

Handsome Bob

Great stuff FC. D'Souza seems at ease and confident in his argument. Hitchens I think is a formidable player in his field, but he had a tendency in that video you posted to use rhetoric; which can be good in small doses.How many times did he say "no person with any self respect"?

BrianCalgary

D'Souza had a website that you can subscribe to and receive weekly articles. It is very good. Here is the link:

http://www.tothesource.org/index.htm

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

.

There are other debates available on-line between better matched rivals. Although they don't deal with the same subject matter, you may nevertheless get a kick out of viewing either

The Hitchens D'Souza Debate

Really enjoyed that. cheers.

philologos

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You might enjoy reading the following books.

Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis
The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel
Letters with a Sceptic, Greg Boyd

All very light and accessible.

I haven't read Boyd, but I agree with you totally on Lewis, and Strobel. I use many examples that I have read in these books to argue for my faith in other respects.

Fanny Cradock

In all honesty, I've not read a lot of Boyd, but what I have read has been enjoyable. Maybe PDN can confirm this, but I believe that N.T. Wright is supposed to be regarded as one of the finest theologians currently around. Worth a read in that case.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In all honesty, I've not read a lot of Boyd, but what I have read has been enjoyable. Maybe PDN can confirm this, but I believe that N.T. Wright is supposed to be regarded as one of the finest theologians currently around. Worth a read in that case.

Yes, Wright is excellent! I don't agree with him on everything, but he is scholarly, very readable, and not afraid to call a spade a spade. I've recently finished reading Surprised by Hope and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Fanny Cradock

Not too 'watery' an Anglican, then?

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not too 'watery' an Anglican, then?

Not 'watery' at all. A great improvement on some previous Bishops of Durham!

Fanny Cradock

I must check him out. Cheers.

stevencarrwork

Habermas 'minimum facts' approach.

Right from the start, Habermas tries to use 'minimum' facts, instead of *all* the facts.

His facts aren't really facts, but let us suppose that they were facts?

How does his approach differ from that of Holocaust-deniers who also pick and choose their facts?

They also love to use minimum facts, rather than all the facts.


It is a fact that no document signed or dictated by Hitler said to liqudate Jews in Europe in death camps.

It is a fact that 'Gas chamber 1' Auschwitz was an air raid shelter in 1944 and the building seen today dates largely from 1948.

These are undisputed facts. Even Wikipedia agrees these are facts, down to the building being an air-raid shelter in 1944.

Now using Habermas 'minimal facts' methodology, how can we best explain these undisputed facts?

Remember, we are only allowed to use these minimal facts, which nobody disputes, because we are using Habermas's methods.
We are also not allowed to use any other facts, such as the testimony of the commander of Auschwitz, because we are using Habermas's methods.

So now let us use more facts, and real facts, rather than Habermas's 'facts'.

Paul could not produce one single piece of eyewitness testimony as to what a resurrected body was like, even though the Gospel alleged that his Lord and Saviour had taught that a resurrected body was supposed to be made of flesh and bone, could be touched, ate, still had wounds etc.

The Gospels were written after Paul, and these stories did not exist when Paul was writing to people to tell them what a resurrected body was like.

Or else he would have used them, the way modern Christians do.


The earliest Christians believed Jesus was still alive, but that his body had been left behind.

The earliest reference to the resurrection is in 1 Cor. 15. There we learn that the Corinthians accepted the resurrection of Jesus, but still disbelieved that a dead body could rise.

This is impossible to explain, if they had been taught that Jesus dead body had risen. After all, modern Christians have no problem with the idea that God can raise dead bodies, because they have heard stories of how the body of Jesus was raised.

The Corinthians worry is easy to explain if they believed that Jesus was a god. Jesus had been a spirit before he became a human , and became a spirit again after he died. Gods can do that. However, we are not gods, and so the Corinthians wondered how we could follow Jesus , when our bodies , like the body of Jesus, would stay in the ground.

The Corinthians knew that God could breathe life into dead matter. God had breathed life into clay and created Adam as a living person. So if they believed God could make dead matter live, why did they believe God would choose not to make their dead bodies alive?

They must have had good evidence that God had not made dead matter alive in the case of the resurrection. They must have had good evidence that the dead body of Jesus had not been made alive. Only this explains their wondering how they would be resurrected, as it appeared to them that God did not want to make dead bodies live again.

So far this is speculation, although reasonable speculation. If the Corinthians believed God could make dead matter live, and had heard stories of the dead bodies of Jesus, Lazarus, the daughter of Jairus etc, being made alive, how could they doubt that God would make their dead bodies live again? Answer. They had not heard these stories, and had good evidence that a resurrection did *not* involve a dead body being made alive.

