agit-prop, opinion manipulation and well-poisoning games Darwinist rhetorical tactics Defending our Civilization Religion

What is the warrant for the core gospel and linked ethics? (Does this matter?)

Spread the love

The gospel-based Christian synthesis of the heritage of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome — led by the Apostle Paul (Cf. Ac 17, Rom 1, Ac 27) — is a core but often unacknowledged or even resented part of the historical foundation of our civilisation. A civilisation which within living memory was described by Churchill as Christian civilisation. Not too much further back, it was usually referred to as Christendom.

But now, we see all around us the fruit of a centuries-long push to discredit and break that vital connexion; which has often been accompanied by a tendency to paint the legacy of Christendom in the most lurid colours, as though all that we have inherited is oppression, discrimination, injustice etc. That culminated in recent years in the sort of ill-founded, ill-advised fulminations that came from the pens of the so-called new atheists.

However, that effort has a cumulative impact of polarising, clouding, poisoning and polarising the atmosphere. So, let us first pause to rebalance by citing Bernard Lewis from his famous essay on the roots of Muslim rage:

The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty — not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . .

In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.

Sobering.

Let us therefore move beyond Overton Window agit prop games and rebalance our thinking on the heritage and relevance of Christian civilisation:

To do so, we will need to cultivate the art of de-spinning and seeking sound warrant on key issues:

Similarly, I think we will find an adapted form of Francis Schaeffer’s outline of the history of dechchristianising trends over the centuries in reaction to the Pauline synthesis quite useful as background. For, what we face today, below his line of despair, comes from a long line of cultural and intellectual and spiritual breakdown:

Extending (and correcting) Schaeffer’s vision of the course of western thought, worldviews and culture, C1 – 21

A key element in that analysis is the disintegration of worldviews as autonomous nature “eats up” grace:

Dichotomising nature and grace leads to disjointedness in western man’s worldview

As a result, Christians in our day are called to prophetically insightful intellectual and cultural leadership, to call us back from a civilisational voyage of folly:

Let me add an illustration that helps us understand the faith-commitments that inevitably lie at the core of worldviews; which emerges as we reflect on the structure of warrant:

A summary of why we end up with foundations for our worldviews, whether or not we would phrase the matter that way}

One useful tool in the required prophetically insightful intellectual and cultural leadership is the seven mountains of influence model (which also traces to Schaeffer et al though it has been championed by Wallnau et al in recent years):

We may extend this model into the four R’s of godly reformation through discipleship:

But, is such an approach well-founded? Yes, the gospel claims to be well warranted truth and necessarily incorporates moral transformation (as we face the discipleship-call to repentance, renewal and transformation from sinful lifestyles), but is that so?

Yes.

For one, we may use the so-called minimal facts approach to see just how well warranted the gospel is. Summarising from Apologetics Wiki:

The minimal facts method only uses sources which are multiply attested, and agreed to by a majority of scholars (ranging from atheist to conservative). This requires that they have one or more of the following criteria which are relevant to textual criticism:

Multiple sources – If two or more sources attest to the same fact, it is more likely authentic
Enemy attestation – If the writers enemies corroborate a given fact, it is more likely authentic
Principle of embarrassment – If the text embarrasses the writer, it is more likely authentic
Eyewitness testimony – First hand accounts are to be prefered
Early testimony – an early account is more likely accurate than a later one

Having first established the well attested facts, the approach then argues that the best explanation of these agreed to facts is the resurrection of Jesus Christ . . . . [Source: “Minimal facts” From Apologetics Wiki. Full article: here. (Courtesy, Wayback Machine.)]

A list of these facts can be compiled, up to a dozen:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion [–> which implies his historicity!].

2. He was buried.

3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.

4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).

5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).

6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.

7. The resurrection was the central message.

8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.

9. The Church was born and grew.

10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.

11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).

12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

Why are such generally accepted? As I summarised:

That a Messiah candidate was captured, tried and crucified — as Gamaliel hinted at — was effectively the death-knell for most such movements in Israel in the era of Roman control; to have to report such a fate was normally embarrassing and discrediting to the extreme in a shame-honour culture. The Jews of C1 Judaea wanted a victorious Greater David to defeat the Romans and usher in the day of ultimate triumph for Israel, not a crucified suffering servant. In the cases where a movement continued, the near relatives took up the mantle. That is facts 1 – 3 right there. Facts 10 – 12 are notorious. While some (it looks like about 25% of the survey of scholarship, from what I have seen) reject no 4, in fact it is hard to see a message about a resurrection in C1 that did not imply that the body was living again, as Wright discusses here. Facts 5 – 9 are again, pretty clearly grounded.

