Muad'Dib

I'll poke around and see if the Association for Secular Students is planning to attend.

Layman

Gotta love all those ASS members.

Vinnie

That has not been demonstrated.

I wouldn't have said anything if you said "ignorant apologist doing psuedo-history" but Licona probably believes what he argues to be true on that site as do most conservative Jesus defenders IMO.

Vinnie

Toto

Vinnie - Mr. Licona is being sponsored by Campus Crusade for Christ. Their Veritas Forum is an attempt to demonstrate to the campus community that Christians can hold their own in intellectual debates, that even if you don't agree with them, their arguments are at least intellectually respectable. (Creationists would love to get this position in the scientific community instead of being dismissed as pseudoscientific frauds.)

How can such a person make such basic errors as citing Lüdemann for the proposition that the disciples had physical experience of the risen Christ, the opposite of Lüdemann's thesis? If he's not a liar for Christ, is he willfully ignorant for Christ? Has he never heard of William Lane Craig's debate with Lüdemann on the empty tomb, a closely related issue?

Licona can believe whatever he wants, but isn't it dishonest to misrepresent what others think, as if there were some sort of consensus on a historical fact that even atheists agree on?

MiddleMan

Barry Gibb? Is that YOU?

Toto

Check out the debates on the following Wednesday:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=80075

Toto

I just noticed this on Licona:

Mike has dared to challenge Acharya S here, and she eviscerates him here (for entertainment value only.)

Layman

I do not see him claiming that Ludemann affirms the physical resurrection of Christ. He uses Ludeman to affirm the fact of the resurrection experiences, and then proceeds to rebut alterantive explanations, such as the mass hallucination theory. Obviously, the apologist knows that the resurrection experiences standing alone are insufficient to prove physical resurrection. That is why he goes through various explanations, such as the mass halucination explanation and the visions theories.

Using a scholar to support a point in dispute does not mean you accept every else that the scholar affirms. That the disciples experienced resurrection appearances is one point. The explanation for those experiences is another one. Ludeman agrees with him on the first point and disagrees with him on the explanation.

Layman

After wading through Acharya S' discussions about aliens and murderous hamburgers, the AIDS conspiracy, and "Sex to Superconsciousness," I no longer frequent her website. But I thought it only fair to to mention that Mike did respond to Ach Ach's "evisceration."

http://www.risenjesus.com/articles/i...pagea=rebuttal

Toto

It is hard to follow his argument since you have to keep clicking on buttons and watching the words wash across the screen. I guess there is a chance that his oral presentation will be more coherent.

But his "rebuttal" is so lacking. He finds an argument for every point, even though they are not very good. It's hard to believe that anyone really thinks that this anything but self delusion. Whatever it is, it is not history.

After all, what is more likely - that someone violated the laws of physics and rose from the dead, or that someone else made up a story about someone rising from the dead and appearing to a bunch of his friends?