Know It's True - Latest Comments

Re: Original Sin and Theistic Evolution

truecreation_dot_info — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 00:28:41 -0000

Very nicely written. Thank you for a good summary of the arguments.

Re: Argument from Ridicule

Brian — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 12:02:25 -0000

Yes the evidence we have for the resurrection comes from Christian authors "some time" after the facts. Since these weren't prophecies they, had to come after the facts. This is because they were reporting what happened in the past. If you want to dispute that the authors wrote these documents too long after the facts that they wouldn't have been able to remember what happened, I would dispute that, but I'm not sure if that is the point you were making.

Yes they were Christian authors. Why is this a bad thing? Does the fact that they were Christians mean that they lied? In the case of Paul you have an enemy of the Christian faith who converted to Christianity AFTER seeing the evidence, not before. Are you saying he is lying too? What about James? Someone who was reported to be an unbeliever by two authors (Mark and John), reported to have seen the risen Christ by another author (Paul), they reported to be the leader of the church in Jerusalem by another author (Luke), then reported to willingly go to his death for the belief that Jesus rose from the dead by another author (Josephus). Are you saying that all these authors collaborated?

As for extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence (I'll leave aside for the moment the fact that I disagree with that statement), consider this: What is the probability that...

1. Jesus' tomb would be found empty,
2. A variety of people would report having seen Jesus alive after his death 3. These people would believe that Jesus rose from the dead despite it contradicting their expectations of their Messiah
4. These people would willingly go to their deaths for this claim without recanting
5. The Christian faith would grow practically over night despite external and internal opposition

...if Jesus did NOT rise from the dead? It seems to me that that is very extraordinary. I've numbered these propositions so that you can easily let me know which of these, if any, you deny.

Thank you for engaging with the topic and leaving the ridicule aside.

Re: Argument from Ridicule

dan73 — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 11:32:32 -0000

//stories invloving mindless, reanimatied corpses with rotting flesh that groan incoherently while searching for living people to eat their brains. This is not an accurate description of what Jesus was//

Well, we don't have any reliably accurate descriptions of what Jesus was. We only have the claims made by the Christian authors of the Gospels, quite a time after his death.

But, you're right, the zombie - as mindless, brain-eating corpse - does not match the Gospel accounts of Jesus. However, the zombie - as reanimated dead person - exactly matches the story of Jesus.

There is also a match, in the sense that neither stories are believable and neither are supported by credible evidence.

//the word "magic" reminds us of wizards and fairies who hold wands that they use to cast spells on people leaving patterns of sparks in their wake. Again, not an accurate description of Jesus//

Really? Acts such as reanimating the dead, coming back to life yourself, changing water into wine, and walking on water, should not be considered magic? I beg to disagree.

//Anyone who thinks that this is an accurate description is simply expressing that they have an anti-supernatural a priori belief. In other words, the story of Jesus becomes absurd the minute he performs his first miracle//

I'm not anti-supernatural (though you seem to be pro-supernatural). I'm anti-believing-things-without-credible-supporting-evidence. And the more outlandish a claim is, the more evidence is needed to prove it. As they say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

So, for instance, if someone says that a man called Jesus existed, i'd have an easier time believing that than is someone said that he's risen from the dead. This is not because i have some kind of bias. It is because i have evidence that human beings exist, and did exist in Judea. Therefore, it is not difficult to believe that Jesus might have existed.

But, on the other hand, if you talk about a man coming back from the dead, where is the evidence to say that this has EVER happened, in the history of the world? Not only are there no records of it, it goes against modern medical scientific understanding.

Yes, as soon as someone starts to talk about magic, and can't support their stories with evidence, it becomes absurd. Not absurd that it could have happened, but absurd for believing something so unlikely, with no compelling supporting evidence.

If you heard a story about anyone else, but Jesus, walking on water, raising the dead, etc, you would require evidence before you believed it. Are you saying that you wouldn't? And, even if you saw it with your bare eyes, or heard hundreds of witness reports, you'd probably guess that it was just some kind of illusion, like David Copperfield or David Blaine stunt.