We have to turn to 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul answers the objections of the Corinthians.

Paul calls the Corinthians idiots for wondering how dead bodies would be raised. And he immediately stresses that dead bodies are dead. ‘You fools! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed.’

If Paul thought the Corinthians were idiots for wondering how dead bodies could be raised, when it was child’s play for God to raise dead bodies, he would have told them so. He could have used such passages as Ezekiel 37, or talked about how God breathed life into dead matter to make Adam.

Instead, he thinks the Corinthians are idiots for wondering how dead bodies could be raised, as they have totally missed the point about a resurrection.

Dead bodies will not be raised. Instead, we will get a new body, made of spirit.

The Corinthians were as idiotic for wondering how dead bodies would be raised in the resurrection, as somebody would be idiotic for wondering whether we still have to take our library books back after the resurrection.

Such questions were irrelevant, which is why Paul never answers the questions of how corpses could get back missing limbs, or how a corpse destroyed by fire could be reconstituted from smoke and ash etc.

Paul goes so far as to contrast , Adam, with Jesus. ‘The first Adam became a living being, the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.’

The Corinthians were idiots for not realising that we would follow Jesus and leave our dead bodies behind. We are made from the dust of the earth, but like the resurrected Jesus, we will be made from heavenly material.


The whole chapter only makes sense when we take seriously Paul’s view that it is idiotic to wonder how a dead body could be raised. It won’t be raised. It is a non-problem. Paul says clearly ‘You do not plant the body that will be’, and talks about different kinds of bodies. Paul says there is first the natural body and then the spiritual body. The Corinthians presently have their natural bodies, and then they will have spiritual bodies.

Here is an analogy for how Paul writes. If you wonder how a magician can produce an egg from your ear, after you have seen him crack the egg open, then you are an idiot for not realising that there are two eggs. Paul writes the same way.

Why wonder how a dead body can be transformed into a resurrected body, when there are two bodies? In 1 Cor. 15, Paul stresses how there are different bodies made of different materials. Why stress that there are different bodies, if he is trying to tell us how the magician put the egg back together again?

English translations of 1 Corinthians 15 often mask Paul’s idea that after our natural body has died, we will get a body made of spirit. Just like Jesus, we will become ‘a life-giving spirit.’ People of that time believed that celestial things were made of entirely different substances to earthly things. Paul shares that view and emphasises it in 1 Corinthians 15. This makes no sense if he is supposedly teaching the Corinthains that their resurrected bodies would be made from flesh and blood, which is what the Gospels claim Jesus resurrected body was made of.

It does make sense if Paul is teaching that the resurrected body would not be made from the flesh and blood of our earthly bodies.

Paul is very explicit in 2 Corinthians 5 that we will leave this present body behind and receive a heavenly body. A new body to replace the old body. He often uses a clothing analogy. At the resurrection we will get a new set of clothes.

This means that the old set of clothes will be discarded.

The earliest reference to the resurrection, Paul’s writings, clearly indicate that the earliest Christians did not believe Jesus flesh and blood body rose from the grave.

stevencarrwork

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I can't take the word of Paul at face value, even if some of the apostles were willing to die for what they believed in.

Paul says in Galatians 6:12 that Christians were persecuted on the issue of *circumcision*, and that Christian leaders were happy to compromise their beliefs to avoid persecution.

Even Acts cannot rewrite history to suggest that resurrection was something Christians could be killed over.

'Take the letter by Claudius Lysias, To His Excellency, Governor Felix: Greetings. This man was seized by the Jews and they were about to kill him, but I came with my troops and rescued him, for I had learned that he is a Roman citizen. I wanted to know why they were accusing him, so I brought him to their Sanhedrin. I found that the accusation had to do with questions about their law, but there was no charge against him that deserved death or imprisonment.'

Even Acts cannot rewrite history enough to suggest that Jews got Christians into trouble with the Romans by saying Christians believed in resurrection.

The disputes were about the law (circumcision and food in particular) , and perhaps about the Temple.

stevencarrwork

PDN wrote: »

Yes, Wright is excellent! I don't agree with him on everything, but he is scholarly, very readable, and not afraid to call a spade a spade. I've recently finished reading Surprised by Hope and thoroughly enjoyed it.

How does Wright prove that Paul was right when Paul wrote 'The first man Adam became a created being, the last Adam became a life-giving spirit'?

