Another Apologetics and evidence link

Another great link with material to help people think through the big questions about faith included challenges, questions and objections to the Gospel is  http://bethinking.org which is run by UCCF.

There are currently some great articles on the historical reliability of the Bible by some brilliant Biblical scholars and archaeologists including Kenneth A Kitchen, Peter J Williams, Alan Millard and Gary R Habermas.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Another Apologetics and evidence link

  1. Again, Dave, your sources claim that the mention of Christians can be considered evidence for Christ. IF this is the case, then this means that every god that has ever had believers is as real as your god. But Christians claim that no other gods exist. Which is the case? You can’t have it both ways.

    Where is the tomb? Christians do not agree and cannot show that there was a tomb, much less that it was magically made empty

    Habermas claims that there were eyewitnesses and has yet to show that this was the case. He also claims that Paul saw Jesus but Paul himself can’t keep his story straight on how that supposedly occurred. Habermas also tries to use the bible as evidence that the bible is true, which is saying that a claim is the evidence that the claim is true. Paul makes quite the claims in 1 Corinthians 15 but that’s all they are: claims with no evidence to support them. He also uses the long dismissed claims about the source from Thallus, which we only have reference to by others, including Julius Africanus (300 hundred years later), who points out that Thallus is wrong because Thallus claims a solar eclipse to explain the darkness of the sky during the cruxifiction, and that can’t happen if the cruxifiction happened any time near a full moon, a requirement for Passover. Habermas’ argument is that one should believe in the claims of the cruxifiction, and ignore the contradictions, because there are two supposed commonalities in the gospels, JC dying and JC rising. However there is o evidence for either, which makes the stories worthless since they also do not agree on details at all and directly contradict each other.

    Dave have you read any critques of your supposed “brilliant” scholars? You should since they do not come out as brilliant as you might believe. Here’s a place to start, a review of the debate between Flew and Habermas: http://infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/resurrection.html

    Like

  2. 1.It’s probably helpful to clarify what the Africanus and Thallus reference is about.Thallus – a non Christian historian writing in the 1st Century AD refers to an incident including darkness and earthquakes. Africanus writing in 221 AD (nb not 300 years later) cites this. He notes that Thallus’ explanation was a solar eclipse though he does not think it could be (the problem being Passover and Full moon). So my understanding is that the argument here is that an ancient author interacts with events that fit the Biblical description of events. Do we need that ancient author to have an accurate scientific explanation of the events? No. How much weight do you put on that author is of course up for debate and part of the process of interpretation and evaluation. There is wider discussion among Christian scholars about whether Africanus is interpreting Thallus correctly. So Habermas may have put to much weight here. He is after all a fallible human. 2. I’m not sure what you mean by your first point. I am not aware of anyone saying that because Christians exist that this means in itself that God is real. Does the personal testimony of Christians have something to offer in helping others to make their mind up? Yes. Does a study of ancient history include contemporary observations of the growth, beliefs and practices of Christians including their willingness to suffer for their beliefs? Yes. 3. Re Paul, he very clearly cites the existence of 500 eye witnesses still alive at the time he writes – the sense is that they’ ll be known and will be available to verify things. 4. Of course there are people who disagree with the authors I’ve mentioned but readers can check out the bethinking.org articles for themselves and make up their own minds re how persuasive and helpful they are.

    Like

Comments are closed.