Answering Steven Carr's Objections

Steven Carr left the following comment on my post:

Jesus' Resurrection: Gary Habermas and Antony Flew

We don't have ANY examples of somebody being raised from the dead.

Actually, I'm sure you could find an example of 10,000 people who all are certain they saw a touchdown that was all in their head....

Not one person in history has ever named himself as having seen a flesh-and-bone resurrected Jesus.

Paul says flat out that Jesus became a spirit.

And the early Christian converts he was writing to were scoffing at the whole idea of their god choosing to raise corpses.

I have a debate on the resurrection at Debate

I've listened to the "debate" but it wasn't a real scholarly debate. It was a webcast where Carr was a guest given an atheistic view of Easter. The man giving the Christian viewpoint was interesting. I think he did good a job defending the faith. All the people who called into the program were Christians also but instead of really interacting with Carr's points (which he summarized in his comments on my blog) they invited him to seek God for himself. I don't disagree. The thing that bothered me is the fact that each of his ideas and challenges can be answered and debunked. If these five points are Carr's reasons for denying the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Make no mistake, Christianity believe that Jesus' resurrection was physical, tangible, and historical! It really happened. Carr's argument is that it didn't and he tries to use the Bible to prove it. Let's take his assertions in turn and see if it holds up.

We don't have ANY examples of somebody being raised from the dead.

Jesus...nuff said, but I'll dig deeper. Jesus resurrection is different than all the other times someone died in the Bible and came back to life. They all died later. Jesus never died again. Second, He said He was going to be betrayed, crucified, and resurrected...then He did it. On top of that the Old Testament says the same thing was going to happen to the Messiah and it happened to Jesus.

Actually, I'm sure you could find an example of 10,000 people who all are certain they saw a touchdown that was all in their head....

I'm assuming that Carr's trying to appeal to the theory that the Apostles and the first Christians only thought they saw Jesus as as some kind of shared vision. I can't believe that he even tried it. This has more than been shot down by the likes of William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, and Gary Habermas. So I will use the same reasoning they use. There is no documented case where two or more people have the very same vision at the same time. You can't share a hallucination. This is a proven psychological fact!!!


Not one person in history has ever named himself as having seen a flesh-and-bone resurrected Jesus.

Peter Did.

"You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see. - Acts 3:14-16

"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." - Act 10:39-43

Paul says flat out that Jesus became a spirit

I don't think so. There is no way because Paul never wrote it.


And the early Christian converts he was writing to were scoffing at the whole idea of their god choosing to raise corpses.

Carr is right there were some early church members (not Christians) who did not entirely believe in the resurrection of the dead. Just like today. This is one of the reasons Paul had to write 1st Corinthians to se them strait. This wasn't the only thing they needed to be schooled on. Look at what Paul actually wrote:

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? I die every day—I mean that, brothers—just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
"Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die." Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character." Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame. - 1 Corinthians 15: 20-34

The Reformation Is Defnitely Not Over

Catholicism is not a cult, but there are a few doctrinal and theological ideas that are held in Roman Catholicism that I must reject. There are many different ideas and beliefs in Catholicism because not all of the church follows the Pope and there are many Catholics that are saved as the Bible says and are in better or worse shape than Protestant believers. There is a vocal group of Catholic apologists who lay claim to the idea that all Christians should be Roman Catholic - to not just follow the Bible but all of the traditions of their church. Dr. James White has pointed out that an some Catholics have compiled a list of arguments Roman Catholics should not use when talking to Protestants. Here is what He wrote:

Benjamin Douglass and others have put together a list of common Roman Catholic arguments that, well, shouldn't be common at all. Now, posting something like this, given that it would decimate the arsenal of the most popular Roman Catholic apologists on the web and on radio today, can't make Mr. Douglass and his associates the most popular Roman Catholics around, but you have to give them a lot of credit for honestly recognizing these issues (issues I have been raising for many years). So kudos to Mr. Douglass and his associates! And a word of advice to Mr. Douglass: put on your asbestos booties and gloves before opening the resultant e-mails from the likes of Dave Armstrong and all the others who are so dependent upon these very arguments.

Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator"

Here is the documentary companion piece to Lee Strobel's book The Case For A Creator and it's great. It really makes me wanna read the book. Some interesting points is that evidence most of all of earth's lifeforms appearing quickly not slowly called the "cambrian explosion of life".