So, the challenge is to explain this cluster or important subsets of it, without begging questions and without selective hyperskepticism.

It is not hard to see why the old objections commonly seen since C17 – 18 have fallen by the wayside; they just cannot cover the facts. Today, there are two men left standing: [A] the historic Christian view and [B] some sort of mass hallucination theory.

Of these, the latter is exceedingly problematic, as ” collective visions are not psychologically plausible as the cultural expectations of a resurrection would have been of a general one in the context of the obvious military triumph of Israel. Nor, does it explain the apparently missing body. Moreover, we know separately, that the culturally accepted alternative would have been individual prophetic visions of the exalted that on being shared would comfort the grieving that the departed rested with God.”

We are therefore left with the Morison challenge:

[N]ow the peculiar thing . . . is that not only did [belief in Jesus’ resurrection as in part testified to by the empty tomb] spread to every member of the Party of Jesus of whom we have any trace, but they brought it to Jerusalem and carried it with inconceivable audacity into the most keenly intellectual centre of Judaea . . . and in the face of every impediment which a brilliant and highly organised camarilla could devise. And they won. Within twenty years the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish Church and impressed itself upon every town on the Eastern littoral of the Mediterranean from Caesarea to Troas. In less than fifty years it had began to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire . . . .

Why did it win? . . . .

We have to account not only for the enthusiasm of its friends, but for the paralysis of its enemies and for the ever growing stream of new converts . . . When we remember what certain highly placed personages would almost certainly have given to have strangled this movement at its birth but could not – how one desperate expedient after another was adopted to silence the apostles, until that veritable bow of Ulysses, the Great Persecution, was tried and broke in pieces in their hands [the chief persecutor became the leading C1 Missionary/Apostle!] – we begin to realise that behind all these subterfuges and makeshifts there must have been a silent, unanswerable fact. [Who Moved the Stone, (Faber, 1971; nb. orig. pub. 1930), pp. 114 – 115.]

This, then, is the guilty secret at the heart of today’s hyperskepticism toward, dismissal of, apostasy from and hostility against the historic Christian faith: the evidence that warrants that faith is not only credible but strong. (I add: especially, once blatant question-begging through anti-supernaturalistic prejudice is off the table. [Kindly cf. vid 1 below.])

Something, we need to face.

I think a video presentation may help some. First, background:

Next, the in a nutshell:

Those who want more may find Habermas himself helpful:

Others may find Craig helpful:

Or even the Strobel 101:

Now, all of this is in a specific context, where not only traditional marriage but also even one’s genetically stamped identity as male or female and linked cultural patterns have come under considerable pressure from the dechristianisers. Accordingly, it is relevant to pause to note on how a material part of these things is embedded in the moral transformation necessarily and inextricably involved in discipleship (and the underlying naturally evident moral law holds for all).

A good place to start is, the gospel: Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled 700 + year old specific scriptural prophecies of Messiah, including particularly resurrection from the dead. In that context, with 500 eyewitnesses, most still alive when such was committed to record 55 AD, a record handed down to us in unbroken, good chain of custody.

Speaking of . . .

The chain of custody on the NT

Let us quote that record, which points to the official summary of the witness of the 500, clearly dating to 35 – 38 AD in Jerusalem, far too early and far too central to be the stuff of readily dismissible legend:

1 Cor 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers,[a] of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:

that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

that he was buried,

that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me . . .

11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

This puts the issues just addressed through the minimal facts approach at the centre of our self-understanding as morally governed creatures and as a civilisation. For, once we see the warrant for the gospel by this and other means, it demands a duty- to- warranted truth- response: we must accept, then live by truth we know or should acknowledge, per good warrant. In which context, demanding that the church move away from its warranted core is ill-founded. And a civilisation that could readily access such warrant but elects to ignore instead is telling us a lot about itself. Nothing good.

It also establishes a clear centre of authority regarding truth and right conduct, the one who broke death.

clear And, on marriage, gender, sexuality etc, this is his record:

Matt 19:4 He [Jesus] answered, “Have you not read that he
who created them from the beginning made them male and female
[–> Gen 1 – 2, note the identified, naturally obvious case of
two distinct, reproductively complementary sexes, here anchored to
creation order for the human race], 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall
leave his father and his mother [–> implying the successive
generations of families built on man + woman + faithful commitment
–> well-nurtured children] and hold fast to his wife [–>
fidelity propagates from one generation to the next, how much more so
infidelity], and the two [= husband (male) + wife (female)] shall
become one flesh’ [–> through the act of marital, procreative
union, naturally leading to children]? 6 So they are no longer two but
one flesh. [–> ponder how the child reflects that union] What
therefore God has joined together [–> Adam and Eve and their
successors in one flesh union], let not man separate [–>
including, how much more, by violating the nature of marital union:
Adam + Steve, Eve + Mary, Either + fido, or a robot etc].”

