Does Good come from God II – Harris vs Lane

_{DLH
April 8, 2011

Atheism, Creationism, Design inference, Ethics, Evolutionary psychology, Intelligent Design, Neuroscience, Philosophy, Psychology, Religion, Science

2}_{Categories
Atheism
Creationism
Design inference
Ethics
Evolutionary psychology
Intelligent Design
Neuroscience
Philosophy
Psychology
Religion
Science}

Part 9 of 9 – Harris vs Craig – Does Good Come From God
———————————————
Apologetics 315 has posted the audio link the Full Debate MP3 Audio here (120 min)
———————–

I found the debate a fascinating test of technical debating skills vs red herrings and emotional appeals. (PS please post links to transcripts when available.)

This debate provides an interesting framework within which to examine the ID related question:
Does Information come from an Intelligent Agent?

Harris claimed that the axioms of science are accepted and obvious to everyone and provide the basis for proving there is no god. However, atheists commonly presuppose naturalistic materialism.
How can one scientifically examine if an intelligent agent exists or is causative, if one a priori excludes intelligent agents from possible causes?

I posit that in testing for an intelligent cause, one must presuppose:

1) Intelligent agents exist. (e.g. humans)
2) Intelligent agents can influence nature. (e.g. this post)
3) Some intelligent intervention can be detected. (e.g., forensics)
4) An intelligent agent may be a cause for an observed phenomena.

—————————————————-

April 11 See JonnyB’s follow on post:

Sam Harris Delivers Riveting Oration Championing Deism

Comments

QuiteID, I'm wondering if you've heard of theories about why Matthew would describe Jesus as having to be a 'Nazarene', to fulfill what was 'spoken by the prophets'? One popular theory is that, in conjunction with the correct term 'Nazarite', instead of 'Nazarene', truly denotes what was written or spoken by the prophets, such as in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah, when they mention the 'BRANCH of the Lord". The Hebrew word for Branch is the root form (NZR) of the Nazarite word found in the Old Testament Scriptures. As for the Jesus being born in Bethlehem, it was to fulfill Micah 5:2. and I think the Lukan Census problem has been correctd, if i'm not mistaken, here's a reference. http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2004/12/parsing-luke-22.html Sorry, i used to know how to post links in code correctly.jgray2_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

Stephen, what matters is that Matthew is telling a story, and Luke is telling a story, and each of them is describing the story for their own reasons. I guess in your version, Mary and Joseph get warning that the child is in danger, wait about a month, and then flee? In Matthew Jesus seems to be "from" Bethlehem but grows up in Nazareth, which Matthew mistakenly thinks has something to do with "Nazorean." In Luke Jesus gets shipped to Nazareth because of some crazily designed census. It seems clear that Jesus was really from Nazareth and that both Matthew and Luke (for different reasons) had Jesus born in Bethlehem because Nazareth was an entirely insignificant little town that never appeared in any records before this. You can make them fit together, if you're convinced that they must and you're willing to go round your backside to get to your elbow. I don't see why that's important, though. Frankly I don't think any Jew reading Matthew in the first century would have seen it as historical in any event. It's clearly midrash, a retelling of ancient stories for a new purpose. That only makes it "wrong" if your faith depends on a literal-minded dogmatism.QuiteID_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

---QuiteID: "So my response is, of course they contradict each other: so what? What’s important is what each author is trying to convey." Show me the contradiction. Please be specific.StephenB_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

Bruce David, the problem is not that I don't understand your arguments and am thus setting up 'strawmen to refute, the problem is that I do understand your arguments and the primary objective of your arguments. Which you objective is to try your level best to undermine the authority of scripture just so as to undermine the clear meaning of what Jesus said and did. To accomplish this goal you have ignored StephenB's principles of right reason, as well as the stunning prophetic scriptures which give the Bible a one of a kind 'supernatural watermark' distinctness from any other known ancient scripture. You do this because you are a die hard pantheist who cannot stand the though of a 'eternal' judgement after this life! Does that pretty much sum up your thinking?bornagain77_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

Trying to "reconcile" the gospels as history and trying to "refute" the gospels as history: different ways of having the wrong priorities.QuiteID_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

