CADRE Comments

My Approch to The Empty Tomb The article below is one page out of four in which I deal withe the archaeological evidence that the tomb is under the Chruch of Holy Seplechur. That first page is found: http://www.geocities.com/metacrock2000/Jesus_pages/Resurrection/Tomb_yes.html than follow the links at bottom of pages. Highlights: (1) Archeaological proof (2) Research of edicule proves site is that of consttantine (3) name "Galgotha" clung to site before Constantine and after (4) temple of venus found under the site, marker of ancinet Jewish Christian community Tomarrow I will post my second argument, the readings of the Diatesseron and pre Markan redaction ground written sources about tomb as early as AD 50.

Have Tomb, Will Argue "We may not be absolutely certain that the site of the Holy Sepulchre Church is the site of Jesus burial, but we certainly have no other site that can lay a claim nearly as weighty, and we really have no reason to reject the authenticity of the site." --Dan Bahat, former City Archaeologist of Jerusalem: Many regular posters on the Internet Infidles have published a book, The Empty Tomb . This book is aimed at disproving the historicity of the tomb. While others attack the articles in the book, I thought I would do my bit by bolstering the historicity of the tomb itself. After all, it doesn't matter how many speculative arguments skeptics might have, if the tomb itself really existed, their arugments are in vein. While we can't prove the tomb did exist, we can incrase the probability of its historicity sufficiently to off set any ground gained in speculative argument. My arguments are found on Doxa here: http://www.geocities.com/metacrock2000/Jesu...

Why I Do Not Find Authorship Compelling. I appreciate the efforts that Layman has put into defending the authorship of Luke. I also admire his approach and I think his arguments are sometimes almost brilliant. That being said, I don't want any misunderstanding because I'm actually going to the deny the need for establishing authorship. But I don't want my denial to be construed as lack of admiration on my part for the first rate apologetics of Layman..Nor do I want to convey the idea that I reject all the namesakes of the Gospels. I accept the Lukan authorship and find it very likely. I accept Markan authorship and find it likely (why name them after two such obscure guys anyway? If you wanted to make peudepigrapha the point is to name it after someone great and compelling, not obscure).My point here is that I don't think it's necessary that we prove that Acts was really written by the same Luke who accompanied Paul, or that Mark was written by John Mark the interpr...

Apologetic Reinforcements -- A New Apologetics Website A new website, entitled Answeringinfidels.com , has been launched. Love the name, and the content that I've seen. Its mission in the founders' own words: We're a new site and have 2 objectives: 1. to provide answers to articles published online by internet skeptics. 2. to address specific issues related to Islam. The site features first rate responses to many of the online skeptics we know and love, such as Acharya S, Richard Carrier, and Dan Barker. Glad to see it. (Thanks to Tektonics.org for the tip ).

Hitler was a Christian? While doing a little updating on the CADRE pages, I started thinking about the silly belief held by some that Adolph Hitler was a Christian. Now, if you have not been introduced to this idea before, please be assured that you have not missed out on a major movement in historical studies. I know of no serious historian (and certainly no serious theologian) who would seriously believe that Hitler was acting in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ in the annihilation of six million Jews. The very idea is so absurd as to be barely worth mentioning. Yet, there are places in his speeches where Hitler adopts the language or Christianity in order to sell his point to the Germans. Consider the following from "The Christianity of Hitler revealed in his speeches and proclamations" compiled by Jim Walker: Through subterfuge and concealment, many of today's Church leaders and faithful Christians have camouflaged the Christianity of Adolph Hitler and ...

Apologetics Advice from the Professional J.P. Holding of Tektonics.org offers two sets of advice for Christians interested in becoming apologists. The second set is for those thinking of making a ministry or profession out of apologetics. As such, it is likely to have a more limited audience. Still, Holding is one of the few to actually do this so if that is what you are interested in, I am sure it's good advice. The first set is more likely to appeal to a broader audience and offers some practical advice for those interested in getting down in the trenches with the internet skeptics. I agree with all six points, but think 1) "Be a master of a few trades and not a jack of all trades" and 3) "Don't worry about not having answers to everything -- and not having them right away" will really help you keep your santity and become truly effective in your chosen field. Check it out.

Paul’s Skills as an Orator: Evidence Against Lukan Authorship? Next up in our skeptic’s arguments against Lukan authorship is the supposed disagreement between Paul’s rhetorical skills as depicted in Acts and as decpited by Paul himself. According to our skeptic, “Paul is everywhere presented in Acts as an outstanding orator. He defended himself with eloquence in front of Tertullus (Acts 24:1-21). Through his mastery of public speaking, Paul was able to keep a tumultuous Jewish crowd silent for some time (Acts 21:40-22:21).” But when it comes to Acts, “the picture we get from Paul's own letters is the exact opposite! Paul himself recounted his opponents' critique of him: “For they say, ‘His letters are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive and his speech contemptible." 2 Cor. 10:10. Let us stop for a reality check. Our skeptic is presuming to judge the speaking skills of Paul – in the running for the most influential evangelist of all time –...

You Can Lead a Horse to Water: Miracles as Proof or Evidence for God and the Role of the Christian Apologist It is not unique to have a skeptic say words similar to those voiced by the dying Bertrand Russell who, when asked what he would say to God if after he died he found himself standing before the very God who he vociferously argued did not exist, said he would tell God in his own defense that God had not given him enough evidence. Skeptics say words to the effect of: "If God exists and wants all people to come to him, then why does he hide himself? If he is so great and so wonderful, why doesn't he just reveal himself openly so that we can all see and love him?" This is a really good question, and while I am not going to provide a complete answer here, I want to point out the comments of two great thinkers on the subject of miracles as evidence for God: Jesus and Fyodor Dostoyevsky. The words of Jesus from The Gospel of Luke , Chapter 16, Verses 19-31: Now there was ...

Book Review: Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God by Marilyn McCord Adams, Cornell University Press, 1999. Adams' book seeks to evaluate existing commentary on the problem of evil and construct a solution involving clearer understandings of what makes evil so horrible and calling on the unique resources of Christianity in the incarnation of God who suffers with us, and the defeat of evil by atonement. The author focuses on some useful topics: that the strongest form of the argument from evil is not that life has suffering or pain, but that there are horrendous evils, monstrosities on a massive scale, or horrors on a personal scale that threaten to ruin whether a person’s life as a whole has meaning or value. Too many debates start with atheists stating that any suffering at all argues against God. In order to defeat this, all that we Christians have to do is show that some sufferings are either beneficial or simply justifiable. Sin...

The Timing of Paul's First Post-Conversion Visit to Jerusalem: Evidence Against Lukean Authorship? Our skeptic continues his assault on the idea of Lukan authorship by claiming that there “is also a discrepancy in the actual timing of Paul's first visit to Jerusalem.” As an initial matter, it is erroneous to assume that someone who was a companion of Paul for portions of his ministry would have perfect knowledge about all of his ministry. Regarding Paul's conversion, ministry in Damascus and Arabia, and first trip to Jerusalem after his conversion, the author of Acts is clear that he was not a participant. Thus, even setting aside that he wrote with his own agenda, often times summarizing and generalizing, we cannot assume he had perfect knowledge of the rest of Paul's life. Here is how Paul describes the timing of the first post-conversion visit to Jerusalem: But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reve...