Notice, he points to the naturally evident creation order and how this grounds a law of our manifest nature.

Such is antecedent to governments or cultural customs, it cannot be made by them or materially altered by them.

That is what many would defy today, to the obvious detriment of the community as the stabilising family is steadily eroded. Oh, it may still stand for many years yet but the implications point to a hard collision with reality.

The pivot of hope for a civilisation heading for the cliff:

. . . is repentance towards the well-warranted truth and right attested by the gospel. So, will we turn back before it is too late? END

13 Replies to “What is the warrant for the core gospel and linked ethics? (Does this matter?)

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Defending our civilisation: What is the warrant for the core gospel and linked ethics? (Does this matter?)

  2. 2
    EricMH says:

    I’m not sure how much I’d target our current society. A lot of the really reprehensible things that destroy people and society, such as eugenics, divorce, contraception and abortion were enacted under the Christian watch.

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    EMH, the above covers 800 years. I note, the motto for the headlined 2nd eugenics congress: “Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution.” Abortion is ages old, being banned in the Hippocratic oath, but has exploded into holocaust in recent decades. I suspect, contraceptives, en bloc, cannot be deemed an evil. Divorce is an age-old evil mentioned as reflecting the hardness of our hearts. Next, as was cited from Bernard Lewis, our civilisation has had its fair share of evils across the ages but cannot fairly be simply or overwhelmingly characterised by evils; there are blessings and reformations of Christendom which have made vital beneficial contributions, not only evils. However, none of this is truly focal, the central question is warrant for the gospel and linked ethics, as key questions of truth and right foundational to our civilisation. KF

  4. 4
    Brother Brian says:

    This OP stemmed from our discussions about people questioning the bible. And, as you know, I think doing so is a healthy thing. For example, Proverbs says:

    Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol.

    Although spanking a child is still legal in many jurisdictions, hitting a child with a rod is not. In fact, my parents never used any physical punishment on me or my sisters, and we have never used in on our kids. It is simply not needed and an outdated form of punishment.

    And then there is Ephisians:

    Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

    Back in the “good old days” of a Christian dominated society, divorce was rare because this latter verse was taken literally by many people. Women were expected to be subservient to their husbands. Thankfully, those days are gone. It wasn’t until 1993 that marital rape became a crime in all 50 states.

  5. 5
    EricMH says:

    Regarding contraception, it was blanket banned throughout Christian history as an intrinsic evil up until the mid 1900s when the Anglican church suddenly decided it was alright. Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, the Guttmacher Institute, has documented the causal link between contraceptives and abortion. And then there is the whole host of medical problems that contraceptives cause, as well as the broader societal health impact of entering our food and water supply.
    Based on recorded statistics, the abortion rate goes from a few hundred a year throughout the entire US to over 1,000,000 in the space of 10 years once contraceptives become legalized:
    http://www.johnstonsarchive.ne.....tates.html
    In general, I still feel this is a pretty broad dismissal of the bad that Christian societies have done in the last couple centuries. The British empire, supposedly a Christian kingdom, engaged in mass genocide and imperialism. Then, before that, there was the 100 years war and religious conflict in Europe.
    With more recent atrocities, the Nazis’ got their eugenic ideas from Christianized US and UK. Marx and Nietszche started as Christians, very devoutly so in Nietzsche’s case. Lenin memorized the New Testament. The ended up rejecting Christianity itself while maintaining its moral fervor in a secular setting. Just about any originator of all the bad ideas we regularly engage here at UD at least started out a sincere Christian before something went wrong.
    Islam also is another Christian origination. It was originally considered a schizmatic sect of Christianity, as Dante portrays with Muhammed being split with the sword in Inferno. The word Allah is a derivative of Elohim, and was used by Christians in the Arabian peninsula before being conquered by Muhammed’s troops. Philosophically, Islam is a kind of neo-platonism, another idea that originated and developed within the Greco-Judeo-Christian worldview..
    In my opinion, the harmful ideas themselves that have decimated the 20th century all have their origin in the culture you describe in the OP. Secular and atheistic society have just taken the ideas to their logical conclusions. So secularism is more a transmitter of the bad that is somehow originating within Christendom, rather than originator itself.
    With the recent conflict over homosexuality and transgenderism, it is certainly all crazy and wrongheaded, but from a practical perspective the lifestyles that really damage people and our society are readily accepted within most Christian churches. And one might even say the ideology that underpins the sexual and gender confusion also has its origin within Christendom, e.g. the disconnect between sex and procreation and rejection of hierarchal authority.

