Hasn’t happened to me yet, but the historical arguments for the resurrection of Jesus are in a similar realm of plausibility like that of reliable person making the claim today.
But that’s the thing that always got me with believing in Jesus based on historical arguments, it was always no better than believing what somebody else supposedly saw. And while they may be your best friend, who would give their life to that.
Yet, I wonder if there’s a lot of new scholarship out there that might make Lewis change his mind…and while he was brilliant at interpretation of Middle Age languages and cultures, I’m not confident he would be able to do that with NT or OT authors. He did write that he was comfortable with the Genesis account being based on myth and pagan interpretations, though the Scripture as a whole was of God. One aspect that worries me, though it’s not proof that he overstretched his scholarship, is the title of “Fern Seed and Elephants”–ferns have spores, not seeds. That’s not that important, but it bothers me, with my undergrad biology degree. Not that I have any background in ANE scholarship, at all.
Thanks.
[quote=“heymike3, post:41, topic:50729”]
Hasn’t happened to me yet, but the historical arguments for the resurrection of Jesus are in a similar realm of plausibility like that of reliable person making the claim today.
[/quote]*
I find the idea of a historical Jesus plausible, the philosophy of the Sermon on the Mount appealing, but the attributed miracles from Cana to the resurrection unconvincing.
I have difficulty with all miracles–but I’m curious if there is a specific reason why. Thanks.
(note: I’m a Christian, and do accept the miracles in general, but realize I’m being biased).
You’d need to be open to a different conception of atoms, IMO.
Through the eye of the needle… on second thought, I’d put it a notch higher than reliable eyewitness testimony, as the belief is also based on the fulfillment of OT prophecy.
For me there was. When I was a young kid, my mother would make and store enough strawberry jam (I’m British) to last us the year till the next summer glut. It was irresistibly delicious so my mother tried to instill the fear of God in me by saying “God will strike you dead if you raid any more jam”. I was more curious than afraid and almost disappointed when nothing happened when I sampled another jar.
Well, that is what I remember as my first step into scepticism.
ETA
Now the second law of thermodynamics and how the non-physical impinges on our physical realm is an issue. What happens at the interface?
That’s a super question… do you have any background in philosophy or NT scholarship?
Yes, thanks for jogging my memory too. The specific objection that Torley raises in his essay are Jesus’ statements regarding his divinity. How accurate are those specific quotes? That’s a little tougher question since there are sects like Christadelphians that deny the Trinity.
Is this Torley speaking or you? In any case, the preacher had the right idea, but poor execution and the wrong conclusion. All of the gospel authors follow the conventions of ancient historians. (That’s why scholars debated for a long time whether the gospel genre was history or bios, biography.) Greek and Roman historians considered eyewitness testimony as primary and only resorted to written sources when there were no living witnesses. That’s pretty much the reverse of modern methods, which recognize the limitations of eyewitness testimony, but it’s the reason the gospels frequently cite the names of witnesses to events. We can fault the evangelists’ historical accuracy by modern standards, but it’s pretty clear they were following the accepted standards and methods of their time. Is that “irrefutable proof” like the preacher claimed? Not even close.
Getting back to the accuracy of Jesus’ recorded statements, the question concerns something @glipsnort and I have discussed in the past. Do we have the ipsissima verba (exact words) or ipsissima vox (exact voice) of Jesus in the gospels? The latter makes the most sense.
Would it be possible to summarize all of these various sects as having a view of Jesus that sees him as a divine creature?
Thanks. To be fair, questions are easy. It’s answers that are hard.
No. I trained as a biochemist but not well enough to pursue a career in research. Very much a layman latecomer to philosophy via Dennett, Rorty and Epicurus. 
Ha! I was going to say welcome, but checked your profile and saw you have been here a lot longer than me.
Interesting background. Thanks for sharing. Something we have in common is I trained in philosophy (if an undergrad counts) but realized I wasn’t made for an academic career.
That was around 2005, and the new atheists were stirring up the conversation. My philosophy of religion professor was Paul Draper, who as a student and colleague of Alvin Plantinga put me right in the middle of it.
No. Christadelphians see Jesus as just a man. Unitarians see Jesus as a prophet (possibly divine) but not God, and Oneness Pentecostalism is another matter altogether.
My mistake, thought you were referring to an early sect
As an insider, I think I’m limited in my abilitiy to provide objections. This is nearly ALWAYS the problem of having other believers help evaluate an apologetic, well any defence of anything. We tend to want to be convinced of what we already believe.
Some questions that might help you evaluate these:
What underlying assumptions must I (as well as my conversation partner) rely on for this/these arguments to be true?
Are there higher-category concerns (For example, if you are arguing from a text, is the text reliable)?
Are there cultural differences within the text (Peter’s particular acceptance of the OT, Peter’s interpretation of the OT) that must be or cannot be dealt with in order to make the apologetic argument workable today?
There are surely more knowledgeable people who can help you with this, but if you are stuck working on your own, evaluating your argument requires to some degree that you step outside of yourself and play the role of the skeptic. Always recognize that there is some counter argument to your statement. Be brutal with yourself to find the truest counter arguments, the hardest ones to argue against.
How does this work with the self-evident work of the Spirit? Especially in the case, which was for me, the conviction of sin? Surely you can appreciate the dilemma this poses. Some people can relate, and some people don’t.
Do you recognize that this statement of yours does not necessarily have to be recognized. R.C. Sproul was correct that some statements, that while sayable, are unthinkable.
The rational possibility of solipsism is about as gut wrenching as it gets.
Hi everyone,
I’d like to thank @_Alan_Fox for drawing people’s attention to my article. I’m heartened to see that most contributors don’t attach much significance to the “Liar, Lunatic or Lord” argument, and that their faith does not rest upon such a fragile foundation.
Re the argument from prophecy: I’d be extremely wary of citing it, in this day and age. Readers might want to take a look at what Bart Ehrman has written on Isaiah 53, which is widely considered to be the clearest prophecy of Jesus’s suffering and death.
Re the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels: I think it’s fair to say that the Synoptics supply a consistent portrait, but opinions might reasonably differ as to whether John’s picture of Jesus agrees with theirs. The vocabulary and concepts appearing in John’s Gospel are strikingly different.
Finally, I think any decent argument for Christianity has to take into account what it wrought, which means closely examining the history of the Christian Church. In my opinion, it’s simply wrong-headed to focus on an isolated miraculous event in the life of Jesus (say, the Resurrection) and argue for its historicity, without regard to the subsequent development of the Jesus movement. Or as Jesus himself said, “By their fruits you shall know them.” In that connection, Bart Ehrman’s forthcoming book, which is tentatively titled, The Invention of Charity: How Christianity Transformed the Western World, sounds like a very interesting read. Without charity, apologetic arguments would have no suasive value. Cheers.
And then follow it up with what his friend Craig Keener has to say about it… and to follow it up again with the Keeners’ book Impossible Love 
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.