« Abortion Evangelist | Main | The Senior Pastor Model »

August 20, 2009

Comments

I notice a couple of assumptions smuggled in here. The tradition dates to a couple of years "after the crucifixion." But the question on the table is whether or not Jesus was a myth. If that's true, then it's not within a couple of years of the resurrection. It's within a couple of years of the date retrospectively chosen as the date to assign to Jesus crucifixion a couple of decades later by the gospels. Habermas is assuming the very points in debate and using them to establish his evidence for historicity.

Or look at his claim about appearances "of their best friend." Where does he get that Jesus was their best friend? Doesn't that assume the very thing in dispute? He takes it from the gospels. But of course the veracity of the gospel's historical narrative is the very thing in dispute. The mythicist denies that the disciples in fact were best buddies with a physical Jesus on earth.

And this is the exact same approach made in relation to the Three and Eight Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Many of them apostasized, yet none ever rejected their signed testimony, which included claims that "an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon" and heard a voice declaring that it has been translated by the gift and power of God (Three Witnesses); "Joseph Smith, Jun. ... has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship" (Eight Witnesses). This is much more recent than the New Testament witnesses, we have ample documentation of the continuation of the bearing of testimonies by the BofM witnesses (even after apostasy and even on death beds). And if you think they did it for fame and fortune, just look at the history of Mormon persecution, both individually and as a religion.

By the logic and argumentation of Habermas' article, we can safely conclude that these men saw what they saw. And what can we determine about their continued fidelity to their message, despite incredible persecution and many death threats on the condition of giving up their testimonies.

Jon >> But the question on the table is whether or not Jesus was a myth.

Jon, while that might be an interesting question, I don't think that's what the post is addressing. Isn't this dealing with the idea that the resurrection was a myth that grew after a real Jesus lived and died via crucifixion?


Kevin >> And this is the exact same approach made in relation to the Three and Eight Witnesses of the Book of Mormon.

Kevin, thank for you bringing this up. The more I learn about humanity's religious creativity and strange history, the less spectacular the Christian claims seem to me.


Melinda >> Jesus' resurrection is the central claim of Christianity.

Is that true?

Just curious: Did the resurrection serve any function, other than to perhaps encourage God's supposed elect?

Certainly the crucifixion is said to have served a function (e.g. payment for the sin of others). Isn't that the central claim?

> Did the resurrection serve any function, other than to perhaps encourage God's supposed elect?

I'd say that without the resurrection, the crucifixion would be useless. Paul certainly thought the resurrection was central, he follows up the creed Habermas mentions in 1 Cor 15 by saying: "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. ... And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."

> And this is the exact same approach made in relation to the Three and Eight Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Many of them apostasized ...

Since none of the disciples apostatized as far as we know, it isn't the exact same situation. Several of the three & eight (I can't recall which ones offhand) were actually kicked out of the LDS church.

Each of the BOM's Three Witnesses later said that they only saw the plates with their "spiritual eyes." Each of the Eight Witnesses were closely related to Joseph Smith, and when asked, they testified that they either only saw the plates in a vision or through a piece of cloth.


http://irr.org/mit/bom-wit-pt2.html

"...saw the plates with their 'spiritual eyes.'"

But does that not prove the point. We only know the 'true' meaning of what the Mormon witnesses saw because of ample documentation that has survived by individuals hostile to the claims of Mormonism. A plain reading of the witnesses account would lead you to believe that they really saw the plates and handled them.

This is the issue with the gospel accounts. We have no idea what meaning the apostles gave to words like resurrection, or to their sitings of a resurrected Jesus. Maybe they were talking about seeing Jesus through their 'spiritual' eyes as well. That's the problem we can't know.

Also, I admit to knowing very little about this, but were there not early Christians, Ebionites, or something, who did not believe Jesus was divine or resurrected?

"Also, I admit to knowing very little about this, but were there not early Christians, Ebionites, or something, who did not believe Jesus was divine or resurrected? "

There are many folks that can claim that I was born without arms. So what? If I claim that I was born with both arms, who are you going to believe...me or the throng of other people making competing claims? It would seem to me that you aught to believe a Louis rather than those who claim to be Louisites while contradicting Louis' own statements about himself and his birth with two arms. The same can be said about Jesus' deity. There are many folks out there that misrepresent what and who Christ was and some even call themselves Christians. If they were the followers of Christ, they would be repeating what He said, not contradicting those things He affirmed and proved about himself.