Deadliest Warrior: William Wallace vs Shaka Zulu

I watched the show last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. The truth is I thought that Shaka would win before I saw the show. I quickly changed my mind when I saw the sword that Wallace used to wield called the "claymore" - an 4.5 ft, steel sword! They did a test with the replica where they proved that he could have decapitated 3 people with one swing of the thing. I really wanted to believe Shaka could have won, but after that... Here is a video from the show:

More James White Analysis of William Lane Craig

Yesterday on his webcast, Dr. James White offered further analysis of William Lane Craig's attempt to harmonize libertarian free will of people with the sovereignty of God in matters of salvation. I can't harmonize them. You can seem to hold one or the other, but not both. You can hold on to complete human libertarian free will and reject scripture or you can embrace that God is in complete control and does whatever He desires to do and when HE decides to do it and follow scripture. The webcast is very helpful and should start a great deal of discussion. Here is the link.

New Atheism by Norman Geisler MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

I have found another gem on the Apologetic 315 blog. It's a lecture by Norman Geisler about the current forms Atheism that have cropped up. Please follow the link below for an audio and a video. I enjoyed the lecture. If you know little about other religions, this lecture will help you think about what you believe and why. Why are you following the religion you are following? This lecture will help you think about this.

Here is the video from YouTube





New Atheism by Norman Geisler MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Atheism is Dead: Atheism - The New (Emergent) Atheists, part 4 of 4

Here is the Fourth part of a great series from Atheism is Dead. It is brilliant! Check out my article on the same subject if you haven't seen it yet.

Atheism is Dead: Atheism - The New (Emergent) Atheists, part 4 of 4

Proposition 8 - Upheld

When I woke up this morning and I was reminded from a news report that the California Supreme Court would be ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 to day. The ruling came down about 10 AM, PST. I just read the results at the Huffington Post and SF Gate. Basically, the Court is going to let the Proposition stand as is. I was surprised. Considering that this was the same court that legalized Marriage between people of the same gender, I was surprised that they would go on and uphold the proposition that went against its earlier ruling because the majority of us Californians voted for it. I'm not going to get into the reason why I supported Prop 8 last year here because I argued in favor of it else where on this blog. What I do want to point out that this snuck up on me. I did not hear anyone talk about this event today or bring it up. I knew it was coming. I even heard that opponents of Proposition 8 are discussing whether to get their thoughts on the ballot either for the next general election in 2010 or the next Presidential election in 2012. Here is a quote from the final ruling made by the California Supreme Court today.

"Proposition 8 does not by any means "repeal" or "strip" gay individuals or same-sex couples of the very significant substantive protections afforded by the state equal protection clause either with regard to the fundamental rights of privacy and due process or in any other area, again with the sole exception of access to the designation of 'marriage' to describe their relationship."

So to summarize, Proposition 8 stands, but the Same-Sex Marriages that have already taken place in California wiull still stand.

Jesus: Legend, Teacher, Critic, or Son of God?

Dr. Robert Price and Dr. Greg Boyd debate on who Jesus is. I admit that Price was very articulate, but wrong. Price argued that Christianity worships a legendary Christ. Boyd argued for the Christian teachings of Jesus. Price tried to argue that the Jesus of Christianity is a product of legend. He tried to argue that there have been cases where people have become exalted and deified and augmented by legend while the person is still alive or within 20 to 30 years of their deaths. He used the example of a Jewish Messiah in 1660s, Sabatai Savi, who centuries ago was thought by many to be the messiah, but had eventually converted to Islam. He also used the example of Charles Mansion. Both men even had miracles ascribed to them. Price's idea is that Jesus' miracles are legendary. The problem is that unlike Jesus...no one thinks of these other guys as messianic. We can show and prove that they are not deity. After 2000 years, Jesus' claims and those that his followers made about him still stand. I wish Boyd had spent some time refuting Boyd on this point. But Boyd still did a great job. The debate is below.

Answering Monica Dennington

TurretinFan has done an excellent job refuting a person who has no idea what theologians do or what Calvinism is. He is referring to the video that I mentioned in an earlier post: Reasoning with William Lane Craig

Atheism is Dead: Atheism - The New (Emergent) Atheists, part 3 of 4

Here is the third part of a great series from Atheism is Dead. Check out my article on the same subject if you haven't seen it yet.