How does Wright prove that Jesus, formerly God made flesh, with the spirit of God in the body of Jesus, became a spirit himself after the resurrection?

stevencarrwork

LZ5by5 wrote: »

It still requires a leap of faith. One of the important aspects of the minimal facts approach is that the apostles were convinced that they saw Jesus upon his resurrection.

Is that why Matthew 28:17 says 'When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted'

The anonymous author of Matthew said that they doubted, because it is a 'fact' that they were convinced ?!?

Clearly this is spin , designed to get around the fact that nobody had heard of most of the apostles. Acts keeps very quiet about their fate. Paul only knows 3, one of whom had never even been a disciple , according to other parts of the New Testament.

Telling people they were 'doubters' is a good way to explain why they jacked it all in.

Fanny Cradock

Stop spamming the forum. Use the multi-quote function, please.

stevencarrwork wrote: »

The earliest reference to the resurrection, Paul’s writings, clearly indicate that the earliest Christians did not believe Jesus flesh and blood body rose from the grave.

I suggest you read all of 1 Corinthians. In quite spectacular fashion, you seem to have completely missed his belief in the resurrection.

PDN

stevencarrwork wrote: »

How does Wright prove that Paul was right when Paul wrote 'The first man Adam became a created being, the last Adam became a life-giving spirit'?

How does Wright prove that Jesus, formerly God made flesh, with the spirit of God in the body of Jesus, became a spirit himself after the resurrection?

Wright does not try to 'prove' any such thing. However, in his The Climax of the Covenant Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (pg 35) he does discuss the text in question (1 Corinthians 15:45). Wright explains that just as the first Adam brought death into the world so Jesus Christ, as the last Adam, gives life to us as believers. This is the same idea as that of Christ being the firstfruits of those raised from the dead. Because of His bodily resurrection so we too look forward to the promise of resurrection from the dead.

The fact that Paul refers to Christ as a "life giving spirit" in no way implies that He is no longer the bodily Incarnate Son of God. There are contemporary historical parallels to this use of language. When Valerius Maximus referred to one of Caesar's centurions as "this noble spirit" he was not inferring that the captive of Scipio had therefore ceased to exist in bodily form.

Wright believes very clearly, as did Paul, that Christ remains in bodily form until the general resurrection from the dead in the last days.

PDN

stevencarrwork wrote: »

Is that why Matthew 28:17 says 'When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted'

The anonymous author of Matthew said that they doubted, because it is a 'fact' that they were convinced ?!?

Ripping a few verses out of context and ignoring others is hardly likely to win others over to your point of view.

Matthew states that some of the disciples initially doubted the Resurrection. This is hardly surprising since such a Resurrection ran counter to everyone's expectations of what the Messiah would do. However, Luke records in Acts 1:3 that "After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God."

I find it ironic that you accuse Habermas of failing to use all the facts - yet you yourself then try (and fail) to construct an argument that deliberately ignores part of the evidence. An examination of all the available sources indicates that some of the disciples initially doubted, but that doubt was removed by a series of convincing proofs.

stevencarrwork

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Stop spamming the forum. Use the multi-quote function, please.




I suggest you read all of 1 Corinthians. In quite spectacular fashion, you seem to have completely missed his belief in the resurrection.

I have read 1 Corinthians, and 2 Corinthians where Paul talks about the destruction of the body, not its salvation 'For we know that if our earthly dwelling, a tent, should be destroyed, we have a building from God, a dwelling not made with hands'.

What part of 'destroyed' means 'saved'?

Paul thinks we leave one dwelling and move to another.

stevencarrwork

PDN wrote: »

Ripping a few verses out of context and ignoring others is hardly likely to win others over to your point of view.

Matthew states that some of the disciples initially doubted the Resurrection.

Where does he state that some of the disciples 'initially' doubted the resurrection?

I guess Habermas crows about this 'minimal' fact, that even at the very end of Matthew's Gospel, the disciples doubted the resurrection.

stevencarrwork

PDN wrote: »

The fact that Paul refers to Christ as a "life giving spirit" in no way implies that He is no longer the bodily Incarnate Son of God. There are contemporary historical parallels to this use of language. When Valerius Maximus referred to one of Caesar's centurions as "this noble spirit" he was not inferring that the captive of Scipio had therefore ceased to exist in bodily form.

Wright believes very clearly, as did Paul, that Christ remains in bodily form until the general resurrection from the dead in the last days.

What part of 'became a spirit' are you struggling with?

As for your analogy, it is obvious that even today people talk about 20 souls perishing after a disaster, when they mean 20 dead bodies.

Just as we say all hands on deck, knowing full well that we expect more than just the hands to show up.

