workerforthechuch

By scholars is meant (this was already discussed in this thread) all scholars in the past 40 or 50 years who discuss this subject. 100% of Christian scholars believe Paul really wrote and believed these 3 chapters. You can take those scholars you mentioned who do not think 1 Cor. 15 was written by Paul, but then count all the scholars in the past 40 years, and their assessment is 95%+ agree it is Pauls writing and beliefs, so I go with the probabilities. Furthermore you can say anyone wrote these, but you would need at least some reason, which you dont present any.

Why do you deny Paul saying he met with John, Peter and James (brother of Jesus) when the verses are obviously saying this?

Allah of Islam was created by Mohammed. No comment is made on what a ficticious figure created says, but rather, what we are saying is that they went to their deaths truly believing in what they believed in. Thats all. As an aside Mohammed said Jesus did not die, but he had nothing to base his conclusion on 600 years later.

Again, you can say all Christian writings were made up, but 95+% of scholars agree that at least these 3 chapters were not forged. In terms of historicity and historians standards historians use, in antiquity these 3 chapters are extremely trustworthy.

That God would have this power is the conclusion to no naturalistic theory that scholars can find reasonable. It is the conclusion, not the actual 4 steps of the miminal facts.

workerforthechuch

Things are never so flashy and brilliant. You may want a new spin on it to entice you, but these same 4 minimal facts remain as clear as they have always been.

workerforthechuch

The evidence for the universe always having a cause is that in all avenues of science we can derive causes, but never does anything indicate no cause. I open a door, because of the motor functions of my arm. I opened it because my brain wants to go through the doorway. I wanted to go through the door because I was employing my will to do so. My will did not happen all by itself, but was given to me to employ, and so on and so. There you see there is always a cause in nature.

If the universe existed before and caused this universe we are in now, then it stands to reason as we always see a cause there must be a cause to the previous universe, on and on and on. But this is not possible because you would not still be sinning by now having been derived from that past. There is an exponential progression in our conscience observed that disallows this otherwise, you would not still be sinning by now.

I admit I accidently mispelled church. Please forgive me. I hope you dont remain unsaved because of your petty self because I mispelled church

workerforthechuch

Habermas is not saying Jesus rose from the dead because the Bible says so, but because most scholars agree that James, Peter, John and Paul believed they saw Jesus raised and nobody can find an naturalistic explanation for this that scholars can consider as reasonable.

Gooch's dad

Your claim about "all avenues of science" simply shows that you lack a great deal of knowledge about science. The inflationary hypothesis posits that an uncaused quantum fluctuation may have led to our observable universe.

And you still haven't made the slightest bit of sense in connecting "universes" with "you would not still sinning by now". I strongly suspect that you have read some complex philosophical argument and are attempting to paraphrase it.

workerforthechuch

No scientists think something happens all by itself. They know there is a root cause because an effect. The infation of the universe is a cause, but what caused the inflation? Since all things in the inflation have causes it is reasonable to ask what caused the inflation to start.

Is it not true that things we did thousands of years ago man would never do now because our consciences have improved? This is an exponential progression in conscience which is pointing towards one day no sin. Based on this progression there could not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects. If there was you would not still be sinning by now. It is a simple fact and does not require grand philosophical arguments.

Gooch's dad

Nobody can find a naturalistic explanation? There are nearly an infinite number of such explanations.

Do you believe that the early beliefs of Mormons, regarding the revelations of Joseph Smith, require any explanations other than the gullibility of mankind? I rather doubt you do.

A naturalistic explanation: We don't really know what James, Peter, and John believed, because we don't have any accurate historical record of their lives. We certainly don't have any extant writings of theirs. What we do have is records of what Paul believed, and he records an experience that sounds suspiciously like a hallucination, something that psychologists observe in patients regularly. They don't require supernatural explanations for what they observe.

aa5874

If Paul or anyone else, did not see Jesus die or even on the cross, then they obviously cannot be certain of a resurrection. Jesus may have escaped from custody, released, or recovered and got medical attention, similar to one the three crucified acquaintances of Josephus in the 'Life of Favius Josephus' at the end of section 75.

If you read the events surrounding the crucifixion of the three acquaitances of Josephus, it will obliterate the minimal facts approach. The minimal requirement to claim there was a resurrection is to actually see a certified dead body come to life after a few days, not to hear that a resurrection occured.

Even Peter in the book of Acts was thought to have been resurrected, after he miraculously escaped from prison, to be executed, through the help of an angel.

Acts 12.15, And they said unto her, 'Thou art mad. But she constantly affirmed that it was even so. Then they said, It is his angel.



See the end of section 75, for the minimal facts to claim a resurrection occured.
http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...s/autobiog.htm

Gooch's dad

Which of us has multiple degrees in physics and quantum mechanics? That would be me. You're simply wrong in your claim about what "no scientists think".

I'm sorry, this is still incoherent garbage. Make a coherent argument, or give up.

workerforthechuch

Christians believe Mormons are unsaved because Mormons are like some atheists who believe there is an eternity of the past, and in the case of Mormons of gods creating gods. Christians believe in the proven uncreated.

For our purposes here notice you cant justify one natural cause for the apostles seeing Jesus resurrected.

Using just the minimal facts approach, we dont need to know everything about their lives. All we need know is that Paul said he met with them and they agreed on the purpose of why they saw Jesus resurrected.

There are writers who wrote about Peter and John and James from both the first and second centuries.

Hallucination, if you watched the video, is not valid because of what psychology teaches us, that there are no such things as group hallucinations, that is every body seeing something that is not there. People can see in groups things that are there but not what the object actually is, but then it is not a hallucination, but an illusion. Hallucinations can happen individually but not in the many group settings mentioned in the Word, for remember, Paul, James and Peter were together when they saw Jesus, touched him, ate with Him, talked to him and walked with him before and after His death.