One Christian Thought

I really don't like updating posts. Unless I just wrote it, my preference is to leave that piece of hard work alone and do stuff later. I wish to keep their original state and not add more, because not only did they take lots of effort, it would disguise what I did later and keep me telling what part of the post comes from effort put in on a different day.  My purposes for this segment of adding more to previously written content in One Christian Thought vary by each subject. One is to cross-examine arguments. That way, I can feel more confident that my conclusions are true. Also, I sometimes come across more material on the subject, which could be more evidence or something else, or forgot to put something down in a post, or need to clear up any mistakes if I find them (I've only reviewed a little bit so far).  Now, I must say there are times where I sit down and question what I remember from this blog, and the objections I come up with end up turning on their sides and rising

 Because my latest blog project spans well over 10 posts, with virtually all being quite long, I wish to try to remedy that. I will be updating my little three-page argument on the resurrection (still keeping it short of course) with some reflection on this argument.  The Introduction is just that. It can be ignored as long as you realize here that I'm using a list of facts so well-evidenced that many, even a majority, of skeptical scholars believe in them. Fact #1 , the Disciples falling away, is a vital point, but the argument could be overlooked if someone could accept the fact otherwise.  Fact #2 , Jesus's crucifixion, is of course necessary, but the main point that a crucified Messiah looks like God didn't bless Jesus could be gathered later. Fact #3, parts 1 and 2 , can be ignored totally, because the evidence for the empty tomb will validate His burial. Fact #4 is the empty tomb and a vital fact. Part 1 is the most straightforward to understand, I think. Perhaps r

Now would be appropriate to turn once again to the "parallels" Ehrman gave to the foundation of Christianity. I think specifically of when he said Muslims saw Mary sometimes -- people "who were not Christians, obviously." (1) Ehrman says a Christian claim that "mass hallucinations do not happen" is false. "...most people at the end of the day believe that mass hallucinations are not only possible, but that they really can happen," (2) illustrated by non-Catholic views towards reports of seeing Mary.   I find it satisfying that Craig once said "collective hallucinations do rarely occur," but it is "the diversity of all these different sorts of appearances that taxes the explanatory strength of the Hallucination Hypothesis." (3) Gary Habermas commonly cites Gary R. Collins, who gained a doctorate in psychology from Purdue University, and is an excellent scholar of psychology. He reported: "Hallucinations are individual occu

Here is a very long quote from How Jesus Became God . I want to share it with you to show something of a summary of how skeptical scholars, specifically here Bart Ehrman, can view Christian arguments pointed at the resurrection.  "...more than anyone else, thinkers among [dedicated Christian] groups are committed to 'objective truth'... But the reality is that modern Christian apologists stress the importance of objectivity and champion it more than anyone--much more than most other educated people in our world. University intellectuals almost never speak of 'objectivity' any more, unless they happen to live on the margins of intellectual life. "...This is a standard weapon in the apologetic arsenal: you can look at all the evidence for the resurrection, objectively, and conclude, on the basis of overwhelming proof, that God really did raise Jesus from the dead. No other explanation can account for the objectively established historical data--for example, that

James, despite being a blood brother to the Lord, is proven historically to have disbelieved and scorned Him. He is acknowledged in Mark 6:3 as having been the brother of Jesus, and in 3:21 it is reported that His family thought "He is out of His mind." Later, in verses 31-35, Jesus appears to have to disown the authority of His "mother and brothers." I don't know if Luke and Matthew report their unbelief, but they both are aware that Jesus had brothers (Matthew 13:55; Luke 8:20). However, John does explicitly bring up their lack of faith. This is important, because the story he tells, and the fact that John is strikingly different than Mark and the other synoptics (that's why his Gospel isn't one), shows this is independent attestation. Furthermore, in John 7:1-10, it is striking that James and his other brothers were implicitly claiming Jesus should go and get Himself killed!  And of course Jesus's own family not believing in Him is highly embarras

  Paul Often times when I read about someone trying to explain away what happened to Paul, they include a guilt complex. Paul was a severe persecutor of the church, and eventually he felt bad for being so nasty to people.  But this idea can annoy me because there is "absolutely no hint  in the epistles" that Paul felt guilty(1). While he does talk about persecuting the church (see fact #7), he never says anything of the sort, like maybe God started to vindicate him of his sin before Jesus truly turned Paul's life around. However, Gerd Ludemann apparently once argued that such is not true, because Romans 7:7-25 could be on the pre-conversion Paul. Two responses, one by Robert H. Gundry and the other by William Lane Craig, were quite thorough and scorching. (Although I suggest you read it for yourself, and see just how clear it is that Paul was speaking of his thoughts before converting.) "Paul's [re-Christian versus Christian experience is overwhelmingly rejected

  The Hallucination Theory:  That everyone who thought they saw Jesus actually just hallucinated can be theorized different ways. (The proposed events are often called "visions," by people like Ehrman and Ludemann, because they apparently want to be nice about it.) But the most annoying argument for this is when critics attempt to draw parallels between the evidence for the resurrection and other religions, with the indication that they cancel each other out. I said in the introduction post that Ehrman's bit on the resurrection was the most skeptical and potent argument I have ever dealt with. This isn't saying much, considering I don't even have an associates degree and read on my own time everything I know, but of course it's good that to consider powerful things unbelievers can claim. He talks about when hordes of Catholics claimed to have seen the virgin Mary. And multiple people reported having seen her at the same time. At one time, "Among the obser