Louis, I appreciate what you are saying. But you are in fact alive and available for questioning and investigation.

Jesus, however, is long gone, either dead or alive but not present. Either way, he's not around for questioning.

The fact is we don't know what Jesus said and did. We only know what various people claimed he said and did. We have no writings of the man himself. We also know about the various early groups that formed around various beliefs and interpretations regarding Jesus' life, including the Ebionites. We don't know which group had the most correct views, if any.

I guess we can assume that the groups that survived or flourished are most likely to have the correct views. That's a bit tenuous for my liking.

Anyways, I wish very much that it was as easy as your arm example.

emmzee,

I'll just re-quote myself, since you obviously didn't read it:

"we have ample documentation of the continuation of the bearing of testimonies by the BofM witnesses (even after apostasy and even on death beds)."

Beyond that, while the apostasy aspect is different, the continual adherence to the testimony is not. Either way, you didn't demonstrate how that single difference completely destroys the LDS ability to rely on the same methodology used by Habermas to demonstrate the truth of the Book of Mormon plates.

Adam,

Please see the following:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses/Spiritual_or_literal

http://en.fairmormon.org/%22shown_to_me_by_a_supernatural_power%22

http://en.fairmormon.org/%22Eye_of_Faith%22/%22Spiritual_Eye%22_statements_by_Martin_Harris

The absurdity of the notion that Jesus was a myth can be seen in the Jewish responses to him, some of which may be found in the Babylonian Talmud. Jews of the early church era note several of his opinions or their understandings thereof. Other references are more scathing,including surmisings as to who his "real" father was. One hardly makes up the words of a mythic someone who is opposed to you on the one hand, and on the other, bothers to deal with the alleged father of a man that you can just plainly say never existed. That Jesus is a myth is the canard of those who are uninformed and have no interest in finding out that their opinions are baseless.

I think, when you start to make this argument, that argument being we have no idea what Jesus said... or did, humanity's religious creativy, and so fourth, you start making claims that are really suspended in speculation.

Which is fine, but then you need to advance that argument by pairing that with the apparent masochism required to remain steadfast in these superficial claims. Rather, its not good enough to simply suggest that history is a testament to mans unending religious creativity, and then apply that same blanket reasoning to the claims found in the gospels.

But, for the sake of argument, lets introduce the possibility of religious creativity. Ide be curious as to the sociopatism required to so boldly make a falsafiable claim -- the physical resurrection of Jesus -- in a period where as the gospels themselves note (IE in luke), 'many of the eyewitnesses are still living'. Either you would have to be utterly psychotic to make such a claim (and I think they knew back then, people do not physically rise form death), or atleast, honestly mistaken.

Sure, you can introduce the claim to embelished accounts, like some of those being proposed here, but you need to reconsile it with the whole of early christian history.
Because as far as I can tell this sounds more like reasoning based off of human behavior. Which is fine, but again, take it the whole way, and ask the question is it more possible that..., and so on.

>> "The fact is we don't know what Jesus said and did."


I think this statement is a bit misleading, or you shuold atleast clairify yourself.

Do you mean, we have no idea whatsoever? Or we cannot know with absolute certainty? Because if you mean that in the latter, then sure. I dont think anyone disagrees with that.

If, on the other hand you mean it in the former, well, I recommend canceling any plans to study any ancient history.

And if you mean that in the context of such an outstanding claim we cannot know what Jesus said or did, again, I would ask you to give me historical reasons to consider your statement, and not ones that draw from religion as a whole. The speciffic historic questions as they relate to the gospels themselves.

Stefan,

But if we accept scriptural inerrancy, then we have a lot of people who claim to know "with absolute certainty" what Jesus said.

P.S (though im not sure ill be around to respond to it)

You could, apply the same methodology to the LdS plate claims. But I also think you should take into consideration the claim you are applying this methodology to. I think thats where you may start running into larger 'gaps of faith'. I think thier is a significant difference between the two claims.
For one, as far as I know the LdS dont claim that you can, "Know the plates".

Posted by: Jim T. | August 20, 2009 at 07:07 AM
Just curious: Did the resurrection serve any function, other than to perhaps encourage God's supposed elect?
----------------------------------
Yes.

