tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post5773945044920061916..comments2024-01-25T00:50:10.679-05:00Comments on Thoughts from a Sandwich: Why Peter had to DieDagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-89881358209066491742010-06-11T20:57:32.174-04:002010-06-11T20:57:32.174-04:00lol awesomelol awesomeUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04677779596922652873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-89313793369915853612010-05-24T13:12:38.231-04:002010-05-24T13:12:38.231-04:00The George W. Bush example is quite telling of how...The George W. Bush example is quite telling of how easy it is to spread rumours and create urban legends.<br /><br />If we can't even verify claims from this decade, how can anyone be sure of claims dating 2000 years back?<br /><br />Even if there is a god, I doubt it that she expects us to believe such tales.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-60647967728437458242010-05-24T10:23:46.839-04:002010-05-24T10:23:46.839-04:00Reuben,
Good questions. First, I don’t recall he...Reuben,<br /><br />Good questions. First, I don’t recall hearing Dr. Craig say in debate that the disciples wouldn’t die for a lie. I do recall Dr. Habermas saying, “the Disciples were <i>willing</i> to die for their belief,” which—as you can see—is a much more broad historical claim and equally harder to dispute.<br /><br />(I might also note it is a clever rhetorical trick, in that Christians will probably hear “The Disciples wouldn’t die for a lie” and skeptics wouldn’t confront the statement’s historicity as it is too broad, thus getting the required response without exposing any possible counter-claim.)<br /><br />As for Dr. Craig’s claim that believing something despite one’s “predisposition to the contrary” makes it a historical fact…well…that’s just plain silly.<br /><br />Look at a recent example. How many people believed George W. Bush was a bumbling incompetent idiot? One would think such people would be “predisposed” that he couldn’t put together a plan to tie his shoelaces, let alone an intricate plot. But then some of these same people believe he planned, coordinated and executed an elaborate conspiracy to blow up the twin towers in order to attack Iraq.<br /><br />They believe he is capable of executing this plan despite being “predisposed to the contrary.” Does it make it true? Think of all the claims in history made, despite a person being “predisposed to the contrary.” People becoming believers in aliens. People converting to another religious belief. <br /><br />Simple because one changes one’s mind makes neither the original belief nor the subsequent one a historical fact.<br /><br />Secondly, I hear apologists like to claim the First Century Jews would never believe in an “individual resurrection” but fail to deal with Matt. 16:14, Mark 8:28, and Luke 9:19, where Peter claims people were saying Jesus was John the Baptist, or Jeremiah or Elijah or another prophet. If those verses are historically accurate (as most apologists would claim) then obviously the people DID believe individual resurrection was possible.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-46899490826660044852010-05-21T19:34:54.117-04:002010-05-21T19:34:54.117-04:00A very readable and interesting post. I recently r...A very readable and interesting post. I recently read your old '"Die for a Lie" Won't Fly' writeup and waded through some of the comments over at Debunking Christianity. I am wondering how far you think that this analysis would go towards weakening Bill Craig's fourth proposition in his (in)famous 4-fact argument for the resurrection. <br /><br />As you know, he states that "the original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary." Said predispositions typically include that Jesus had died, and stuff about Jewish beliefs regarding the Messaiah and the general resurrection. In my limited knowledge I do not recall him in debate additionally arguing that the disciples also died for their belief, though he has written that they did do so. If he hasn't, do you think that is because he recognizes the weakness of the argument, or thinks that it is irrelevant to his four-fact approach, or another reason?Reubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01807367297410846530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-61854809905331014002010-05-20T23:25:50.149-04:002010-05-20T23:25:50.149-04:00Cool! You're on Planet A!Cool! You're on Planet A!Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-45264494331036734962010-05-20T22:47:35.837-04:002010-05-20T22:47:35.837-04:00Wow! I learn so much reading your blog.Wow! I learn so much reading your blog.The Rambling Taoisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04730292897416827840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-20684158984824361952010-05-20T22:30:22.869-04:002010-05-20T22:30:22.869-04:00Excellently told! I had read the part about the re...Excellently told! I had read the part about the resurrected herring before, that and Tecla's seals I always thought were good parts of the stories. There are a few things in there which somewhat bring into question the historicity of the tales!atimetorendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563649474540441597noreply@blogger.com