Resurrection Harmonization Narrative
One of the resources for the site is a chart explaining the events of the Resurrection and in which Gospel (s) record it.
I'm amazed how people assume that each Gospel writer must tell the story the same way from different point of views. They used different time-keeping methods. One sometimes summarized events while another gave step-by-step details. I'm amazed at how people think that if it's not done the way they would have done it than God didn't inspire it. I don't understand that. Given how finite and depraved our minds are, I would not expect God to do much like how we would do things at all. A lot of Atheists decry Dr. William Lane Craig's arguments, but I have not seen very much in the way of a rebuttal. And I have not seen any good rebuttal against Lee Strobel or Gary Habermas either. Here is a list of resources that I would suggest anyone who is desiring to study the evidence for the Resurrection should start with.
Mary Jo Sharp vs. Ehteshaam Gulam Debate: Did Jesus Die on the Cross? MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315
Resurrection Debate: Gary Habermas & Mike Licona vs Robert Price
Iron Sharpens Iron: Gary Habermas: Did The Resurrection Happen?
Jesus' Resurrection: Gary Habermas and Antony Flew
Memorable Keys to the Greatest FEAT in History
Apologetics 315: Advanced Use of Historical Evidence for the Resurrection: Gary Habermas MP3 Audio
Gary Habermas vs. Tim Callahan on the Pagan Jesus Myth of the Resurrection | True Freethinker
Resurrection
Resurrection of Jesus
Here's a good rebuttal of Strobel's The Case for a Creator. I haven't really ever looked for a rebuttal of his The Case for Christ, but I will say that was one of the last things I read to try to save my faith and his obvious dishonesty and confirmation bias was too much.
ReplyDeleteAs for your chart, it's wrong off the bat because it says "Angels appear and tell the women..." and then references Matthew. A plain reading of the text has only one angel. Now, you could strain reason and suggest that the Matthew author actually meant that the angel that rolled the stone away and the angel that spoke to the women were different, but then the Matthew author said "The angel said to the women...". He didn't say "Another angel appeared after the first one I just mentioned in the last sentence and said to the women...". And he most certainly didn't say "suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them..." like the Luke author did.
So the chart isn't going to cut it. I asked for you to write me a screen play, and that would include full stage blocking. Chop chop!!
I don't need to write one because it's been done. And you can't say that Matthew does not say that there weren't other angels around. Sorry but the chart more than does what you asked and you have failed to rebut. Feel free to try again. Thank you for playing.
ReplyDeleteAs for calling Lee Strobel dishonest and dishonest. Do you have anything to back that up? The link you provided didn't work...just like the argument.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's been about 7 or 8 years since I read The Case for Christ, but I stand by my opinion of it.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course I can say that the Matthew author doesn't say that there were other angels around, because he doesn't.
I think you meant to say I couldn't say there weren't other angels (or men? per Luke.) even though the Matthew author doesn't mention them?
You may enjoy the series of posts at thomstark.net, where Thom and your boy Matt Flannigan are discussing Matt's theory about biblical genocide. It has nothing do with our discussion at hand, but just a heads up. Good reading.
ReplyDeleteI'm aware of Matt's discussion with Thom. And you can't argue from silence If it does not say that there weren't any more angels why would you say there weren't. If the author only wanted to focus on one of the angels what is the problem? The problem is yours not the Gospels' writers.
ReplyDeleteProve you are right about The Case for Christ or take it back.
ReplyDeleteMarcus, I'm not rereading it, and I'm not taking back a comment based on my assessment from 8 years ago.
ReplyDeleteAnd your comment about the angels/matthew is weak. I certainly can argue from silence and, more importantly, from pronouns.
I'm aware of Matt's discussion with Thom.
ReplyDeleteThis is what someone who always has to be right says. A normal person just says "thanks for the heads up" :)
If you can't remember exactly what struck you as dishonest about The Case for Christ how do you know your assessment was correct? Sounds like an unsubstantiated claim. How do I know you even read it? Actually, reminds me of at statement by "somone who always has to be right". I'm a Christian because I agree God is right and I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteYou don't know I read it. But I did and when I checked out his arguments against the sources, I found him to be intellectually dishonest.
ReplyDeleteI do recall the fact that he wrote his interviews in narrative form led to some of the intellectual dishonesty. Compare the Karen Armstrong (I think it was her...) interview to any of the others.
ReplyDeleteAnd for the record, I went into that book with about as open a mind as anyone could and a very strong desire that he would be right. That book was just plain bad.
Ryan, Karen Armstrong was not interviewed in the The Case For Christ. She isn't even in the movie based on the book. I'm still waiting for justification for discounting the book.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right, but I remember him bringing her up in one of the interviews with someone else. Maybe it was Elaine Pagles.
ReplyDeleteI was unaware there was a movie. Have you read the book, or just seen the movie?
The bottom line is that Strobel has a bad habit of cherry picking experts who only support his position and ignoring experts who would detract from his position. It particularly bad in The Case for a Creator, where he doesn't even bother to get experts from the relevant fields. I don't recall one non-christian interviewed in The Case for Christ. But he (Strobel) sold the book as a fair and balanced cross examination that explored all the evidence, pro and con. Not much con in that book, but when I dug into the footnotes, it was very evident that he had managed the message by presenting only the positive rather than presenting a fair "case", like he'd said he would. It's was nothing more than a cheerleading session.
Ryan, I've read the book and seen the movie. And yes, only Christian scholars were interviewed but Strobel asked the same questions and raised the same objections atheists raised. What objection should have been raised or what question should have been asked that was not?
ReplyDeleteNo, Lee Stroble is not a biblical scholar or theologian, at best, he could only ask "tough" questions. If he was really "retracing" his journey from atheism to belief, he would and secular scholars not just of christian scholars, unless he wanted to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, of course...
ReplyDeleteI recall many of my questions not even being raised by Strobel.
My sense now is that he was more interested in selling books "to the choir" than doing honest journalism.
PS: just noticed that you said my link to the rebuttal of The Case for a Creator was broken. Here.
OK, your website or my browser is f'ing up the html for links. Go here... http://www.daylightatheism.org/series/the-case-for-a-creator
ReplyDeleteWhat Questions you would yhave asked that were not asked by Lee Strobel?
ReplyDeleteNo idea Marcus, I'm sure over the last 8 years they've mostly been addressed by other sources.
ReplyDeleteSo what is your problem? You have nothing to show that Lee Strobel was dishonest in the case for Christ aside from your bias and opinion. Next thing you'll be telling me that he was not a real atheist.
ReplyDeleteMarcus; I think I gave a reasonable, bias free, high level explanation for why I found his approach intellectually dishonest. You're just a goober. Please see posts from 11:21 and 12:11 if you have additional questions.
ReplyDeleteAnd in retrospect it was either right before or after 9/11/01 when I read it. So more like 9 years ago.
I also am pretty sure I sold it to a used book store, so I can't even reference it to get you specifics, which I actually would have been happy to do, however, my 9 year old memory of my opinion is sufficient to maintain that opinion.
The book is on the internet. I want specific examples of what you considered to be dishonesty on Lee Strobel's part. All you've made is accusations and nothing of substance. Where's the beef? Even some smoke and mirrors would be nice.
ReplyDeleteI want specific examples
ReplyDeleteMarcus, you can want in one hand and s#!t in the other, let me know which one fills up first.
Translation of Ryan Anderson's previous comment: I've got nothing meaningful to add, but I want to have the last word anyway.
ReplyDelete