The Devil comes to steal, kill and destroy. The purpose of the Crucifixtion and Resurrection is to show power over death and the works of the Devil, power and authority that are transferred, in His Name, to those who are born again.

Posted by: Adam | August 20, 2009 at 08:54 AM
Each of the BOM's Three Witnesses later said that they only saw the plates with their "spiritual eyes." Each of the Eight Witnesses were closely related to Joseph Smith, and when asked, they testified that they either only saw the plates in a vision or through a piece of cloth.

http://irr.org/mit/bom-wit-pt2.html
----------------------------------
The unbeliever sees things through his spiritual eyes, too. The question: Is that spirit of God, nor not? [1 John 4:1]


Posted by: Jim T. | August 20, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Jesus, however, is long gone, either dead or alive but not present. Either way, he's not around for questioning.
------------------------------
Sure He is:

(Isa 1:18) Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

There are also many references to asking and receiving.

Posted by: Jim T. | August 20, 2009 at 11:07 AM
The fact is we don't know what Jesus said and did. We only know what various people claimed he said and did.
----------------------------------
Then, we don't know whether anybody said anything. According to you, all we have is claims.

People who were on-scene questioned Him.

Posted by: Jim T. | August 20, 2009 at 11:07 AM
We have no writings of the man himself.
----------------------------------
Irrelevant. We have on-scene eyewits. Great multitudes of them who saw and heard.

Posted by: Jim T. | August 20, 2009 at 11:07 AM
We also know about the various early groups that formed around various beliefs and interpretations regarding Jesus' life, including the Ebionites. We don't know which group had the most correct views, if any.
----------------------------------
(Mat 11:3) And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?

There are so many versions, variations, translations, too. Which is the Word of God, given that He says that He is the ONLY Way to the Father. Which is the ONLY Way, given that each reports events differently?

Posted by: Jim T. | August 20, 2009 at 11:07 AM
I guess we can assume that the groups that survived or flourished are most likely to have the correct views.
----------------------------------
If they are consistent and verfied by other observers.

Kevin Winters> I'll just re-quote myself, since you obviously didn't read it

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but actually I did read it. I was simply making the point as I stated it, that the situations are not identical, which you seem to agree with.

Jim> This is the issue with the gospel accounts. We have no idea what meaning the apostles gave to words like resurrection, or to their sitings of a resurrected Jesus. Maybe they were talking about seeing Jesus through their 'spiritual' eyes as well. That's the problem we can't know.

I don't think it's fair to say we have "no idea" what meaning the apostles gave to the words they used. We can for example take a look at what the history of those words is (since most of the early disciples were Jewish). We can also investigate the context of how the NT authors themselves use the word. I wrote a paper for a course I took awhile back on this topic:
http://tinyurl.com/myhpqo
Self-disclosure: The class was taught by Habermas, so, perhaps that may cause a chorus of "bias" to ring out! :D But it's still accurate, afaik. :)

>>"But if we accept scriptural inerrancy, then we have a lot of people who claim to know "with absolute certainty" what Jesus said."

Not neccessairily. If by that you mean word-for-word, which is what I take that to mean in this statement. This can very obviously be verified given even the rewordings of different translations (IE NIV, KJV, NKJV, Geneva, and so fourth). And furthermore I suggest as a matter of historicity, the issue of innerancy is either irrelevant or must be exhaustively qualified to which I would still say is not benificial. I take it as an outstandingly honest human document in that is not exempt from the nuances of recording history that its contemporary works do (im speaking to history in general). Dont stretch that point too far, and perhaps there could be finer points you could discuss... but perhaps you understand what im getting at.

Edit: >> "This can very obviously be verified"

That statement was a little unclear, I ment to say "Innerancy in that sense can very obviously verified as false.."

Something of that nature.

"historicity"????

The Hebrew says God said, "Light be!"

KJV says He said, "Let there be light!"

It is harmless error to say He said, "Let there be light!" when He actually said, "Light be!" since the meaning doesn't degrade.

Now, if, as some modern translations say, He said "maid" instead of "virgin," then we have an argument. If He said "virgin," He most certainly meant "virgin." "Virgin" has a meaning beyond the spelling. "Maid" doesn't communicate the same thing.

Hi Stefan. Thanks for your comments.

