tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21240341.post5847147257580460443..comments2023-07-07T09:29:33.910-04:00Comments on YoSteve: Intermission: Cards on the tableAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11660964184560606566noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21240341.post-7127274132753676272010-02-18T08:32:57.737-05:002010-02-18T08:32:57.737-05:00I'll bet that's the guy I was talking abou...I'll bet that's the guy I was talking about. To me, it is all of a piece. If we credit the New Testament, we have to credit the Resurrection, and for the same reasons. Was Montgomery a professor? I'm going to try to find that lecture today.<br /><br />One of the things that impressed me about this guy's lecture on the New Testament was that it is not just the case that the New Testament is pretty well documented or about as good as anything else. The way he explained it, nothing else even comes close. So there. History really does center on Christ. It is, literally, his-story. Thus, it is not a matter of education making us doubt the faith of our fathers, rather, honest scholarship should produce just the opposite result.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11557709710087510900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21240341.post-39611156054609554502010-02-17T22:00:33.579-05:002010-02-17T22:00:33.579-05:00I used this quote in a talk a few years ago:
“To ...I used this quote in a talk a few years ago:<br /><br />“To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.”<br />History and Christianity, John Warwick Montgomery<br /><br />I wonder if he said something similar about the Resurrection?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11660964184560606566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21240341.post-13380619165538800312010-02-17T21:54:00.425-05:002010-02-17T21:54:00.425-05:00:)
That's the ball game, isn't it? It'...:)<br />That's the ball game, isn't it? It's the Resurrection or nothing. Buy the Resurrection and Paul is not the founder but an expositor. Dismiss the Resurrection and Paul, by his own admission (ICor 15), is full of baloney. It is encouraging that you are right on the beam with those popular authors who make the historical case for the Resurrection quite well. But, there is another guy who really opened my eyes on the subject. I think he was a Cambridge prof. He argues that if we dismiss the Resurrection (as an historical event) we must dismiss all of ancient history because the proof and the record for the resurrection is far better than the proof for any other ancient event. (We know the names and addresses of 15 eyewitnesses to the Resurrection - try that for any other ancient event) That is, the proof of the resurrection is of better recency, quality and greater magnitude than the proof for, say, the battle of Thermopylae. If I kind find that guy's name (I really ought to remember it) I'll post it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11557709710087510900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21240341.post-40812523470948847052010-02-16T19:08:14.311-05:002010-02-16T19:08:14.311-05:00The resurrection, according to this crowd, was eit...The resurrection, according to this crowd, was either:<br />a myth<br />a spiritual event<br />a misunderstood metaphor<br /><br />They don't know Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel or Frank Morison.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11660964184560606566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21240341.post-74447597521812835862010-02-14T14:37:10.282-05:002010-02-14T14:37:10.282-05:00So, there are people around who claim that Paul st...So, there are people around who claim that Paul started Christianity? What do they say about the resurrection?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11557709710087510900noreply@blogger.com