---Bruce: "What I said was that reason BY ITSELF is powerless to arrive at truth, ANY truth, not just Christian “truth”. Reason must have something accepted as true without proof before it can draw any conclusions." Well, you said we can "prove anything" using reason, which indicates that reason isn't very good tool for distinguishing truth from falsehood. In any case, please don't keep me in suspense. What would that "something" be? Give me an example of this something in action and show me how it helps you draw a conclusion. ---"I should have added, however, that reason is also useful in revealing logical contradictions in an argument. My bad." If, as you said, we can use reason "prove anything," can we use reason to reveal a contradiction and also show that it is not really a contradiction at all?StephenB_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

With regard to the birth and infancy narratives of Jesus, it seems to me obvious that neither Luke nor Matthew is interested in historical accuracy. That doesn't make them less important, valuable, or inspired: it just means that the stories are not told for reasons of history. (Matthew, for example, who emphasizes the Jewishness of Jesus, writes the Egypt story to construct parallels to Old Testament history (going "into" and "out of" Egypt just like ancient Israel, being saved from infantacide just like Moses). This is not history but the ancient Jewish genre of midrash. So my response is, of course they contradict each other: so what? What's important is what each author is trying to convey.QuiteID_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

---Bruce David: "The two accounts flat out contradict each other. There is no getting around it." There is no contradiction at all. Leaving out a number of events in between the key points, it’s really very simple: Joseph betrothed and married Mary in Nazareth. The family moved to Bethlehem where Jesus was born. From Bethlehem, they fled to Egypt. From Egypt, they returned to Nazareth, where Mary and Joseph first lived. Nothing that either Matthew or Luke says bring any of these events or their chronology into question. The two Gospels are meant to complement one another-- and they do. With respect to the details on the flight to Egypt, the facts are clear: After the child was born, Joseph and Mary waited 40 days for the purification. Only then did they seek refuge in Egypt. Following that, they returned to Nazareth. Luke says nothing about the flight to Egypt, and mentions only the Purification and the return to Nazareth. Luke says, “After they had performed all things according to the law, they returned to Nazareth.” He does not say “immediately” after and it is obvious that he is speaking of the faithful observance of the law. He is not trying to fix the exact time of the return. Luke selectively leaves some things out; Matthew selectively eaves some things out. You continue to labor under the illusion that an omission is a contradiction. If you don’t understand the difference between the two words, look them up in a dictionary.StephenB_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Bornagain: When you can read what I actually wrote and respond thoughtfully to it, we can have a conversation. As long as you insist on setting up a straw man version of my thinking and then on that basis accuse me of hypocrisy, there really is no point in continuing.Bruce David_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

No Bruce, the facts are that you deny the 'stunning' importance of this scripture of prophecy;,,, The Precisely Fulfilled Prophecy Of Israel Becoming A Nation In 1948 – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041241 Bible Prophecy Fulfilled – Israel 1948 – article Excerpt: As such, we can know for certain that the Bible, in one of the most remarkable prophecies in history, accurately foresaw the year of Israel’s restoration as an independent nation some two thousand five hundred years before the event occurred. http://ezinearticles.com/?Bible-Prophecy-Fulfilled---Israel-1948&id=449317 In fact you stated,,, 'You assume that a fulfilled prophesy is the only criterion of truth of a source of revelation. I don’t.' Yet you then turn around, after Pooh Poohing perhaps the most stunning fulfilled prophecy known to modern man, and elevate a minor 'supposed' discrepancy of the Bible, that plausible reason was given by Dr. Torley for, and all of the sudden this minor passage of scripture is slam dunk for you to Deny the validity of everything that Jesus is recorded as saying in the Bible!!! No Bruce I stand by my observation, your are extremely biased in your judgment. And that makes you a hypocrite. You being a hypocrite is a fact of written record on this very thread,, and is not something I am making up just to hide from any hypothetical lack of evidence that you 'hypocritically' (there's that word again) accused me of!bornagain77_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Clive: "Um, yes you did say 'It is logically contradictory to use the Bible itself to refute this fact.'” When I used the term "logically contradictory", I was referring to the use of the Bible itself to refute questions regarding its accuracy that arise from a knowledge of the circumstances of its origin and transmission down to the present day. I didn't say that it was logically contradictory that a collection of books "could be evidence for the proper history of Jesus." "But you say there are no originals, so how do you know there were changes? What are you using for comparison?" It isn't me. It's Biblical scholars. And what they use is the fact that there are hundreds of copies of the original books now available, dating from the second century (in a few cases) onward, and these copies do not agree with each other (there are literally thousands of discrepancies among them).Bruce David_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