Stefan >> I think this statement is a bit misleading, or you shuold atleast clairify yourself.
Do you mean, we have no idea whatsoever? Or we cannot know with absolute certainty? Because if you mean that in the latter, then sure. I dont think anyone disagrees with that.

The latter. With "absolute certainty" is what I meant. Sorry that I wasn't clear. I'm about to give up on the word "know", as it seems to cause nothing but trouble in some of these discussions! :)


Stefan >> If, on the other hand you mean it in the former, well, I recommend canceling any plans to study any ancient history.

That's not what I meant, but still I'd like to comment. Studying history is very interesting and fruitful, even given its inherent limitations and subjective nature. But our very souls and eternal destination don't usually depend upon getting things correct or even close enough. For instance, I won't be eternally tormented if I have the wrong opinion about whether or not George Washington really chopped down that cherry tree.

Seems odd to me that our relationship with the supposed creator of the universe and the only hope for our supposed state of spiritual hopelessness is so dependent upon having correct opinions about history, and then placing trust in those opinions. History partially got me to the Christian faith in the first place, and now it takes me away again. Oh well, that's how it goes for some of us.

What I mean is that we cannot know with any certainty that what the gospels attribute to Jesus was what he actually said or did. This does not mean they are false, we just can not know if they are or not. There is not enough information available to make that claim with certainty.

It seems that the claims made by Christians (or any religion for that matter) about supernatural events, or teachings, are different from claims made by historians about other events and people in the past.

I mean, it is pretty well accepted that most of what Plato attributes to Socrates was never said by him, but that does not change the value of these philosophical ideas. But if Jesus did not say, or do, the things claimed in the gospels there is a much bigger problem.
There will always be uncertainty about events in the past. Yet, Christianity has not come up with a methodology that would get rid of this uncertainty. As much as I would like to believe the Resurrection or the other miracles, I see no reason why their clams are any more 'certain' than any other historical, supernatural event. As has been pointed out above the methodology use by Habermas can, and is, used by Mormons to justify their special religious claims.

Posted by: Stefan Kozalla | August 20, 2009 at 01:24 PM

Edit: >> "This can very obviously be verified"

That statement was a little unclear, I ment to say "Innerancy in that sense can very obviously verified as false.."
--------------------------------
Atheists have always told us that no one can prove a negative.

Anyways...

Darkness doesn't exist in and of itself. It is a void. Void of what? LIGHT.

Cold doesn't exist in and of itself. It is a void. Absolute zero is absolute void. Molecules stop moving. But void of what? Heat.

Can we prove "darkness"? Yes, but not as an entity in and of itself. By the absence of light/Light. Those who do evil love the darkness where there is no light/Light to expose their evil.

What is false comes from the darkness, not the Light. In the Light, there is no lie. The Light cannot lie. Therefore, what is false can be shown by comparing it to the Truth in Light. But, of itself, false cannot be proved. It is not knowledge of good and evil that sets you free.

Posted by: Jim T. | August 20, 2009 at 01:37 PM
History partially got me to the Christian faith in the first place, and now it takes me away again.
---------------------------------

What???

Only God draws to Himself, not men to God.

It's true, no doubt, according to your witness, that history -- that men-made thing -- draws you away from Christ and, therefore, from God. The world has a habit of doing that, and far too many let themselves be so seduced:

(1Ti 4:1) Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils...

>>"But our very souls and eternal destination don't usually depend upon getting things correct or even close enough."

And thats what I was suggesting in my third statement. Ive seen this proposed several times, that being something so 'weighty' should have a bit more surrounding it than what we have to go from.... Well, I am sympathetic to that in a small sense. And I certainly dont mean that antagonisticly. You dont stand to lose much if you dont believe, say, the mayflower was a starship rather than a boat.

At the same time... And I dont expect you to fall in with me on this point, I think we do have that with the Bible. I think that it has very artfully nailed human behavior more sufficiently than any other human philosophy. Thats a different subject so ill leave that statement alone, and you are free to discard it.

