General Christian apologetics

[punkforchrist]

Hi AgnosTheist,

AgnosTheist:

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

These facts are accepted as authentic by the vast majority of New Testament scholars, including non-Christians. John Dominic Crossan, Gerd Ludemann, E.P. Sanders, and even Bart Ehrman concede at least two of the three facts as being authentic.

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

The Apostle Paul describes the Resurrection characteristics in 1 Corinthians 15, Romans 8, and Phillippians 3 as being physical in nature. The Jewish notion of resurrection referred specifically to a “what dies is what rises” kind of view, as opposed to a mere spiritual resurrection (which would have been considered an oxymoron by the Jews and the writers of the New Testament).

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…

You’ve mentioned a number of issues here. Briefly, you’re saying:

1. Authorship of the Gospels is questionable.
2. The Gospel narratives may have evolved.
3. The Resurrection accounts found in the Gospels are contradictory.

All three objections have one thing in common: they are criticisms of the Gospels. However, even granting these points, the authorship of the Pauline epistles are held by even the most skeptical scholars, like G.A. Wells, as being authentically Pauline. The kerygma (or “tradition/creed”) found in 1 Corinthians 15 is said to have originated within the first five years of the death of Jesus. This is a claim that began not with conservative scholarship, but with New Testament critics, including the scholars of the Jesus Seminar. The creed in 1 Cor. 15 entails the empty tomb, the post mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief. When we judge the historicity of texts of antiquity, we search for external discrepancies, internal inconsistencies, time between the events and the recording of the events, and independent witness. The kerygma passes all of the these tests, having been confirmed in other Pauline texts, as well as non-canonical works, like in 1 Clement, and some of these facts in non-Christian works, like Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.

As far as the Gospels themselves, the authorship is confirmed by Irenaeus, is quoted heavily by Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp, and lack any external discrepancies that would question their authenticity.

The purposed evolution of the Gospel narratives is unlikely, as well, I think. I’ll just mention two reasons. 1) They are plain and lack any embellishments that one would expect to find had these narratives been subject to evolution. 2) The Gospels themselves report that women were the first eyewitnesses of the Resurrection event. Given that women were not considered trustworthy witnesses in Palestine, it is highly unlikely that the Gospel writers would have decided to include this part of the narrative had it not been true. In other words, it’s a sign of authenticity.

Now, the alleged contradictions between the Gospel accounts I believe are not actually contradictions, but merely differences. This is also a sign of authenticity, since it confirms that these were independent attestations of the Resurrection event. However, even granting that these differences are real contradictions, they do not have any effect on the three minimal facts listed above. All four Gospels without question affirm the empty tomb, post mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief.

 

[punkforchrist]

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.

I think the difference is that cult leaders do not express these signs after the fact. I’ll need to expound on what exactly I mean. The disciples were in a position to have known whether Jesus had been raised from the dead or not. When cult followers participate in mass suicides, for example, their belief is before the fact, not after. In other words, they have no way of actually knowing if their leader is telling the truth or not. Contrast this with Jesus and the disciples, who came to believe after they had experiences of the risen Jesus. Some consider these experiences hallucinations, but the difficulty with this is that no mass hallucinations have been recorded that agree with one another. The hallucinations that Navy Seals experience, for instance, are filled with wild differences and are irreconcilable. However, what the disciples experienced was one thing: the bodily resurrected Jesus; and they confirmed their belief by dying for it.

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.

I don’t think there’s much obscurity in the New Testament narratives, especially in the Pauline texts, which date within fifteen to twenty years of the life of Jesus. This kind of authenticity is unheard of with respect to other texts. The earliest manuscripts we have of Plato are dated a whole millenium after he wrote. On the other hand, the manuscripts we have of the New Testament are much older and of much greater quantity. Essentially, if one consistently applies historical standards to one text, then these ought to be applied equally to the New Testament documents. To force a double-standard is seemingly arbitrary and based solely of the presupposition that miracles do not occur, or that texts that mention them are not trustworthy.

In sum, I believe a very compelling case can be made for the historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection from the dead and for the reliability of the New Testament documents in general.

