The Resurrection as Apology and as Doctrine
I take this opportunity to answer a comment by our loyal opponent Pixie
So like the resurrection. The over-arching point here is that you are trying to support a claim that is highly unlikely. It is far more likely that the disciples were mistaken about the resurrection, and the accounts we have today are based on guesswork and scripture for the crucifixion itself, followed by decades of embellishment.
I appreciate you see it differently, but you start from the assumption the resurrection happened, and filter everything through that. I do not. [1]
The thing that struck me the most about this comment is his assertion that I start with the assumption the resurrection happened. I have two responses for this. They will seem like contradictions but I think this points up the paradox of apologetic. On the one hand, my initial feeling was to respond: "of course I assume it happened because that assumption has made the biggest difference in my life.
But on the other hand, I went with the a…
So like the resurrection. The over-arching point here is that you are trying to support a claim that is highly unlikely. It is far more likely that the disciples were mistaken about the resurrection, and the accounts we have today are based on guesswork and scripture for the crucifixion itself, followed by decades of embellishment.
I appreciate you see it differently, but you start from the assumption the resurrection happened, and filter everything through that. I do not. [1]
The thing that struck me the most about this comment is his assertion that I start with the assumption the resurrection happened. I have two responses for this. They will seem like contradictions but I think this points up the paradox of apologetic. On the one hand, my initial feeling was to respond: "of course I assume it happened because that assumption has made the biggest difference in my life.
But on the other hand, I went with the a…