But to the original quoted statement.. Heres the context ill try to speak from. The resurrection, in a major sense, explains reality. If it didnt happen, then the answer for the most coherent view of reality must be somewhere else. In that sense, whatever you subscribe to will at some point require you to consider the breadth of reality, and how it relates to the evidence in question.... Im not suggesting that the case for the resurrection isint a good one (maybe not as spectacular as some sceptics would hope for, the phraze big claims require big evidence comes to mind), rather... It could allow you to concede on some historic points if possible, because the explanatory force of the conclusion is atleast reasonably supported, AND, reality seems to cohere with it. What I am not suggesting is that you could concede on something as paramount as denying a physical resurrection in exchange for a spiritual one. Maybe speciffic textural questions (IE, the resurrections in Matthew 23 or 24 are, IMO, a reasonable question to ask.)

I lost track of my thoughts halfway through that post, but I hope you can see the points i was trying to make.

P.S Incredible, I was saying you can drop innerancy for a discussion of this nature, and infact it would probably be more fruitful to do so given that innerancy is more of an 'in house' discussion.

>>"As has been pointed out above the methodology use by Habermas can, and is, used by Mormons to justify their special religious claims. "

Topher, thats only if you isolate this aspect from the entire methodology.
Correct me if im wrong, but ive never seen this argument proposed exclusively in relation to the claim in question, even if its supported by smaller lines of reasoning. Im not too knowledgable about the LdS plates claim though, so I cant forward that arguement in relation to the LdS claim.


Posted by: Stefan Kozalla | August 20, 2009 at 02:33 PM
P.S Incredible, I was saying you can drop innerancy for a discussion of this nature, and infact it would probably be more fruitful to do so given that innerancy is more of an 'in house' discussion.
----------------------------

Verstand.

But we aren't the ones who bring it up, and we must be prepared to make the case.

Now, when they aks whether The Word of God is inerrant, I say, "Yes, He is! He cannot lie."

If they aks whether the Bible -- the physical, written, printed book, the shadow of the real Thing -- is inerrant, I say, "The description of and directions for the spiritual journey are precise, inerrant."

I think we have to distinguish between The Word of God, as He exists in the supernatural, and the "Bible," the physical book and shadow of Him in the supernatural that exists in THIS world.

So, when I refer to the "Bible," my second reference is to "It."

When I refer to The Word of God, I refer, in the second reference, to "Him."

Largely, Incredible, I dont disagree. But the issue of inerrancy isint talking about wether or not Jesus is, 'The Truth', or Truth Incarnate, Reality, or wahtever word you ascribe to Him in that sense. The issue of inerrancy is a question of the nature of how God in His providence has acted through man to have them write down his word as he intends it, while still preserving the writers characteristics and perspectives. In that respect, I suggest, it is not neccessairy to introduce it into a historic discussion. These to me seem to be two genres of discussion. On a side note, I could think of how the two could be related. But thats an entirely different subject.

p.s thats not a perfect definition of innerancy im sure, so excuse me on that. lol.

"What I mean is that we cannot know with any certainty that what the gospels attribute to Jesus was what he actually said or did."

topher,
If you want to discard the historical records (biblical and extra-biblical) that surround Jesus of Nazareth, then go ahead. The burden of proof is now entirely yours. On what grounds do you reject any of the historic documents that inform us about Jesus?

Kevin Winters,
Habermas' argument is not merely from the disciples' experience, but first and foremost from a reliable body of historic evidence generally accepted both by critics and adherents to the truth claims of the Bible. It is never enough only to have a genuine believer in a personal vision. This alone proves nothing. But this combined with rich textual evidence, archeological consistency (neither of which Joseph Smith's writings possess), and the clear logic of Habermas' eight main points which I won't reiterate - all of this forms a coherent body of evidence leading to an abundantly clear, consistent, and rational conclusion that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

Stef', I see what you mean.

Incredible, very good.


>>"But this combined with rich textual evidence, archeological consistency (neither of which Joseph Smith's writings possess)"

This is what I was hoping I could suggest earlier. You cant lift the methodology from one to the other, and then degrade the force of the methodology by pointing out that it can be used to justify the LdS claims -- because the methodology's force comes from several lines of reasoning, evidence, and so fourth, that AFAIK, is weak, or genuinely questionable in the LdS... apologetic. for lack of a better word. For instance, the book of Abraham, has, frankly, been archaeologically debunked.

Everyone likes to make these logical leaps.

As a Mormon, I've witnessed a few myself.

"If the Book of Mormon is 'true', then that means Joseph Smith was a true prophet for the rest of his life."