 

[richardwy]

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?

If a man asks for the reason of the hope within me, I’ve ready replies.

For the obdurate and belligerant, I pray.

 

[AgnosTheist]

You accept that God exists. What evidentiary standard did you use to come to that conclusion?

My personal belief in the Divine stands on two foundations:

1. Minor evidences: the sophisticated universe and the mysteries of life.
2. Hope for a better future.

Perhaps its a bit silly. Thats why I keep it personal. I will never argue it as a fact.

It all depends upon what you accept as standards for evidence.

the evidence has to be objective: dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

 

[AgnosTheist]

These facts are accepted as authentic by the vast majority of New Testament scholars, including non-Christians. John Dominic Crossan, Gerd Ludemann, E.P. Sanders, and even Bart Ehrman concede at least two of the three facts as being authentic.

and thats the point. you have to be a christian to agree with the NT. being a scholar had nothing to do with it.

The Apostle Paul describes the Resurrection characteristics in 1 Corinthians 15, Romans 8, and Phillippians 3 as being physical in nature. The Jewish notion of resurrection referred specifically to a “what dies is what rises” kind of view, as opposed to a mere spiritual resurrection (which would have been considered an oxymoron by the Jews and the writers of the New Testament).

can you reference somebody who allegedly actually met the resurrected jesus in the flesh?

The kerygma (or “tradition/creed”) found in 1 Corinthians 15 is said to have originated within the first five years of the death of Jesus. This is a claim that began not with conservative scholarship, but with New Testament critics, including the scholars of the Jesus Seminar. The creed in 1 Cor. 15 entails the empty tomb, the post mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief. When we judge the historicity of texts of antiquity, we search for external discrepancies, internal inconsistencies, time between the events and the recording of the events, and independent witness. The kerygma passes all of the these tests, having been confirmed in other Pauline texts, as well as non-canonical works, like in 1 Clement, and some of these facts in non-Christian works, like Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.

Tacitus is the most credible historian outside early christianity. But he only confirmed that there was a man named Jesus who got crucified. Nothing more.

About the Pauline Epistles, there is no doubt that it was authored by Paul. And that he believed those creeds. But he did not actually witness Jesus. Neither did he do anything to verify how those alleged 500 people came to witness a resurrected Jesus. Anything is possible. Mass hysteria. Mass halucinations. Entire crowds claiming that the sun danced. Entire crowds claiming UFO landings. Entire groups claiming to have seen elvis alive. Honest & reputable people claiming to have witnessed Joseph Smith’s Golden Plates. No, plain witnesses are not enough evidences for a fantastic claim.

As far as the Gospels themselves, the authorship is confirmed by Irenaeus, is quoted heavily by Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp, and lack any external discrepancies that would question their authenticity.

too much time had already passed by the time Irenaeus came upon the gospels. and with Christianity’s chaotic beginnings, anything could have happened.

The purposed evolution of the Gospel narratives is unlikely, as well, I think. I’ll just mention two reasons. 1) They are plain and lack any embellishments that one would expect to find had these narratives been subject to evolution. 2) The Gospels themselves report that women were the first eyewitnesses of the Resurrection event. Given that women were not considered trustworthy witnesses in Palestine, it is highly unlikely that the Gospel writers would have decided to include this part of the narrative had it not been true. In other words, it’s a sign of authenticity.

its probably not purposed. but things just change when it passes from one ear to another.

Now, the alleged contradictions between the Gospel accounts

thats a fact, not an allegation. for example one account tells that Jesus’ robe was red, another said it was purple.

All four Gospels without question affirm the empty tomb, post mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief.

that doesnt prove anything. since its entirely possible that these gospels came from a common literary source. some scholars even hypothesize that the gosepl of mark was one of two references used in writing matthew & luke.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

thats a fact, not an allegation. for example one account tells that Jesus’ robe was red, another said it was purple.