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, FYI, this thread is about an issue that needs to be addressed, and which you again studiolusly seek to distract attention from, revealing that you do not have a cogent, substantial response to the warrant behind the gospel. That is already decisive. I will simply say in brief on the verses seized upon for out of context tangents, that there is a difference between reasonable spanking and abuse (having myself been the subject of the old fashioned cane at school, a type of rod). As to the picking out of context of a text on mutual submission under Christ and prior requirement of self-sacrificial love by husbands measured by the yardstick of Christ going to the cross, it bespeaks the warnings in 2 Pet 3 about the unstable and unlearned wrenching what they do not understand. Beyond this, you and any others in your circle know full well that there are many sites that are open to address such questions at any time, as well as of course many good commentaries and even books. If you really want an answer you would go there. Your attempts at distractive Sunday School tickler tangents are hereby gavelled. KF

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    EMH,

    I believe there is a substantial, civilisation foundational issue at stake in this thread, and that you are also a full UD Contributor. As there is an obvious problem of tangents and side tracks in the face of a truly central issue, I ask you to discuss things such as arguments on contraceptives or such like in another thread. I will only note that the dehumanisation of our living posterity in the womb has been a material contributing cause to the ongoing holocaust.

    On other matters, I note that the relevant inputs on eugenics have had a lot more to do with the theme of the second congress: eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution. I recommend that you look up the subject at Wikipedia and ponder the tree diagram. Eugenics became a global wave in late C19 — reflecting just that theme, and the few who objected among the educated did so from essentially Christian motives. Indeed Hunter’s Civic Biology speaks volumes just from its title, as is reflected in its role in the Dayton trials in the mid 1920’s. Nietzsche, Stalin et al were at best apostate Christians.

    Islam is not Christian [ponder its doctrine of Shirk contrasted with the historic Christian faith], but its teachings reflect thoughts and stories in circulation in Arabia, including Christian ideas, Jewish ones and others. It seems I need to draw to your attention the remark made by Bernard lewis, as part of the rebalancing needed:

    The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty — not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . .

    In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.

    This is not about ducking or dodging or failing to see that there are significant sins of Christendom (e.g. I am a descendant of slaves), but about taking a due balance that is sorely lacking and may lead to the spreading of fundamentally unjustified disaffection that will cost us dear in terms of undermining constitutional democratic government, freedom, enterprise and sci-tech progress.

    Note, again, there is a core issue of warrant on the table, which needs to be faced.

    Once that is addressed, it gives us freedom to more soundly address other questions. Foundational, warranted truth comes first.

    KF

  8. 8
    Brother Brian says:

    KF, with respect, my post speaks directly to the OP. You yourself were the one who brought up divorce. My point was that divorce in bygone eras was rare because of the position society put women in, a position substantially the result of what was considered warrant by interpretations of the gospel.

    [–> Commenter forgets that NT specifically teaches equality of nature across sex, race and class differences. Further ignores, that if submission implies or pivots on inferiority of nature then that would imply that Jesus is an inferior order of being to Deity: being in very nature God, he did not think equality something to be grasped but emptied himself as a servant obedient unto death on the cross, on which the Father has exalted him to the highest place. Moreover, studiously ignores the prior duty of the husband to love his wife as his own self to the same degree of self-sacrifice as sent Jesus to the cross. That is, if you are not willing to stand and die for your wife as a yardstick of your service to her you should not be her husband. Further, does not know the a fortiori logic of abandonment of marriage. That is, to drive out with blows is constructive abandonment. Also, reads into the text what is not properly drawn out from it. Thus, aptly illustrates what Peter warned against, ignorance and instability wrenching scripture to ruin. This is filled in only to illustrate where further problems lie. The primary one is insistent refusal to address core warrant, on which other matters can be properly resolved. ]

    With respect to spanking, or the wooden spoon as was commonly used by parents in my neighbourhood, what this teaches children is that it is OK to hit people if they think they are misbehaving.