Atheism is Dead: Atheism - The New (Emergent) Atheists, part 3 of 4

Truthbomb Apologetics: An Apologetics Arsenal

Truthbomb Apologetics has a great post that summarizes and bookmarks a great deal of apologetic information. This is a great place to start for any religious questions.

Truthbomb Apologetics: An Apologetics Arsenal

The World Seem to Love It When Christians Fail

All Christians are people and we fail sometimes. This is why we have to put our complete trust in Jesus...He never fails. As you have probably heard that Father Alberto Cutie has been caught breaking his vows. Here is the link to an article.

Also those racy pictures of Carrie Prejean, Miss California, have turned up more dirt which enemies of anyone who confesses to be a Christian have been trying to use to destroy her. Four semi-nude pictures she posed for have come to light. It had been stated that she was 17 at the time, but now it's being reported that she had taken them last January after breast augmentation. Some people because of this think she should loose her crown because she broke the rules. Fine. But that does not mean that she is not a christian or that church people should condemn her. Here is the link to an article.

We need to hold up these people in prayer and not judge them. It could have been anyone else caught up in mistakes and poor decisions that we have made. We must never forget two very important facts: I am the worse sinner than I know. You are the worse sinner that you know.

Jesus' Resurrection: Gary Habermas and Antony Flew

I found another debate Anthony Flew (right) was in before he became a theist. He debated Dr. Gary Habermas (left) in 2003 at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. This was more of a discussion that a debate. It looked like as if Anthony Flew was given a chance to ask his own questions about Jesus' Resurrection and have them answered by Habermas. It's very informative.





Gary Habermas pointed out that the Resurrection is a more probable explanation of Jesus' post-crucifixion appearances than multiole groups of people sharing a vision of seeing Jesus because we don't have any examples of multiple people sharing the same vision.

Reasoning with William Lane Craig

I had the opportunity to listen to James White's webcast from Thursday, May 21, 2009. It was extremely interesting. I think James White summed up the contents of the webcast on his blog. I've pasted it below because I want to make sure readers read it.

We did a Radio Free Geneva today, starting with a few minutes reviewing an example of really bad argumentation (from Monica Dunnington) and then moving on to the serious stuff, that being the comments of William Lane Craig on the topic of man's freedom, Romans 9, Roman Catholicism, etc. Important documentation that "theology matters." Here's the program.
Now here is another gem from the wacky world of those suffering from Calvin Derangement Syndrome. A new book from a Southern Baptist deacon from Florida titled Calvin the Psychopath. Anyone want to take a wild guess as to how fair, and accurate, this scholarly work might be? If you are wondering, here are some whopper quotes from the author's website:

The written history of John Calvin dramatically reveals that he was a premeditated murderer, a heretic, a blasphemer, and a liar. He forced his beliefs by fear, punishment, terrorism, and had his own inquisition. He beheaded children and justified it with an extensive discussion of the Fifth Commandment. (Honor thy father and thy mother.) Calvins temper was described as the wild beast of his wrath. In my opinion Calvinism is a cult. Like all cults it has picked those things they want to believe and eliminated the others. By this they have created their own religion with the usual half-truths. They have reinterpreted the Scriptures in an unorthodox way, and used them in an orthodox way. It is a sinful spiritualizing exegesis.

Calvinists are increasingly coming out in the open. The president of one of our seminaries, who is a Calvinist, has been quoted in Time magazine recently and if true it is absolutely a lie. The seminary president as quoted said, The moment someone begins to define Gods (being or actions) Biblically, that person is drawn to conclusions that are traditionally classified as Calvinist. This statement is Biblically Illiterate! He says when one seeks God they find Calvinism! At the very least this is sacrilegious or gross irreverence. To me this is a dissent from Biblical dogma and is therefore heresy. We need to speak up and out against this man. He is dangerous to the minds of our young people.

Well, there you go! We all stand refuted once again! Truly, Calvin Derangement Syndrome is a sad thing to observe, it truly is.
We will continue with Radio Free Geneva next week!

I have found the presentation by Monica Dennington that White referenced. It's on YouTube just like he said.