//When you are ready to engage with the topic and suspend your a priori belief//

I am engaging in the topic. I'm just not agreeing with you, and i require more evidence than you seem to require. Don't mistake people having being unwilling to believe things without proof, as not engaging. I'm ENGAGING. I'm just not BELIEVING.

//you'll see that there is plenty of historical evidence to support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead//

There is none. We have the Gospels, and that's it. What Roman source of the time, even mentions it?

Re: Argument from Ridicule

Brian — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 10:40:31 -0000

The word "zombie" is a word that aligns itself with fictional stories invloving mindless, reanimatied corpses with rotting flesh that groan incoherently while searching for living people to eat their brains. This is not an accurate description of what Jesus was. To say it was is to not fairly engage with the subject.

Likewise, the word "magic" reminds us of wizards and fairies who hold wands that they use to cast spells on people leaving patterns of sparks in their wake. Again, not an accurate description of Jesus.

Anyone who thinks that this is an accurate description is simply expressing that they have an anti-supernatural a priori belief. In other words, the story of Jesus becomes absurd the minute he performs his first miracle. If that is the approach you take, then we are two ships passing in the night. When you are ready to engage with the topic and suspend your a priori belief, you'll see that there is plenty of historical evidence to support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

Re: Argument from Ridicule

dan73 — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 06:59:26 -0000

The so-called "reductio ad ridiculum" definitions are actually very accurate. Using terms such as, "zombie" and "magical", are merely calling things as they are, without the religious language normally used to make these ideas seem sane and acceptable.

You are very wrong, when you claim that, "when you don’t color the story with words like “zombie” or “magical” the story doesn’t seem ridiculous at all". It still seems extremely ridiculous, because it is exactly the same story. The use of "ridiculum" words, merely cuts through the bs to describe things as they really are. They don't change the story itself.

By contrast, expressions such as "triune God", are attempts to use language to make the ridiculous sound credible and intellectual. This is the same kind of tactic used by the makers of the GT200 "remote substance detector" ( http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-en... ). They used fancy words, bluff, and smoke-and-mirrors, to sell a useless bomb and drug detector to guilible consumers. They may well have argued that it was "reductio ad ridiculum", and a, "caricature", to describe the GT200 as, "a little plastic box, with a bit of metal sticking out", but that's essentially what it was. The "caricature" description is actually much more accurate than the official version. And so it is with Christianity.

Re: Francis Chan on Baptism

Brian — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 10:47:38 -0000

You're going to need to be more specific. The new covenant didn't come into effect until after the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. So the only time I could imagine Jesus "announcing the new covenant," as you say, is at Mark 16:15-18 and Matthew 28:18-20 both of which mention baptism as a necessary component of the salvation process.

Re: Francis Chan on Baptism

jim hogan — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 10:38:24 -0000

Didn't he say that after he announced the arrival of the new covenant?

Re: Francis Chan on Baptism

Brian — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:17:12 -0000

Jesus did when He said, "Today you will be with me in Paradise."

Re: Francis Chan on Baptism

jim hogan — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:14:40 -0000

So what then, under the old covenant, saved him?

Re: Francis Chan on Baptism

Brian — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:23:02 -0000

The Thief on the Cross is irrelevant to the necessity of baptism. The thief died under the old covenant. He didn't need to be baptized any more than David, Abraham or Eve.

Re: Francis Chan on Baptism

jim hogan — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:17:57 -0000

So the question is, is the physical act of water baptism necessary for that pledge, to "enter into the ark" that is Christ? Or is this something that can and does happen sans the act of water baptism?

One way to look at it is "Was the repentant thief on the cross to Jesus' side saved?"... he certainly didn't get off the cross and, like the Ethiopian eunuch, say "Look, there's water, why shouldn't I be baptized?". He physically died upon that cross. Was he saved? If he was, then entering into life in Christ is not dependent upon water baptism, even if water baptism is the mechanism many are afforded.

Re: Francis Chan on Baptism

Brian — Fri, 16 Aug 2013 19:55:56 -0000

The majority of that article basically makes the case that Mark 16:16 is a textual variant and therefore we should not take it as authoritative. I'm fine with that. Mark 16:16 is not needed to make the case that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Re: Francis Chan on Baptism

Brian — Fri, 16 Aug 2013 19:49:32 -0000

So you quote Romans 10:9. If you read just a few verses later (verse 13) you'll see that "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Romans 10:13. If you look at Acts 22:16 you will see precisely WHEN we call on the name of the Lord.

