Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gracedwithlife · 10-28-2010, 05:29 PM

Minimal Facts Approach, Proving the Resurrection of Jesus and that He is God

1. Without assuming Biblical inerrancy, what can we glean from the Scriptures? Over 95% of skeptical scholars who do their thesis work, are accredited and have peer review journal work done on the resurrection in the past half century (see we Gary R. Habermas) agree Paul really wrote and really believed what he wrote in 1 Cor. 15 and Gal. 1 & 2.

2. In these three chapters, Paul said he spent fifteen days with Peter and also time with James, the brother of Jesus, which would be within five years from the cross. Paul was converted two years after the cross then went away to study the word of God for three years, after which time, he returned to Jerusalem whereupon he got to know Peter and James. Later on he met up with John. And he continued to see them again over the years. They all testified to having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings.

3. People do not willingly allow themselves to die for something they know is a lie. So the Apostles really believed they saw, talked with, touched, walked with and even ate with Jesus in various group settings after He died on the cross which convinced them He is God and so became bold proclaimers when before they were doubters.

4. Therefore, it must be true they saw Jesus alive from the dead, since all naturalistc explanations have been exhausted these past two thousand years. Amen.

braces_for_impact · 10-28-2010, 05:50 PM

Well, you got the minimal facts part right at least.

gracedwithlife · 10-28-2010, 06:02 PM

Thanks. Praise the Lord.

Toto · 10-28-2010, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gracedwithlife

Minimal Facts Approach, Proving the Resurrection of Jesus and that He is God

1. Without assuming Biblical inerrancy, what can we glean from the Scriptures? Over 95% of skeptical scholars who do their thesis work, are accredited and have peer review journal work done on the resurrection in the past half century (see we Gary R. Habermas) agree Paul really wrote and really believed what he wrote in 1 Cor. 15 and Gal. 1 & 2.

I think you have some garbled statistics here. Habermas did a survey of scholars who had written on the empty tomb, but it was not confined to skeptical scholars. I have never seen a survey of scholars' opinions on the authenticity of Paul's epistles, but I can think of four who do not think that 1 Cor 15 is authentic.

Quote:

2. In these three chapters, Paul said he spent fifteen days with Peter and also time with James, the brother of Jesus, which would be within five years from the cross. Paul was converted two years after the cross then went away to study the word of God for three years, after which time, he returned to Jerusalem whereupon he got to know Peter and James. Later on he met up with John. And he continued to see them again over the years. They all testified to having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings.

The last sentence is somehow missing from my copy of the Bible, in any version. Paul did not report any such conversations with the pillars. You have imported part of the post resurrection appearances from the Book of Acts into Paul's letters. You will not find any sort of consensus that the Book of Acts is a valid historical record of this period.

Quote:

3. People do not willingly allow themselves to die for something they know is a lie.

So the Al Qaida airplane hijackers knew that they died for the truth??

Quote:

So the Apostles really believed they saw, talked with, touched, walked with and even ate with Jesus in various group settings after He died on the cross which convinced them He is God and so became bold proclaimers when before they were doubters.

Does not follow.

Quote:

4. Therefore, it must be true they saw Jesus alive from the dead, since all naturalistc explanations have been exhausted these past two thousand years. Amen.

I've heard many versions of this so called proof, most of which were more coherent than yours. It is an exercise in self delusion, in which a Christian whose belief is based on his inner experience, tries to find a rationale for his beliefs that does not sound either retarded or deluded.

Face it, that's not why you believe. Your poor excuse for history and logic will not convince anyone.

Transient · 10-28-2010, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by gracedwithlife

Minimal Facts Approach, Proving the Resurrection of Jesus and that He is God

1. Without assuming Biblical inerrancy, what can we glean from the Scriptures? Over 95% of skeptical scholars who do their thesis work, are accredited and have peer review journal work done on the resurrection in the past half century (see we Gary R. Habermas) agree Paul really wrote and really believed what he wrote in 1 Cor. 15 and Gal. 1 & 2.

I think you have some garbled statistics here. Habermas did a survey of scholars who had written on the empty tomb, but it was not confined to skeptical scholars. I have never seen a survey of scholars' opinions on the authenticity of Paul's epistles, but I can think of four who do not think that 1 Cor 15 is authentic.

The last sentence is somehow missing from my copy of the Bible, in any version. Paul did not report any such conversations with the pillars. You have imported part of the post resurrection appearances from the Book of Acts into Paul's letters. You will not find any sort of consensus that the Book of Acts is a valid historical record of this period.

So the Al Qaida airplane hijackers knew that they died for the truth??

Does not follow.

Quote:

4. Therefore, it must be true they saw Jesus alive from the dead, since all naturalistc explanations have been exhausted these past two thousand years. Amen.

