General Christian apologetics

[AgnosTheist]

AgnosTheist: What exactly is your religious affiliation?

none. i believe in the divine, not in any religion.

 

[GuanYuWarGod]

none. i believe in the divine, not in any religion.

Did you not say you believe in God?

 

[AgnosTheist]

The Resurrection had observable, definable consequences in the history of those who witnessed it.

even the alleged witnesses are shrouded in mystery and obscureness.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Did you not say you believe in God?

yes i did.

belief in god is one thing, belief in religion is another. for me thats a world of difference.

 

[punkforchrist]

AgnosTheist:

I personally believe in God, so I personally believe that miracles could happen. However I dont think there are any evidences that miracles did happen before.

Cool. So I take it you disagree with Hume?

only if those things are confirmed as true. i think its unlikely since those claims are thousands of years old.

What about other claims that are just as old?

The three facts I mentioned are part of what Gary Habermas refers to as a minimalist approach. He only assumes as facts those things that are both highly evidenced and accepted by the vast majority of New Testament scholars, including non-Christians.

What do you believe about the trustworthiness of historical documents in general? Should they be given the benefit of the doubt, only to be undermined when there are serious external discrepancies or internal inconsistencies? Here’s an example: If we have rational grounds for believing that Socrates existed, why do we not have rational grounds for accepting the core of the historicity claims in the New Testament surrounding the empty tomb, post mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief?

In any case, thanks for the conversation. You seem like you’ve got a good head on your shoulders.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Cool. So I take it you disagree with Hume?

I’m not familiar with Hume.

What do you believe about the trustworthiness of historical documents in general?

that no historical document can be fully trusted. the more bizarre a historical account, the less seriously it should be taken.

If we have rational grounds for believing that Socrates existed, why do we not have rational grounds for accepting the core of the historicity claims in the New Testament surrounding the empty tomb, post mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief?

because the claim that Socrates’ existed isnt extraordinary.

like i dont find any difficulty believing the claim that Jesus existed. there is nothing extraordinary with that.

but the claim that he’s been clinically dead for 3 days and then was incredibly revived back to life. thats a fantastic claim. it requires an equally fantastic evidence. plain witnesses might not even suffice. as sometimes theres a person who wakes in the morgue.

google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-02,GGLG:en&q=%22woke+up%22+morgue

In any case, thanks for the conversation. You seem like you’ve got a good head on your shoulders.

thanks. i have the same opinion about you.

 

[punkforchrist]

AgnosTheist:

because the claim that Socrates’ existed isnt extraordinary.

I sympathize with what you’re saying, but there’s really nothing extraordinary about any of the three facts listed above. The only supernatural factor is the explanation of all three facts taken together. What I mean is, I agree with you that a naturalistic explanation is preferrable, but if no naturalistic account can be found, only then is a supernatural explanation warrented.

like i dont find any difficulty believing the claim that Jesus existed. there is nothing extraordinary with that.

I agree, but what is extraordinary about any of the three facts surrounding Jesus’ Resurrection? Take even the post mortem appearances, for example. Some, like Gerd Ludemann, have tried to provide a naturalistic explanation to these appearances, saying that they were merely hallucinations. This is a naturalistic account, but is it the best one? I’d like to explore this a bit more if you’re willing.

but the claim that he’s been clinically dead for 3 days and then was incredibly revived back to life. thats a fantastic claim. it requires an equally fantastic evidence. plain witnesses might not even suffice. as sometimes theres a person who wakes in the morgue.

I’m glad you mentioned this, since it helps to make matters clearer. If, in fact, Jesus had been merely resuscitated, then that would be a sufficient naturalistic account. The problem I see with this explanation is that Jesus’ disciples never would have experienced Jesus as He was in His glorified resurrected body. The origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection suggests that they were in a position to have known whether or not Jesus had actually been raised from the dead. If Jesus had only been resuscitated, and he somehow managed to roll away the bolder of the tomb, escape the guards, and make it all the way to where the disciples had been staying, the disciples wouldn’t have seen their glorified Messiah, but a bloody and disheveled man.

So I think the post mortem appearances and the origin of the disciples’ belief effectively rules out the possibility of a resuscitation.

If you’re interested, William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann had an excellent debate over the Resurrection. I like them both, as they are both scholarly and gentlemanly. Here’s the link:

reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=audio_visuals

Blessings

 

[AgnosTheist]

I sympathize with what you’re saying, but there’s really nothing extraordinary about any of the three facts listed above.

its only a fact if people can agree with it without bias. so far only christians and polytheists find that agreeable.

I’d like to explore this a bit more if you’re willing.

go ahead. please start by what you think are the post mortem characteristics of the resurrected Jesus.

The problem I see with this explanation is that Jesus’ disciples never would have experienced Jesus as He was in His glorified resurrected body.

there is no way to know with enough certainty what really happened to the diciples. much of the new testament are hear-says. we cant really be sure who wrote the gospels. and we cant really be sure how much of the gospels have evolved since the original writings. the resurrection accounts are even contradictory between the 4 gospels. with all these factors in mind its not logical to fully rely on the stories…

The origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection suggests that they were in a position to have known whether or not Jesus had actually been raised from the dead.

people often see what they wanted to see. like the cultists who came to honestly believe that miraculous things happen to their leader. Had jesus naturally survived the crucifixion, i dont see how that could not be seen as miraculous by those who worshipped him. and word of this would pass around evolving with each telling. with the diciples hardly giving a damn how fantastic the tale turns out to be. like what paul said, who cares how jesus is preached so long as jesus is preached.

no, if Jesus is God there should be a lot more to his message than an obscurely written (& obscurely authored) gospels that is devoid of anything that is verifiably extraordinary.