We often refer to a part of a person to represent the whole (2 heads are better than 1 etc)

But Paul is not referring to Jesus becoming a spriit in that way. He is not referring to a part of Jesus as representing the whole, just as he is not referring to Genesis 2 and Adam becoming a created being to mean a part of Adam represented the whole.

That would ruin Paul's typology.

The point is that Adam was created from dead matter, and so died.

Jesus had left Adam's body behind and became a spirit, which gave life, rather than a flesh and bone creature, which brought death with it.

Paul simply trashes the idea that resurrected beings are made out of the dust that corpses become.

'The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. nd just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall weURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%2015;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28752f"][COLOR=#0000ff]f[/COLOR][/URL bear the likeness of the man from heaven. I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God...'

Paul has just told the Corinthians the difference between earthly and heavenly things, as different as a fish is different to the Moon,

Only an idiot discusses how a fish can turn into the Moon, which is why Paul calls the Corinthian Christian converts idiots for discussing how corpses can turn into resurrected beings (and so scoffing at resurrection, as they had never heard of such a thing happening)

stevencarrwork

PDN wrote: »

Matthew states that some of the disciples initially doubted the Resurrection. This is hardly surprising since such a Resurrection ran counter to everyone's expectations of what the Messiah would do.

Why would they doubt, when they had allegedly seen Moses himself return from the dead?

And they themselves had been given the power to raise the dead,

If you saw Moses return from the dead, and talk to your mate, and then your mate showed up from the dead, why would you doubt the guy you had given up everything to follow, the guy who brought you Moses returned from the dead, and had given you the power personally to raise the dead?

Unless the whole story is childish nonsense...

Fanny Cradock

Stephen, please use the multi-quote option

PDN

stevencarrwork wrote: »

Why would they doubt, when they had allegedly seen Moses himself return from the dead?

Three of the disciples (Peter, James & John) saw a vision of Moses talking with Jesus. Later we are told that 'some of the disciples' (not necessarily the same three) doubted. You really seem to clutching at straws in order to create difficulties where none exist.

And they themselves had been given the power to raise the dead,

I think you're underestimating the psychological effect of watching someone being crucified. To believe that such a person could be raised to life again is a very different kettle of fish to raising someone who died in a less traumatic way.

Unless the whole story is childish nonsense...

Careful. You are welcome to debate Christian issues here, but I suggest you read the Charter.

Also, as Fanny has told you twice already, try learning how to use the multiquote function. If you post a whole string of posts then most of them will end up being ignored, which would be a shame.

stevencarrwork

PDN wrote: »

I think you're underestimating the psychological effect of watching someone being crucified. To believe that such a person could be raised to life again is a very different kettle of fish to raising someone who died in a less traumatic way.

Really?

I guess that is why the thief on the cross knew that this crucified Jesus would be having a kingdom very soon. The sheer trauma of it all had affected his mind with a psychological effect.

And why would they doubt proofs supplied by the Son of God himself, especially as Matthew goes on to say that many people were also rising from their tombs at the same time.

It is obvious spin to show why some of them packed it in , they were doubters, who could be written off the way Christians wrote off other non-believers 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "




And why did early Christian converts scoff at the whole idea of their god choosing to raise corpses? I guess that is a fact that Habermas leaves out of his 'minimal facts, not all the facts' approach.

After all, this is an undisputed fact, unlike the claim in the anonymous, unsourced work Acts that Jesus gave convincing proofs which contradicts the anonymous author of Matthew that some of the disciples still doubted.

PDN wrote: »

Three of the disciples (Peter, James & John) saw a vision of Moses talking with Jesus. Later we are told that 'some of the disciples' (not necessarily the same three) doubted. You really seem to clutching at straws in order to create difficulties where none exist.

And those 3 didn't tell any of the other disciples that they had seen a 'vision' of Moses? You are a first-century Jew who sees Moses of all people, and you don't tell your closest friends? When you see Moses? Can you imagine any Jew whose heart would not be bursting after seeing Moses return from the dead?

I guess when Moses 'appeared' (ophthe) to them, it was just a vision. PDN says so. He took the word for 'appeared' (ophthe) from Matthew 17:3 and knew it meant they saw a 'vision' of Moses.

I guess just like when Jesus 'appeared' (ophthe) to the Twelve in 1 Corinthians 15, it was just a vision. It is the same word.

Just like in Acts 16, when a vision 'appeared' (ophthe) to Paul.

Or Revelation 11:19, when the Ark of the Covenant 'appeared' (ophthe). That was a vision as well.