The simplest Christian can know that the resurrection of Jesus is an historical fact by the testimony of the Holy Spirit in his heart.
–Apologist William Lane Craig in his book, The Son Rises
Yes, dear Readers, subjective feelings and perceptions are the real reason why most Christians believe in the resurrected Jesus. They are absolutely certain that their warm, comforting feelings and perceptions about this ancient tale are evidence of the presence of a spirit (ghost) living inside their bodies. Apologetic historical arguments are used to provide a cover of respectability for the educated, secular world. However, the non-eyewitness authorship of the Gospels [a position held by most Bible scholars, including most Catholic Bible scholars who believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus] strips this sliver of respectability from conservative Christianity and reveals the naked truth:
Christian belief is based primarily on subjective feelings, perceptions, and personal experiences, not on historical evidence.
End of post.
This Christian apology/argument has always given me a good chuckle Gary. 😄
Why? Because if all humans used the same equitable consensus standard of reliable, cumulative, independent, verifiable evidence for paranormal or metaphysical activity, then I can just as easily claim that through identical “faith” and “evidence” I believe Sasquatch is my Lord and Savior and I can prove it and utilize equal apologetics for its realism!
Or I can go with the Croglin Grange Vampire, or Brigid the Celtic Divine Goddess, or Baba Yaga of Slavic Witch lore!
In other words, if enduring ancient or historical traditions and/or orthodoxy are the primary measuring sticks along with emotional draw/drama (the Placebo-effect within human Mob-Herd performances), then Christianity honestly has some VERY SERIOUS competition of Lords, power, Spirits, and authority!
Great stuff Gary! 🙂
LikeLike
Craig’s quote should be hauled out every single time a Christian opens their mouth.
And just as importantly, it should be thrown back at Craig as the opening line of every debate he participates in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, Paul in 1 Cor 15 was not being serious when he argued for the reality of the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the testimony of eye-witnesses (himself being one of them)?
LikeLike
I think Paul was very serious. I also think Paul was mentally unstable. Any person who believes he may or may not have taken an intergalactic space voyage to a “third heaven”, where he was privy to secret communications between celestial beings, is not dealing with a full deck.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Gary, I don’t think ‘intergalactic space voyage’ is the best way to understand what Paul said about the third heaven. But you are not the first person to think Paul mad. Festus (Acts 20:24) thought Paul mad when he spoke of Christ’s resurrection. Paul’s reply was that he (Paul) was not mad, but spoke words of truth and reason, for ‘this thing was not done in a corner’. So my original point was that there were multiple eye witnesses to Jesus being dead, buried and then alive again.
LikeLike
Hi, “Don’t”: Would you kindly provide ONE uncontested eyewitness statement of anyone claiming to have seen and touched the literal walking, talking, back-from-the-dead Jesus?
LikeLike
Uncontested — you have to be kidding. The religious leaders who had killed Jesus were given direct testimony from the soldiers who were tasked with guarding his tomb. Instead of changing their minds about Jesus, they paid the soldiers to tell a lie to cover up the reality of his resurrection. What the new testament gives you are eyewitness accounts from people who were willing to died simply because of they insisted that they had seen and touched the resurrected Jesus. Many of them were executed because they kept telling what they had seen. Many people have died because someone had lied to them. People do not die to maintain a lie of their own making.
LikeLike
I’m sure that is your sincere belief. However, the majority of experts do not believe that any of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or the associates of eyewitnesses. Therefore, the eyewitness status of the Gospels is “contested”.
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/majority-of-scholars-agree-the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/
LikeLike
And the majority is always right? Trying doing your own investigation of the source materials (the New Testament). Two utter skeptics did this in the 18th century, with interesting results:
https://archive.org/details/observationsonco05lytt/page/n4
https://archive.org/details/observationsonhi00west/page/n8
LikeLike
I trust expert consensus opinion on all issues about which I am not an expert. That is what most educated people do (except when it comes to their religion). You are a non-expert believing that your “research” supersedes the years of research of hundreds of experts. You are subscribing to the mentality of a conspiracy theorist: A conspiracy theorist believes that he knows more than anyone else on the face of the earth.
That is not rational thinking.
LikeLike
So you would have supported the Catholic Church (which relied upon Ptolemy and Aristotle) against Galileo who did his own research and believed the Bible?
LikeLike