Bornagain: Have you noticed how when Darwinists have no real response to someone's argument they descend into insult and ad hominem attack? Look at your last post to me (#81) and see if you might not detect a similar pattern.Bruce David_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "Translation: “Oops, I changed my mind. Although reason is useless as a defense for Christianity, it may be useful for attacking Christianity.” Unbelievable!" Perhaps you find it unbelievable because you have misquoted me. What I said was that reason BY ITSELF is powerless to arrive at truth, ANY truth, not just Christian "truth". Reason must have something accepted as true without proof before it can draw any conclusions. Again, I refer you to my proof that Hell does not exist in #28. I should have added, however, that reason is also useful in revealing logical contradictions in an argument. My bad.Bruce David_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Bruce David,
I have shown that the scriptures themselves, based on the results of Biblical research universally accepted by Biblical scholars, simply cannot be trusted to convey Jesus’ life, death, and teachings accurately. It is logically contradictory to use the Bible itself to refute this fact.
To which I replied: The Bible is a collection of books, so how is it logically contradictory that the books should be evidence for the proper history of Jesus? You may as well say that since the Encyclopedia has been collected into one volume, it is logically contradictory to use any part of it as evidence for any other part.
To which you replied: I didn’t say it was logically contradictory. I said that based on what we know about the source of the books (they are written records of stories that were orally transmitted for several decades before they were written, and they were not written by their purported authors, except for eight of Paul’s letters)....
Um, yes you did say "It is logically contradictory to use the Bible itself to refute this fact." If there were changes, you would have to have an original in order to see the change. But you say there are no originals, so how do you know there were changes? What are you using for comparison?Clive Hayden_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

But Bruce you are using reason :) LOL funny how you will deny the validity of anyone else's arguments just so to adhere to your absurd pantheism, but when it suits your purpose you have no qualms to becoming a hypocrite and using the very same tactics you disavowed! Have you no integrity of Character???,,, Bruce this video is much more clear as to accuracy of scripture; Defense Of The Historical Jesus From Supposed Higher Criticism Of Biblical Text And Historical Reliability – William Lane Craig http://www.vimeo.com/11144955 And that is the video I meant to list primarily,,, since it deals with the most famous scripture critic alive today; Bart Ehrman As to your objection that certain passages flat out contradict.,,, What amazes me is that, much like your blatant hypocrisy with StephenB, you will go to Herculean efforts to deny the relative importance of prophecy in scripture, that has been fulfilled and verified, thus establishing the 'supernatural watermark' on the Bible, yet when it comes to a fairly minor passage of passage, that Dr. Torley offered reasoned argument for, you all of the sudden claim this passage of scripture takes on the weight of importance that you should have rightly given to the prophetic passages in the first place. The hypocrisy is simply dripping out of every post you make Bruce!!!bornagain77_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Bornagain: "Can We Trust The Bible Written 2000 Years Ago? Dr. William Lane Craig" I watched the video. It doesn't address any of the points I made. I never said that we can't trust the Bible because it was written 2000 years ago. I pointed out a number of specific facts accepted by virtually all Biblical scholars today regarding how the books of the New Testament were originally written and how they have come down to us today. I state these originally in #25, and summarize them again in #71. I then draw the conclusion from these facts, that given how flawed the historical record is, we can have no certainty that we know accurately what are the facts of Jesus' life and death, unless that certainty comes from an act of faith. I still stand by that statement.Bruce David_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

---Bruce David: "So I stand by my statement. The two accounts flat out contradict each other." Translation: "Oops, I changed my mind. Although reason is useless as a defense for Christianity, it may be useful for attacking Christianity." Unbelievable!StephenB_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Bornagain: "You have not understood me at all." Have I not? Let's test it. Do you agree, then, that no matter what a person believes in his or her lifetime, "that God, who knows the inner secrets of the human heart, has His own way of reaching these people and overcoming any psychological barriers to belief which are no fault of their own, in their dying moments."? Do you also agree that the crucial question regarding their after death fate is whether or not they "obstinately reject Him [God]" (that is God, not Jesus)? If you can answer "yes," then I agree I have misunderstood some at least of what you believe. But if you do answer "yes," then you can put your mind at ease with regard to my own fate, because I have accepted and embraced God for most of my adult life.Bruce David_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