I am personally unimpressed with Matt Slick. Don't just post a link to his article. Do the work yourself. Make an argument and I'll respond to it.

Re: Francis Chan on Baptism

Yom — Fri, 16 Aug 2013 19:24:37 -0000

What about this, there is so many things to consider. Jesus is the true light and if we confess with out mouth, believe in our heart, we are saved and if Jesus comes before we can get baptized, then we goin' wit him, right? http://carm.org/baptism-and...

Re: Craig Branch on Baptism

Adrian Urias — Sat, 03 Aug 2013 23:02:21 -0000

"Several groups teach baptismal salvation. Among them are Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God, United Pentecostals, and many Churches of Christ."

LOL, where are the Catholics here? Or is that not a fight he wants to pick? Silly.

Re: Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection

Brian — Thu, 01 Aug 2013 13:06:53 -0000

This is facsinating. I've been studying the historicity of the Resurrection for several years now and this is the first time I've heard this argument. I would be interested in hearing the rest of the minimal facts that, when taken cumalitively, server to disprove the resurrection. You seem to be very familiar with the evidence which makes me wonder why you said some things here that are patently false. I suspect that you are anticipating my response. I feel that you are laying a trap for me but I'm not exactly sure how. This could get interesting. :)

You say that by the time the disciples began to preach the Resurrection, there was no body to be found. This is false. Matthew 28 speaks of a mountain top appearance in Galilee where the disciples knew that Jesus would appear to them there (Matthew 28:16). The passage says that "some doubted" (v.17). This suggests that the Apostles preached the resurrection after they witnessed the risen Jesus the first time and persuaded the people to come with them to the mountain top in Galilee to see him. It wasn't the Apostles who were doubting, but rather the people who they brought. It is possible, that this mountain top appearance was the same group appearance that Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 15:6. In both cases (or the same case if this is describing one event) you have people witnessing the risen Lord as part of the preaching of the Resurrection.

You say that it would not be possible to display the body of Jesus to disprove the Resurrection. Again, not true. Remember that the claim was that the acesnsion happened 40 days after the Resurrection. It was during that forty days that the Apostles preached the Resurrection and had group appearances to prove it like the aforementioned Galillean mountain top appearance. Also, Paul specifically says that Jesus appeared to His brother James (1 Corinthians 15:7), a man who, during the life time of Jesus was a skeptic (Matthew 13:55, John 7:5, Mark:3:21). He then went on to lead the church in Jerusalem and eventually was martyred for this faith. No amount of verbal preaching would be enough to convince James that his brother had risen from the dead given his prior skepticism. He would have had to see it for himself.

Also lets not forget Paul, who saw the risen Jesus resulting in his conversion from being an enemy to being a missionary for the Christian faith.

Besides, the fact that there was no body to be found (other than the appearances) actually counts in favor of the Resurrection. All one needs to ask is how did the body go missing?

Did the disciples steal it and lie about the Resurrection? Seems unlikely because most of them went to their deaths for this lie.

Did the Jewish leaders move the body after it was placed in the tomb? Seems unlikely because then they would have had it to disprove the resurrection.

Did the body get eaten by wild dogs? Seems unlikely since it was in a tomb.

Did the women go to the wrong tomb? Seems unlikely since they saw where he was buried. (Luke 23:55)

In order for something to qualify as a minimal fact, it needs to be agreed upon by both sides. Neither I, nor I believe most Christians would agree with the fact you have presented.