 

[cpayne]

The best book I’ve found on this subject is also one of the most recent: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, by R. Bauckman. Highly recommended!

 

[davidv]

no, if Jesus is God there should be a lot more to his message than an obscurely written (& obscurely authored) gospels that is devoid of anything that is verifiably extraordinary.

In actuality there is much more. Jesus established a Church, with visible leadership and a means to transmit the teachings down through the ages.

 

[AgnosTheist]

In actuality there is much more. Jesus established a Church, with visible leadership and a means to transmit the teachings down through the ages.

and whats so special with this church? how is it extraordinary compared to the islamic ummah, the hindus, the mormons and the scientologists?

the church had been just as good and bad as the best and worst of those religions. its nothing more than a reflection of human character and attributes. nothing divine. nothing extraordinary.

 

[davidv]

and whats so special with this church? how is it extraordinary compared to the islamic ummah, the hindus, the mormons and the scientologists?

What’s special? It is the Church God, in the person of Jesus, founded. None these others can make this claim.

the church had been just as good and bad as the best and worst of those religions. its nothing more than a reflection of human character and attributes. nothing divine. nothing extraordinary.

Errant individuals do not define the Church. This is simply a baseless assertion and a diversion.

 

[AgnosTheist]

What’s special? It is the Church God, in the person of Jesus, founded. None these others can make this claim.

in other words “its all in the head”. to each his own, huh?

Errant individuals do not define the Church. This is simply a baseless assertion and a diversion.

i’m just pointing out that your church is just as human as any other religion.

 

[davidv]

in other words “its all in the head”. to each his own, huh?

These are your words, not mine and are in complete opposition to what I wrote.

i’m just pointing out that your church is just as human as any other religion.

You are not pointing out anything. You have simply made a claim. A claim for which you have provided no believable basis.

 

[AgnosTheist]

These are your words, not mine and are in complete opposition to what I wrote.

if only you could somehow reason out how your point is more than just a biased opinion.

You are not pointing out anything. You have simply made a claim. A claim for which you have provided no believable basis.

the basis is that just like any other religion out there, there is nothing extraordinary with the church.

so what if a religion was founded by jesus, mohammad, buddha, joseph smith or L.ron hubbard? so what if a religion has a visible leadership and a means to transmit the teachings down through the ages. big deal.

 

[davidv]

if only you could somehow reason out how your point is more than just a biased opinion.

It is clearly reasoned out in my posts #30 and #32. I cannot make it any simpler than that.

the basis is that just like any other religion out there, there is nothing extraordinary with the church.

so what if a religion was founded by jesus, mohammad, buddha, joseph smith or L.ron hubbard? so what if a religion has a visible leadership and a means to transmit the teachings down through the ages. big deal.

What didn’t you understand in post 32?

 

[AgnosTheist]

It is clearly reasoned out in my posts #30 and #32. I cannot make it any simpler than that.

What didn’t you understand in post 32?

Your reasonings missed out on the main point of this discussion: What objective evidences are there that your church is from the real God?

 

[Uranage]

While it is very simple to defend Catholicism, since scripture is so explicitly Catholic, I find that I have difficulty arguing the very basic questions. For example, it’s hard to argue against “there is no proof for Jesus’ miracles,” or “there is no reason to believe God exists,” or “an all-loving God would not send people to an eternal Hell.”

In the past, I’ve used C.S. Lewis’ and Peter Kreeft’s points, but I don’t find them very convincing, nor do the people I debate with. I’ve checked out William Lane Craig, G.K. Chesterton and more “classic” apologists (such as Augustine and Aquinas). Are there any people here who have fierce debates with atheists or non-Christians who focus on a particular apologist or book when defending the faith?

There is actually a lot out there. Here is one good site: garyhabermas.com/ It is the website of Christian philosopher Gary Habermas. He is certainly one of the leading authorities in the world on the physical resurrection of Jesus. His debate with Antony Flew is available to watch for free on his site.

This one may be of help as well. leestrobel.com/

Strobel has many clips of tv debates between Christians and skeptics available for free.

 

[cpayne]

and whats so special with this church? how is it extraordinary compared to the islamic ummah, the hindus, the mormons and the scientologists?

Umm—its Founder rose from the dead?

I would start a thread on that, since that point has come up several times on this thread, but really, it’s been discussed so very well in so many threads. If you are truly interested (and not just throwing out random grenades) you can search the site for related threads. If you post on one, that will bring it back up onto current Apologetics threads.

 

[tdgesq]

Your reasonings missed out on the main point of this discussion: What objective evidences are there that your church is from the real God?

It all depends upon what you accept as standards for evidence. I know that people casually throw that out sometimes, but it makes all the difference in your case.

You accept that God exists. What evidentiary standard did you use to come to that conclusion? I’m not issuing a challenge. It’s just that if we can determine what it is perhaps we can work within that system to give you a satisfactory answer.