    [–> in fact, it teaches that law properly has sanctions, that justice is not empty words but as those who refuse to heed the force of reason and right but will willfully breach rules to gain advantage will have to be restrained by force, it carries the sword. In the extreme degree, this was demonstrated in the 1930’s. In 1934, Mussolini’s action stopped Hitler. Over the next several years, empty words led to the case where 60 millions died because he was not met with justice armed and determined from the beginning.]

    And the idea of hitting a child as punishment for him hitting someone else is just ludicrous.

    [–> One does not properly punish a child for hitting someone else, but for unjustly — thus violently — doing so. A child acting in defense of others for example, is a hero. In the past few days, three young men in Colorado showed just this, going up unarmed against two demonic would be mass murderers. One, at cost of his life. BB would do well to learn from that example.]

  9. 9
    ScuzzaMan says:

    Brother Brian
    Your point did not address the issue of sufficient warrant, nor the allied question of the duty of truth, and thus to pursue it is a distraction.
    That what you said on the question of divorce might be reasonable and even true, is irrelevant to that point.

  10. 10
    hazel says:

    It is virtually impossible to follow kf’s post, but I gather the topic of the OP, which he wants to restrict comments to, is that Christianity is True.

  11. 11
    ScuzzaMan says:

    It is not a secret that KF is a Christian.
    He has made an argument that his belief in and consequent following of Christ has sufficient warrant to be held as grounded in truth, and a secondary part of his argument is that mankind is duty-bound by circumstance, by reason, by moral necessity, and by divine instruction, to pursue truth and to perpetuate only truth.
    Some others here not only have not made any counter-argument but appear utterly without the vaguest notion of how to begin to do so. It becomes ever clearer that those opposed to Christianity are so numerous not for any rational content of their convictions but merely because they really badly want to not believe it.

    Sort of man they’re like to send believes hard. Kills and never asks why.
    –Shepherd Book

  12. 12
    Brother Brian says:

    SM

    Your point did not address the issue of sufficient warrant, nor the allied question of the duty of truth, and thus to pursue it is a distraction.

    I have to disagree. Throughout history people, including a significant percentage of women, believed that women were inferior to men physically, emotionally and intellectually. [–> Thus showing ignorance of scripture and associated theology, see above for first step pointers.]As such, it was felt that this provided sufficient warrant to expect women to obey and be subservient to their husbands, even to the point of physical discipline for perceived transgressions. [ –> Again, this sets up and knocks over a strawman, also aiming to taint the atmosphere and frustrate responsible discussion of the focal matter. Trollish tactics insisted on after due warning.]Religion and the bible didn’t cause this, but they certainly reinforced this belief. [–>strawman, again.] My point is that if something that religion (and society) accepted for centuries as being sufficiently warranted as to to be accepted as truth is now known to be false[–> using a strawman knocked over to try to dismiss a serious case without addressing its warrant on the merits of fact and logic.], why are we so sure that the other things that KF asserts have sufficient warrant to be accepted as truth are actually true?

    [–> a fallacy of irrelevant analogy based on a strawman. If X makes a mistake in one calculation does not entail that Y can be dismissed without further consideration on another. Or even said X. What is needed is to address the warrant for the case, which BB clearly wishes to duck. Why? Because he has no good answer but does not wish to face the unwelcome conclusion that the gospel is in fact seriously warranted, on the merits of fact and logic. This speaks telling volumes. I add this, that is how too many today respond without basic respect to men and women who stood peacefully but unyieldingly in testimony to truth they had seen, in the face of dungeon, fire, sword and worse. For shame.]

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    NOTICE:

    I gave adequate warning.

    Commenting is a privilege, not a right.

    The studious unresponsiveness on a central issue (and this comes after another thread where the same pattern played out) multiplied by repeated distractors in the context of having been reminded that other sites address such; shows that in fact there is no cogent substantial reply on merits by objectors to that core warrant.

    How do we confidently know this?

    Because, if said objectors had such cogent answers, they would eagerly pounce to give them. This is a case where silence on the main subject speaks volumes as to the true balance on the merits.

    Clearly, the minimal facts approach to the evidence regarding the gospel stands. And if my words are somehow unintelligible, there were five specific videos that could have been engaged. One of them a lecture by the man who spent a generation doing the research on scholarship that grounds the claim that on some 3000 relevant works of scholarship across the spectrum of NT scholarship, the twelve listed facts are by general consent well established per reasonable criteria of historicity. The first two give broad background (and access to more) then presents the case in a nutshell.

    At this point, pardon but I think it is fair comment that we are dealing with trollish irresponsibility at and around UD in too many cases instead of sober-minded diligence towards truth, right reason, prudence and justice.

    KF, OWNER

Comments are closed.