---Bruce David: "This belief you have that reason can prove that Christian doctrine is true (which Christian doctrine?) or that the Bible is historically accurate (how do you reconcile the contradictions?) is, frankly, nonsense. You can prove anything with reason." Yes, I know that you have no use for reason are, therefore, impervious to reasoned arguments. Although I communicate with you in an official capacity, I am really speaking to onlookers who are reasonable and who are not impervious to reasoned arguments.StephenB_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

vjtorley: "In fact, the difficulties you raise have all been dealt with in detail by the Christian apologist Glen Miller in his article:" Well, I did read the link, and I must say it is only believable by someone who has a very strong desire for the gospels not to contradict each other. For example, while it is true that Matthew does not explicitly state that Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem, it is obvious from the text that this is what is meant. They start out in Bethlehem, and they would have returned to Bethlehem after Herod's death had they not been warned about Archelaus. They go to Nazareth not because they used to live there, but because it is there they will be safe from him. And while the statement from Luke, "And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city of Nazareth." doesn't contain the word "immediately," it still states that they returned when the rituals were complete, not sometime later after a long stay in Egypt. So I stand by my statement. The two accounts flat out contradict each other.Bruce David_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Bruce David, there is a greater witness to the Bible's validity,,, Besides the personal witness of Christ's reality from millions of people who have experienced the presence of His spirit, many people, including myself, argue that the Bible itself is proof of God’s supernatural and personal involvement with man because, among other things, the Bible is 'alive', and I mean that in a way that specifically differentiates the Holy Bible from inanimate objects. This is because the words of the Holy Bible have in fact 'come alive' and spoken directly into my life, during times of extreme need in my life. Moreover this 'coming alive' of the Bible, has happened for others while I was in their in the presence: Strange But True - Miracle Testimony https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNTNocmRjZGtkdg&hl=en Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. The Word Is Alive - Casting Crowns - music video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5197438/ Here is an interesting point of authentication for the Holy Bible. The New Testament gospel is actually hidden within Genesis: The New Testament Hidden In Genesis - Chuck Missler - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4193378 Interestingly, the Bible also has a 'hidden watermark' of a 'heptadic structure of sevens' which authenticates it as inspired by God: The Holy Bible - God's Watermark Of Authenticity - Ivan Panin - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4136566 IS GOD A MATHEMATICIAN? - Ivan Panin Excerpt: It was in 1890 that Dr Panin made the discovery of the mathematical structure underlining the vocabulary of the Greek New Testament. He was casually reading the first verse of the gospel of John in the Greek: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and the Word was God...". Dr Panin was curious as to why the Greek word for "the"' preceded the word "God"' in one case and not the other. In examining the text he became aware of a number relationship. This was the first of the discoveries that led to his conversion and uncovered the extensive numeric code. http://www.wordworx.co.nz/panin.html Here is a defense of the integrity of Ivan Panin's impressive work on Bible Numerics from 'higher level' criticism: BIBLE NUMERICS EXAMINED -- PART 2 http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1363.cfmbornagain77_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

and this video; Defense Of The Historical Jesus From Supposed Higher Criticism Of Biblical Text And Historical Reliability – William Lane Craig http://www.vimeo.com/11144955bornagain77_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Bruce David you state; '1. Bornagain77 would not agree with much of what you have written, unless I have not understood him at all.' You have not understood me at all. And once again you are either severely misinformed or you are deliberately deceitful when you state: 'and it is well known that literally thousands of changes were made in the copying processes, some of them deliberate changes to conform to the theology of the scribes, that the originals were written in Greek and the stories were originally in Aramaic, and that the books of the New Testament contradict each other in many respects, the conclusion is obvious that they cannot be trusted to accurately reflect what Jesus actually said and did.' At least you went from 'universally' agreed by Biblical scholars to the lesser tense 'it is well known'; Once again here is William Lane Craig on what Biblical scholars 'overwhelmingly' believe about the reliability of the Bible: Can We Trust The Bible Written 2000 Years Ago? Dr. William Lane Craig http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYBCz_kf1c Please look at the video so you will not spread misinformation again!!!bornagain77_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