Color is subjective. An object can be both purple and red, and in fact all objects that reflect in the visible spectrum are. No contradiction.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Color is subjective. An object can be both purple and red, and in fact all objects that reflect in the visible spectrum are. No contradiction.

color is never subjective. objects display different colors according to the material’s ability to aborb & reflect electromagnetic spectrum. red vs purple is a clear contradiction. and every human with a healthy eye sight would be able to tell the difference. nothing subjective there.

 

[davidv]

color is never subjective. objects display different colors according to the material’s ability to aborb & reflect electromagnetic spectrum. red vs purple is a clear contradiction. and every human with a healthy eye sight would be able to tell the difference. nothing subjective there.

Since when does the human eye measure the wavelength of the light that enters it and translates it to an exact color name? Our naming of a color is preconditioned on what colors, and their shades, when we learned the names of colors. Any documentation of an objects color is dependant on the subjective analysis of comparing the object to our memory of what color goes with what name. Not only that, but because of the differences in lighting and viewing, any two observers could be observing different colors from the same object. Naming of colors of objects is always subjective.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Naming of colors of objects is always subjective.

not unless you can prove that in incient jewish culture the name ‘red’ is completely equivalent to the name ‘purple’.

 

[cpayne]

not unless you can prove that in incient jewish culture the name ‘red’ is completely equivalent to the name ‘purple’.

Wasn’t the color scarlet or crimson (from towla, the crimson-grub)? Scarlet can be described as red by some, purple by others.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread has veered into subjects best discussed in Apologetics. Please return to the original topic or I will have to close the thread. Thank you.

 

[cpayne]

Going back to the OP: As this discussion of red vs. purple has shown, an apologist might be confronted with almost anything. In my experience, most written apologetics, even those as good as C.S. Lewis’s, do not often translate into our actual encounters with people. I would rely on some general knowledge of general answers to likely questions, such as Kreeft and Tacelli’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics. And my best advice: When people ask questions, ask THEM questions to see where they are coming from before leaping into an answer. Winning arguments is important, but not as important as loving the people with whom one is arguing.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

And my best advice: When people ask questions, ask THEM questions to see where they are coming from before leaping into an answer. Winning arguments is important, but not as important as loving the people with whom one is arguing.

Wise words.

I too quickly jump into “giving answers”, or at least what I think are good answers, instead of simply asking questions. I lack love.

 

[cpayne]

I too quickly jump into “giving answers”, or at least what I think are good answers, instead of simply asking questions. I lack love.

Same here. I was speaking from experience. When I “win” an argument, but my relationship with the other person is never the same, that’s not winning.

 

[punkforchrist]

This thread has veered into subjects best discussed in Apologetics. Please return to the original topic or I will have to close the thread. Thank you.

This was largely my mistake - my apologies. I wasn’t quite sure where to draw the line between philosophy and apologetics.

 

[tdgesq]

My personal belief in the Divine stands on two foundations:

1. Minor evidences: the sophisticated universe and the mysteries of life.
2. Hope for a better future.

Perhaps its a bit silly. Thats why I keep it personal. I will never argue it as a fact.

I’m surprised that you give so little credit to your foundations here. I don’t think these reasons are silly at all. Yes, the sophistication of the universe and all of its attendant laws that somehow keep it all working so we can exist. The mysteries of life: freedom of the will, the uniformity of nature, disinterested altruism, the laws of logic. And of course hope for the future and why we should have any such hope.

Why wouldn’t you argue the existence of God as a fact if the reasons for it are better than those against it? There is more than one kind of fact and more than one way to verify a fact. If all we could claim as facts are those things that are verifiable by the scientific method, there would be precious few facts that we could know about. That being said, is there anything that can be inferred about the nature of God from these mysteries of life that you attribute to God? I’m thinking mostly about those things that make us unique as human beings and the inferences we can draw from them about the nature of God.

the evidence has to be objective: dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

I’m all for objective evidence. It is what constitutes evidence that I’m interested in. I agree it needs to be objective. If scientifically verifiable facts are all that makes the grade for evidence, then you have to ask yourself why we accept as evidence written historical accounts that do not employ that method. You also have to ask what evidence establishes the scientific method in the first place, since it is not self-verifying, especially when it comes to predicting how things will be in the future.