I've heard many versions of this so called proof, most of which were more coherent than yours. It is an exercise in self delusion, in which a Christian whose belief is based on his inner experience, tries to find a rationale for his beliefs that does not sound either retarded or deluded.

Face it, that's not why you believe. Your poor excuse for history and logic will not convince anyone.

Actually that is very interesting Toto
ie "Face it, that's not why you believe"
That is probably the crux of the whole christian evangelical thingy. Christians believe for reasons other than those that they seek to use to prove to people that god actually exists, usually because they just "know" that god is real or they have felt stuff in their "spirit" or "things have happened to them" or they have had a "deep spiritual experience".
But then none of that is relevant to their friend, a heathen, so they quote all sorts of stuff from the book they believe is from god and argue with all sorts of logical (illogical?) arguments seeking to convert said friend.

It is quite an anomaly really and no wonder it doesn't really work.

gracedwithlife · 10-28-2010, 08:16 PM

I am going to deface you by saying you misread what was said. To know they truly believed it doesn't mean it is true only that they believed it. Now you need a naturalistic explantion that fits the data. Since you can't find any, you prove Jesus is God.

Hallelujah!

gracedwithlife · 10-28-2010, 08:17 PM

Here's a list of group settings in the Bible well testified.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/12groups.htm

Ouch!

gracedwithlife · 10-28-2010, 08:17 PM

Habermas is not Jesus. He is just a man. Jesus was fully man and fully God. Habermas is fully man but He is not God. Hope that helps.

stephan huller · 10-28-2010, 08:20 PM

There are Canadians who think like this? I am very disappointed. Oh wait a minute. You're from Alberta. Now it all makes sense.

Why post these things at this forum? You aren't stiimulating any sort of discussion. Is your point that if we take the texts at face value we end up embracing the orthodox position. Now there's a revelation. Why not start a prayer group or something?

Even being stuck at a week long retreat to study mountainman's doctrines is looking more and more interesting already.

Toto · 10-28-2010, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gracedwithlife

... Now you need a naturalistic explantion that fits the data. ...

That's easy. The data is entirely composed of ancient documents. The best naturalistic explanation of those ancient documents is that they are all theological story telling, with no representation in reality.

There is no confirmation of the historical existence of Jesus or Paul or any of the disciples.

I win. Jesus is a fairy tale. Hell is not real.

10-28-2010, 05:29 PM	#1
gracedwithlife Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 33	The Minimal Facts Approach Proving the Resurrection of Jesus Minimal Facts Approach, Proving the Resurrection of Jesus and that He is God 1. Without assuming Biblical inerrancy, what can we glean from the Scriptures? Over 95% of skeptical scholars who do their thesis work, are accredited and have peer review journal work done on the resurrection in the past half century (see we Gary R. Habermas) agree Paul really wrote and really believed what he wrote in 1 Cor. 15 and Gal. 1 & 2. 2. In these three chapters, Paul said he spent fifteen days with Peter and also time with James, the brother of Jesus, which would be within five years from the cross. Paul was converted two years after the cross then went away to study the word of God for three years, after which time, he returned to Jerusalem whereupon he got to know Peter and James. Later on he met up with John. And he continued to see them again over the years. They all testified to having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings. 3. People do not willingly allow themselves to die for something they know is a lie. So the Apostles really believed they saw, talked with, touched, walked with and even ate with Jesus in various group settings after He died on the cross which convinced them He is God and so became bold proclaimers when before they were doubters. 4. Therefore, it must be true they saw Jesus alive from the dead, since all naturalistc explanations have been exhausted these past two thousand years. Amen.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-28-2010, 05:50 PM	#2
braces_for_impact Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In a nondescript, black helicopter. Posts: 6,637	Well, you got the minimal facts part right at least.

10-28-2010, 06:02 PM	#3
gracedwithlife Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 33	Thanks. Praise the Lord.

10-28-2010, 08:16 PM	#6
gracedwithlife Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 33	I am going to deface you by saying you misread what was said. To know they truly believed it doesn't mean it is true only that they believed it. Now you need a naturalistic explantion that fits the data. Since you can't find any, you prove Jesus is God. Hallelujah!

10-28-2010, 08:17 PM	#7
gracedwithlife Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 33	Here's a list of group settings in the Bible well testified. http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/12groups.htm Ouch!

10-28-2010, 08:20 PM	#9
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	There are Canadians who think like this? I am very disappointed. Oh wait a minute. You're from Alberta. Now it all makes sense. Why post these things at this forum? You aren't stiimulating any sort of discussion. Is your point that if we take the texts at face value we end up embracing the orthodox position. Now there's a revelation. Why not start a prayer group or something? Even being stuck at a week long retreat to study mountainman's doctrines is looking more and more interesting already.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.