vjtorley: "Finally, on the exclusiveness of Christianity: it is one thing to assert that Jesus is the only way to God; quite another to assert that non-Christians are all damned. We have no right to put limits on the mercy of God, who wants all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), and we should remember that He has ways of saving people that we cannot dream of. I know many non-Christians whose goodness I greatly admire; and I do not doubt that God, who knows the inner secrets of the human heart, has His own way of reaching these people and overcoming any psychological barriers to belief which are no fault of their own, in their dying moments. We should also keep in mind that God is a respecter of human choices, and that those who obstinately reject Him in their final moments will spend eternity without Him, as they have chosen to do." A couple of responses: 1. Bornagain77 would not agree with much of what you have written, unless I have not understood him at all. 2. It appears to me that the assertion "Jesus is the only way to God" contradicts what you say later in the paragraph. 3. I do not reject God, and have not for almost all of my adult life. I do, however, reject the concept of God espoused by several commenters in this and other threads, which I identify as conservative Christian.Bruce David_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden: "The Bible is a collection of books, so how is it logically contradictory that the books should be evidence for the proper history of Jesus?" I didn't say it was logically contradictory. I said that based on what we know about the source of the books (they are written records of stories that were orally transmitted for several decades before they were written, and they were not written by their purported authors, except for eight of Paul's letters), the fact that we only have copies of copies of copies, etc., and it is well known that literally thousands of changes were made in the copying processes, some of them deliberate changes to conform to the theology of the scribes, that the originals were written in Greek and the stories were originally in Aramaic, and that the books of the New Testament contradict each other in many respects, the conclusion is obvious that they cannot be trusted to accurately reflect what Jesus actually said and did.Bruce David_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