The truth is that I think Dr. White's commentary on Dennington's words were way more charitable than they deserve. He laughed...but I think it was to keep from crying. I'm not even sure how to respond because her ideas are so...I almost want to say stupid but that's not right. "Ignorant" is better. As Dr. White points out she could not have obviously studied church history or listened to other viewpoints on what scripture says but instead holds on to her own traditions.

As far as Dr. White's comments on Dr William Lane Craig's presentation I found myself disappointed with Craig's presentation. He seems way more concerned to me about human dignity and free will than just admitting that God is sovereignly in control of all of reality. The truth is that if God did not supercede human will, no one would ever be saved. I really would like to hear more of Craig's presentation but I think I could find the first part. I think Jame White is correct he should debate William Lane Craig.

Atheism is Dead: Atheism - The New (Emergent) Atheists, part 2 of 4

Here is the second part of a great series from Atheism is Dead. Check out my article on the same subject.

Atheism is Dead: Atheism - The New (Emergent) Atheists, part 2 of 4

To Dick Cheney, No one likes a sore loser!

You can just hear the bitterness in this clip:

The Four Horsemen

I have found a series of videos on YouTube that have some of the largest named atheist in a round table discussion. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Samuel Harris, and Christopher Hitchens sit around and talk about Atheism and talking to Christians. Here is the video playlist:





I'm amazed by that they really seem to think that those who believe the Bible are deluded and arrogant. They would tell us that if there really is a divine, ultimate intelligence that we can't possibly know what that entity thinks or desires. They reject the Bible because they don't accept it as true. To talk to people with this mindset I can see how showing that the Bible could not come from men is a good tactic. The Bible is authoritative because it comes from God. From there then we have a platform on which to talk. It's alo an important point that they must use the Christian Worldview to argue against us. The very name they chose to refer themselves come from the Bible. I know some people think that it's just irony but let's take it up a notch. Which of the four horsemen does each man represent? This is my guess (just for fun - I mean if they want to be the four horsemen of the Apocalypse - "the unveiling" - this is what they are claiming for themselves; absolutely no offense is intended):


War - Christopher Hitchens because he is kind of belicose and angry against God. He doesn't want to be beholden to anyone but himself.


Pestilence - Richard Dawkins because he is a biologist and we can conncet it to studying germs and diseases.


Famine - Sam Harris because I think he represents "spiritual" famine. He searched the world and several religious experiences and came up with nothing.


Death - Daniel Dennet because if you equate religious experience with natural phenomenon there is no way you can get life out of your worldview. By its very nature, being regenerated and being tranformed fdrom being hostile to the things of God to a believer requires an act of God - outside of natural expectations and processes.



If you disagree with the parallels I've drawn feel free to suggest others in the comments.

Atheism is Dead: Atheism - The New (Emergent) Atheists, part 1 of 4

I was shocked to find the following post from my brother-in-Christ Mariano on the same topic I had planned to post on for tomorrow. We didn't set this up. His is a thoughtful series of articles on the so-called "New Atheists". I highly recommend his series. Feel free to check out my post on these same guys tomorrow.

Atheism is Dead: Atheism - The New (Emergent) Atheists, part 1 of 4

Open Letter to Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens, I've listened to several of your debates with Christian Theists. They have been quite....educational. I have to admit that I completely disagree with you but you are too intelligent to be just written off as a moron. I regret that many of your points against the Bible are important questions and never seem to be addressed in your debates. Most of your opponents offer good philosophical arguments but never address your points concerning the character of God and the reliability of the Bible. I hope that you will one day debate more people like Douglas Wilson (who did an awesome job debating you). I would suggest James White, Gary Habermas, or Ben Witherington. Along with Wilson, they can really challenge your views and give reasons why your conclusions are wrong.

You often issue the challenge of demonstrating a single moral act proscribed in religion that you can't come up with on your own. I'll take that bet. There are many examples but I will give you two:

For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. - Romans 12:3

But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. - Luke 6:35

I've been a Christian my whole life. I gave my life to Jesus as a child and while I agree that these verses are true and correct I have a problem with them. There is no way I would not have thought this up. It's completely opposite to my human nature and what I want to do. From what you have said, it's opposite from yours as well. You don't agree with this morality taught in the Bible teaches, without the power of God no one, espiecally me, could hope to live up to these verses. I'm still working on it.