workerforthechuch

Now as you study these 3 chapters of the whole Bible, you can come to some conclusions that scholars do not shy away from but accept as reasonable, which is that Paul met with James, Peter and John and they agreed on why they saw Jesus resurrected bodily. It does not say they are right, only that they did in fact agree and believed what they saw.

This moves you into the realm of they really believed what they saw to they really saw what they saw, because if no naturalistic explanation can explain it, then it very probably is true.

Brother Daniel

Hi worker.

I get so many recommendations (for books, articles, videos, etc.) that it's simply impossible to check them all out. We have to be choosy.

David B is on the right track: You haven't persuaded him (or me) that the video is really worth watching. In order to do that, you'll have to learn (and understand) Habermas's argument well enough that you can outline some key parts of it for us.

So far, you're being too lazy: "Hey everyone, there's a great argument here." That's nice. I've heard that many times before.

(edited to add: I see you've started to spell out the "minimal facts". Now give us a taste of the logic that builds from there.)

There are many bright people here, including many whose historical knowledge is thousands of times greater than mine. I learn a lot by hanging around here. For example, there are some very bright Christians who have persuaded me that, among the (historical) arguments I have heard against Christianity, some of those arguments are rubbish.

But what no one has ever done is give me a (historical) argument for Christianity that wasn't rubbish. And it's amazing how often a totally rubbish argument will get advertised as something brilliant -- in much the same way that you have advertised Habermas's video. So simply telling us that the video is brilliant won't do much. (I assume you know the story of the "boy who cries wolf".)

(edited to add: In my experience, Christian apologists are people who either (a) don't have a clue about probability, or (b) forget everything they know about probability, for some unfathomable reason, whenever they happen to be discussing Jesus.)

Anyway, welcome. I hope you stick around. If you're open to learning anything, you'll learn a lot here.

workerforthechuch

I have outlined what you need to know already for 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2, so why overlook it? You would be shutting your mind down to that which I already wrote which I trust people can see, for they can see you have not responded to what I said at all.

workerforthechuch

Lets summarize, because I know how much obfuscation can occur and how people like to jump off the beaten path of the Minimal Facts Approach in the video.

1. Scholars agree 95 to 99.9% that 1 Cor. 15 and Gal 1 & 2 are really Pauls writings and he really believed what he wrote.

2. In them, he writes he met with James, Peter and John on several occassions, and they agreed to why they saw Jesus resurrected.

3. People do not go to their deaths as they were martyred (except John) believing in what they knew to be a lie.

4. If no naturalistic theory can account for witnessing the bodily of resurrection, very probably it is true then they saw Jesus resurrected.

5. Man does not have this power, but God would.

Toto

This sounds too confused. What are the new "minimal fact?"

I don't think so. Scholars and the Bible agree that Paul did not see Jesus before his death, and did not see Jesus in the flesh. I have read those letters of Paul, and nothing there says or even implies that Peter, James, and John saw a bodily resurrection.

I wish you could give me a coherent reason for watching it, or better yet, show me a written summary or transcript.

Toto

By scholars, you mean a select group of mostly Christian believers who think it is worth their while to study and write about Paul, I assume. But the scholar I trust most (Robert Price) does not agree that 1 Cor 15 was written entirely by Paul. Other scholars, who write in German or Dutch, think that Galatians was written by Marcion.

This is so far off the mark, I don't know where to begin.

So Allah really approved of those hijackers who few the airplanes into the twin towers?

But there are lots of naturalistic theories, including the theory that all of the Christian writings were forged in later years and nobody saw anything. Habermas just doesn't like them.

That's not a minimal fact that most scholars would agree on.

workerforthechuch

These are not new mimimal facts, for Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15 have not changed. Throughout the centuries scholars have always thought Paul really wrote these words and believed them. The minimal facts approach does not say Paul saw Jesus before his death, so dont misread. What 95%+ of scholars agree is that Paul believed he saw Jesus in His resurrected state whether bodily or otherwise. What Paul said is what was given to him is what he teaches, and the teaching is the bodily resurrection of Jesus. This is how resurrection is always thought of in antiquity, but was later changed by the gnostics centuries later. People keep asking for a reason to watch the video, but I keep repeating the essence of the miminal facts approach for you to watch it.

Brother Daniel

Same old, same old. I have seen essentially the same argument many times. (I've even used the same argument myself.) You haven't made it any more persuasive.

Go ahead and pretend that I'm "shutting down my mind" if that's the story you need to tell yourself. The truth is otherwise, but I don't think you want to know.

Gooch's dad

Really? You know that the universe "always has a cause", how? What is your scientific evidence for this?

Um...WHAT? That is utterly nonsensical, and hardly even parses as a coherent English sentence. You really haven't answered at all these two essential points:

1. How do you know the universe has not existed forever?

2. If it has not existed forever, why can't the universe be its own cause?

I'm looking forward to your reply, but since you can't seem to even spell "church" correctly in your own username, I don't have my hopes very high.

I will not create a long post, but just give you a clue to the video of that ultimate proof which hinges on using just the Minimal Facts Approach.[/QUOTE]

Toto

So now Habermas is arguing that Jesus rose from the dead because the Bible says so?

This is a new low. You can read Peter Kirby's review of Habermas in the IIDB archives or on Amazon