Bruce David (#67) Thank you for your post. With respect to the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke, you write:
The two accounts flat out contradict each other. There is no getting around it.
I used to argue in the same way as you do, before I returned to the Christian faith several years ago. Three brief points in response: 1. If the contradiction were really that open-and-shut, as you claim, then why did the early Church accept both books as inspired by God? Are you seriously saying they didn't read the books they accepted, or that they were all so stupid that they simply didn't notice the discrepancy? Highly unlikely. 2. Why didn't the pagan critics of Christianity (e.g. Celsus) point out the inconsistencies of the infancy narratives, if they were as obvious as you say? While the pagans had many objections to Christianity, this wasn't one of them. This suggests that according to the literary conventions of the time, which allowed biographers to make use of literary devices like the telescoping of events widely separated in time, and the omission of material irrelevant to the author's purposes, the gospels of Matthew and Luke could be viewed as complementary rather than contradictory. 3. In fact, the difficulties you raise have all been dealt with in detail by the Christian apologist Glen Miller in his article: http://www.christianthinktank.com/infancyoff.html The article is well worth reading. Finally, on the exclusiveness of Christianity: it is one thing to assert that Jesus is the only way to God; quite another to assert that non-Christians are all damned. We have no right to put limits on the mercy of God, who wants all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), and we should remember that He has ways of saving people that we cannot dream of. I know many non-Christians whose goodness I greatly admire; and I do not doubt that God, who knows the inner secrets of the human heart, has His own way of reaching these people and overcoming any psychological barriers to belief which are no fault of their own, in their dying moments. We should also keep in mind that God is a respecter of human choices, and that those who obstinately reject Him in their final moments will spend eternity without Him, as they have chosen to do.vjtorley_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Bruce David you state this; 'based on the results of Biblical research universally accepted by Biblical scholars' Yet this statement is false, for Biblical scholars 'universally' agree with the core of the Bible; Defense Of The Historical Jesus From Supposed Higher Criticism Of Biblical Text And Historical Reliability - William Lane Craig http://www.vimeo.com/11144955 Thus Bruce David, since Biblical scholars agree with the reliability of the Bible, are you merely misinformed or are you being deliberately deceitful? History proves Christ’s resurrection - article http://www.c-bstatesman.com/news/2011-03-03/Church_News/RISEN.html notes: These following video, and quotes, show, that as far as the historical evidence is concerned, Jesus assuredly rose from the dead. The Historicity Of The Resurrection Of Jesus - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYdzUYyIKMM Consider these following quotes on the historical Jesus: A British agnostic once said “let’s not discuss the other miracles; let’s discuss the resurrection. Because if the resurrection is true, then the other miracles are easily explained; and if the resurrection is not true, the other miracles do not matter.” Sir Edward Clark — a prominent lawyer in Great Britain “As a lawyer, I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. To me, the evidence is conclusive; and over and over again in the high court, I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection I accept unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts that they were able to substantiate.” Canon Westcott — for years a brilliant scholar at Cambridge University “Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it.” Thomas Arnold — Professor of History at Oxford University; author of a 3-volume history on ancient Rome “I have been used for many years to study the history of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them; and I know of no fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than that Christ died and rose again from the dead.” http://www.awordfromtheword.org/what-if.htm “I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.” Sir Lionel Luckhoo. A British lawyer knighted for his work. He won 245 consecutive cases. “Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.” Simon Greenleaf from his book “Testimony of the Evangelicals”. Greenleaf was one of the founders of the Harvard Law School who wrote the book “A Treatise on the Law of Evidence”. He was an atheist until some students challenged him to examine the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. "I know men, and I tell you that Jesus Christ is not a man. Superficial minds see a resemblance between Christ and the founders of empires and the gods of other religions. That resemblance does not exist. There is between Christianity and whatever other religions the distance of infinity." - Napoleon Bonaparte http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/november/28.74.html "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." – C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity, pages 40-41 Here are a few more videos on the historical reliability of the resurrection of Christ: Can We Trust The Bible Written 2000 Years Ago? Dr. William Lane Craig - Short video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYBCz_kf1c Does God Exist? - Argument From The Historical Jesus - Kirk Durston - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4171869 f/n The following video is downright eye-opening with its evidence for authenticity of the Bible: The Physical Ashen Remains Of Sodom and Gomorrah - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwTVFk1HK3Ybornagain77_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Bruce David,
I have shown that the scriptures themselves, based on the results of Biblical research universally accepted by Biblical scholars, simply cannot be trusted to convey Jesus’ life, death, and teachings accurately. It is logically contradictory to use the Bible itself to refute this fact.
The Bible is a collection of books, so how is it logically contradictory that the books should be evidence for the proper history of Jesus? You may as well say that since the Encyclopedia has been collected into one volume, it is logically contradictory to use any part of it as evidence for any other part.Clive Hayden_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee: "By using the scriptures themselves, we have proven you wrong. Now it’s time to face the facts. You have made uninformed proclamations about the Bible, and we have shown those proclamations to be wrong." You have done absolutely nothing of the sort. I have shown that the scriptures themselves, based on the results of Biblical research universally accepted by Biblical scholars, simply cannot be trusted to convey Jesus' life, death, and teachings accurately. It is logically contradictory to use the Bible itself to refute this fact. StephenB: "There is no contradiction at all. Luke’s report begins earlier and provides critical information about events that preceded Jesus’ birth. Matthew gives us the relevant information about the escape to Egypt after the birth." No, you are wrong. Luke has Mary and Joseph living in Nazareth, travelling to Bethlehem for the census where Mary gives birth, and returning to Nazareth after satisfying the "Law of the Lord" with respect to the birth. This refers to Leviticus 12, and takes 33 days. Thus, in Luke's account, they go from Nazareth to Bethlehem, Jesus is born, and they return in a little over a month. In Matthew's account, they live in Bethlehem. Jesus is born there and then they flee to Egypt until after Herod's death. They then return to the Holy Land, but to Nazareth rather than Bethlehem. The two accounts flat out contradict each other. There is no getting around it.Bruce David_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Bruce David, By using the scriptures themselves, we have proven you wrong. Now it's time to face the facts. You have made uninformed proclamations about the Bible, and we have shown those proclamations to be wrong. You were wrong specifically about: The fact of the resurrection, The evidence of what Jesus said and did, The evidence of prophecy, The notion that the gospels contradict one another, The unwarranted truth of extra-Biblical texts such as "Conversations with God" compared with scripture. Given the above, you simply have nothing to stand on. You're treading on dangerous ground when you hold a couple of quacks above God's word.CannuckianYankee_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Sam Harris Delivers Riveting Oration Championing Deism

Leave a Reply