"If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, then that means Brigham Young was too."

"If all that's true, then that means that the current LDS prophet is a true prophet and the modern LDS Church is true."

And on it goes. But none of the above statements logically work. Just because the Book of Mormon is true does not mean the modern LDS Church is legit. I made this point at my LDS scripture study class that if you want a conviction of this church, you can't skip steps. You can't just "pray about the Book of Mormon" and then act like the whole matter is settled. You have to study, wrestle with, and pray about every last one of the modern LDS Church's claims. Otherwise, you have no real foundation for being in this Church.

And the SAME applies to the other Christians here.

Let me ask you - even if you establish that Jesus rose from the dead, how does that prove that the Bible is "true?"

Does it prove that Paul was actually a valid apostle and not just some theological innovator who jumped on the bandwagon?

(and don't try to tell me his martyrdom proves he was a legitimate witness of Christ - you can say the same thing about Joseph Smith)

Why does the resurrection prove that Peter had any clue what he was doing when he set up Christ's church?

How does the resurrection prove any of the Four Gospels are legitimate? How does it prove that the "Gospel of Thomas" is illegitimate?

How does the resurrection establish the theological notion of the Trinity?

How does it prove salvation by grace-alone?

How does the resurrection prove that all of modern Protestantism isn't off its rocker?

For that matter, how does the resurrection even prove that Jesus is God, and not some super-powered space alien?

When you get down to it, the resurrection is an important (even crucial) piece of data.

But it doesn't even get you halfway there.

Not even a quarter there.

I've tried a few times to post some links concerning research the two issues that Stefan brought up, but it won't let me (probably has a link limit per post). Feel free to contact me if you want them (go to my website and you can find a place to email me).

Posted by: Seth R. | August 21, 2009 at 09:22 PM
Just because the Book of Mormon is true...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the Book of Mormon a newer testament than the New Testament?

Is the Book of Mormon another way to the Father?

Posted by: Seth R. | August 21, 2009 at 09:22 PM
even if you establish that Jesus rose from the dead, how does that prove that the Bible is "true?" [sic]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
That question doesn't make sense.

Posted by: Seth R. | August 21, 2009 at 09:22 PM
Does it prove that Paul was actually a valid apostle and not just some theological innovator who jumped on the bandwagon?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What does the Resurrection have to do with where Paul was actually a valid apostle...?

What's "valid"?

Posted by: Seth R. | August 21, 2009 at 09:22 PM
(and don't try to tell me his martyrdom proves he was a legitimate witness of Christ - you can say the same thing about Joseph Smith)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What witnesses certify Joseph Smith?

Posted by: Seth R. | August 21, 2009 at 09:22 PM
Why does the resurrection prove that Peter had any clue what he was doing when he set up Christ's church?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For what kind-a proof are you looking?

Posted by: Seth R. | August 21, 2009 at 09:22 PM
How does the resurrection prove any of the Four Gospels are legitimate?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a number of witnesses.

Posted by: Seth R. | August 21, 2009 at 09:22 PM
How does it prove that the "Gospel of Thomas" is illegitimate?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Experts who have investigated this say it is so.

Posted by: Seth R. | August 21, 2009 at 09:22 PM
How does the resurrection establish the theological notion of the Trinity?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus said that He can do nothing on His own.

Posted by: Seth R. | August 21, 2009 at 09:22 PM
How does it prove salvation by grace-alone?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
By showing the defeat of the works of the Devil.

Posted by: Seth R. | August 21, 2009 at 09:22 PM
How does the resurrection prove that all of modern Protestantism isn't off its rocker?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
First, you must prove that modern Protestantism IS off its rocker.

Posted by: Seth R. | August 21, 2009 at 09:22 PM
For that matter, how does the resurrection even prove that Jesus is God, and not some super-powered space alien?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus was a man. Jesus was God on Earth. God with us.

Again, Jesus said that He can do nothing on His own. Only God has the Power to resurrect. The death of the "old man" in the resurrection of the "new man" is an act of God, through Christ.

Posted by: Seth R. | August 21, 2009 at 09:22 PM
When you get down to it, the resurrection is an important (even crucial) piece of data.

But it doesn't even get you halfway there.

Not even a quarter there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For unbelievers, that's true.

The comments to this entry are closed.