MAD Poster: DCP Delivers Talk that is not "Relevant"

[_Jersey Girl]

Didn't someone earlier in the thread say that one must prove resurrection is possible? If so, I don't think that Daniel's intention was to prove that resurrection is physiologically (is that a word?:-) possible, but that there are historical and cultural reasons to believe that the Gospel accounts of the resurrection are true.

I could throw out examples?

Nevermind. This tangent needs to stop before it produces a discussion.

[_harmony]

Didn't someone earlier in the thread say that one must prove resurrection is possible? If so, I don't think that Daniel's intention was to prove that resurrection is physiologically (is that a word?:-) possible, but that there are historical and cultural reasons to believe that the Gospel accounts of the resurrection are true.

I could throw out examples?

Nevermind. This tangent needs to stop before it produces a discussion.

How can historical and/or cultural reasons make something true that may not have happened to someone who, while he may have existed, may not be who himself or others claimed he was?

The method of execution isn't in doubt; the resurrection alway will be a matter of faith.

[_EAllusion]

He answered the question Scratch. Showing belief in the resurrection reasonable means to establish that one can be rational in thinking it. To compel is to imply that one cannot be rational unless one accepts it. He won't go that far. Apparently, he finds WLC's arguments "significant" which is pretty vauge and more worthy of complaint. I find them significant in the sense that they are influential in and quite representative of evangelical apologetics. I also find them ridiculous. One presumes DCP is complimenting WLC here, but it's hard to get an exact sense how so.

[_Jersey Girl]

Didn't someone earlier in the thread say that one must prove resurrection is possible? If so, I don't think that Daniel's intention was to prove that resurrection is physiologically (is that a word?:-) possible, but that there are historical and cultural reasons to believe that the Gospel accounts of the resurrection are true.

I could throw out examples?

Nevermind. This tangent needs to stop before it produces a discussion.

How can historical and/or cultural reasons make something true that may not have happened to someone who, while he may have existed, may not be who himself or others claimed he was?

The method of execution isn't in doubt; the resurrection alway will be a matter of faith.

Easy, harm. And I don't say that what follows is what Daniel addressed in his fireside.

If one bodily resurrection happened one time (and our bodily resurrections are yet to follow) there is no possible way we can conclusively prove the resurrection physically took place (the method of execution is not in dispute) except to demonstrate (not prove conclusively) the veracity of the scriptures via historical and cultural clues and cues.

Here is one small example, and I offer it with much fear and intrepidation for I do so at the risk that an actual discussion might break out on this board. No one wants that.

If the Gospel authors dummied up the Gospel stories, in this case the resurrection, they would want to validate the story of the empty tomb by having a male or males (who were more highly valued in the culture on a number of levels, not the least of which was being educated and therefore more authoritative) make the announcement and therefore culturally "authenticating" the witness. Instead, ignorant unschooled illiterate women are given that distinction.

[Guest]

Truly, DCP's material is only one small part of a much larger project. A project, that apparently has been the focus of much scheming and attention over the last few years. But as Mister Scratch observes, there isn't really a skeptics front against the church, not like there is with the "EVs". So what's the point of spending all this time, and eventually money, for material focused against skeptics?

Enter Phase 1.

Consider this new apologetic undertaking the apologists version of supporting prop 8. Prop 8, recall, is the church's way of trying to appear "Christian" to the political conservatives it seeks acceptence from. There is some evidence that it has worked to a degree. Certainly, as the apologists must be thinking, there must be some payoff to fighting the "common enemy". Just as all good Christians (including Mormons, nudge nudge) must band together to fight gay people, they must also band together to fight "secularism".

If the apologists can be on the forefront of the battle to prove Jesus was resurrected, they may very well gain a greater acceptance.

Phase 2

While phase 1 is interesting, the real genius, the deviousness, comes in phase 2. Oh, this is good. It's pure visionary madness, and if they can pull it off, I will be forever in awe of the wicked resourcefulness of the apologists. This is so clever that I'm almost as excited as the apologists are about it and I'm not even a part of it!

Once the apologists have built the bridge with their Christian neighbors, once they have these Christians eating resurrection proofs out their hands, the apologists will turn the tables. See, it won't just take "years" to make the eyewitness resurrection arguments they seek to make, but it will take years to carefully craft them along with the underlying evidential framework such that --- are you ready for this? Such that, once one accepts without reservation, the eyewitness resurrection argument, one has no choice but to accept the force of the Three Witnesses argument! Before the resurrection argument is published in its fully fleshed-out form, it will be scrutinized carefully to ensure that all the reasons which justify the resurrection from eyewitness accounts hold for justifying the account of those who claimed to have seen the plates!

The EVs will then be left in a situation where they have no choice but to either deny the resurrection argument and be ravaged by the atheist wolves, or convert to Mormonism.

No, this ultimately is not a campaign to take on secularism, this project is a carefully planned chess game where once and for all, the apologists hope to checkmate the EVs.

Truly, if they are successful, that day will be a watershed moment in apologetics.

[_Jersey Girl]

Once the apologists have built the bridge with their Christian neighbors, once they have these Christians eating resurrection proofs out their hands, the apologists will turn the tables.

You need to broaden your horizons, Gad. LDS "Christian neighbors" have already produced their own body of work regarding resurrection proofs. No need to eat anything out of anyone's hands, unless it's communion wafers, a practice which has been ongoing for generations of Christ believers.

[_harmony]

Instead, ignorant unschooled illiterate women are given that distinction.

Ignorant unschooled illerate women... all of whom had a connection to the deceased. All of whom had a vested interest in the story.

The witnesses weren't exactly unbiased or strangers.

[_Jersey Girl]

Instead, ignorant unschooled illiterate women are given that distinction.

Ignorant unschooled illerate women... all of whom had a connection to the deceased. All of whom had a vested interest in the story.

The witnesses weren't exactly unbiased or strangers.

Why would witnesses be unbiased or strangers? What interest would strangers have in visiting the grave of a crucified heretic? Would you visit the grave of someone you had no connection to?

What was their "vested interest" in the story?

(I'll continue this another time if interest moves me to do so, gotta go for the evening)

[_The Nehor]

The EVs will then be left in a situation where they have no choice but to either deny the resurrection argument and be ravaged by the atheist wolves, or convert to Mormonism.

LOL

It scares me a little that you might not be joking with this. Do you also think the Illuminati got Obama into office at the request of the Beta Centaurians...there's roughly the same amount of evidence to support this theory.

I want you to come back in a year or two and report on how well our campaign of mass-conversion is going......

Idiot.

[_Mary]

I've never spoken of "proving" the resurrection. But I do think I can show that its historical foundation is reasonably strong.

Interestingly, I was having a discussion with my son, who tends not to believe in life after death.
He then added that it would be great if there were life after death (which I thought was kind of nice, because he hasn't really been initiated into the...darker side of life after death from many a religious standpoint).

The strongest evidence that I could think of off hand for life after death was the possible resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. (and maybe some ideas within physics about the unknown nature of what and how we operate at the minute level, and of consciousness) For me, even if the Talpiot find was the ossuary of Jesus, it doesn't discount some kind of resurrection, just not the kind that became understood from the Bible.

I'm genuinely interested in the best evidence you have. I assume it would be witness evidence. My problem with my son, is that he is very grounded in the possible rather than the impossible, which actually got us talking about magic and miracle as science yet undiscovered..(the possiblity of the ark of the covenant acting as a battery for instance).

As I say, I would genuinely be interested in the best evidence you have.

Mary