Re: Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection

thom waters — Thu, 01 Aug 2013 11:51:51 -0000

Brian,
I would be glad to give you an example, but, first, an explanation.
The only truly appropriate counter response to the Habermas historical argument is an equally historical counter argument. It does no good, or so it seems to me, to argue against the Habermas case using simply philosophical or theological arguments. That has been tried, has been found to be lacking in effectiveness, and misses the point.
Some time ago I wondered if there were any "minimal facts" that might mitigate against the Habermas approach that argued on behalf of the hypothesis. I even wondered if Habermas himself has approached the claim in this manner, and what, if anything, he might have discovered. I even allowed for the possibility that so concerned was he in "proving" or establishing his already arrived at position, that he might not have inclined himself to such research and study. The proposition: Can a person from using only the documents available to us reasonably conclude on a historical basis that the Resurrection of Jesus most likely did not happen as conventionally believed? Hence my research and study.
The historical argument that I have arrived at, similar to the Habermas approach, involves the collection of several "minimal facts" that serve as a counter historical argument. No one fact by itself comprises the argument. I will give you one "fact" within the argument.
Fact 1 (not necessarily the first fact of the argument): By the time that some of the disciples began to preach the Resurrection of Jesus that we find in Acts there was no body of any kind to be found, either of the living, risen Jesus to further promote the claim, or of a dead Jesus to disprove it.
I have often heard apologists say that all anyone needed to do to discredit the Resurrection claim was to produce the dead body of Jesus and the movement would have died there. That could not be done. At the same time to further promote the claim a simple display of the living, risen Jesus was all that was required. That, likewise, could not be done. And what was and is the Christian explanation for the disappearance of the living Jesus? Why, another miracle where the body was simply taken up into the clouds where Jesus now sits at the right hand of God. And how do we know this? We know this because Peter tells us. Could this have happened? Certainly if God could raise Jesus from the dead, he could have certainly whisked him up to heaven in this manner. However, without any substantial historical proof for this claim, we are asked to simply believe it. What we find is a piling on of miracles to which "believe" is the response. It is, if you will, a rather convenient disappearance of this miraculously raised man from the dead. It seems rather convenient, also, that no one begins this Resurrection story or preaching until after this disappearance. It serves to throw at least some suspicion upon the story.
Anyway, you asked for an example. There you have it in a most condensed form. A "minimal fact" not presented by Habermas.

Re: Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection

Brian — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:17:55 -0000

Interesting. Do you have any examples?

Re: Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection

thom waters — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:39:06 -0000

Brain,
An apparent weakness and bias to the Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection
appears to be the suggestion that the only "minimal facts" available to us are those that argue on behalf of the proposition that one Jesus was raised from the dead. However, upon careful review of the documents, this is not the case. There are several "minimal facts" , both well-evidenced and accepted by all scholars, which when considered as a body of evidence can be used to argue on historical grounds against the hypothesis. Habermas intentionally gives the impression that the only "minimal facts" available give support to the hypothesis.
thanks

Re: Faith, by Definition…

Brian — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:46:26 -0000

While I am not a fideist and agree with you that it is an inadequate epistemology, I must disagree with your definition. Fideism does not require your brain telling you that it is insane. It is simply believing in something without evidence.

Leaders may have wrongly used religion in the past to control people, but that is irrelevant to the truth value of the religion. If you're interested in debating the truth of Christianity let me know.

Re: Faith, by Definition…

you know its false — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:33:16 -0000

i like how you screen what people can say here,very one sided,but that is how religion works ,right.

Re: Faith, by Definition…

you know its false — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:29:58 -0000

Fideism,how i know it,to believe in something,somebody else told
you,even though your brain says its insane and you still believe
them.This is why i cant see religion as real.Religion is the worlds
biggest chinese whisper, started by people who dont know anything about
the real world and used by leaders of countries to control the masses.

Re: Richard Dawkins vs William Lane Craig

BludBaut — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 03:13:39 -0000

"I think you know fully well that you are quoting Dr. Craig out of context here."

You expected something more from liars?

Dawkins is afraid of Craig because he knows Craig will shame him publicly.

Re: You Are What You Eat – Alpha Test

Brian — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:20:58 -0000

One of the levels is actually predicated on the fact that even coming close to the spike will kill you. I could change this and enable precise collisions and change that level accordingly. On the other hand the game karoshi works the same way. In that game just touching the side of the spike will kill you.

http://www.karoshigame.com

Re: You Are What You Eat – Alpha Test

Brian — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:17:50 -0000

Yes I am aware of this bug, it is connected to the same bug where when you collide with the ground the wrong way you die. I'll let you know when I have it fixed.