The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 6

In Part 4 of this series, we saw that Theodore Drange interpreted Christian theologian Charles Hodge to be arguing as follows ("Why Resurrect Jesus?" in The Empty Tomb, p. 56) : (2a) (JRD) is a sufficient condition for (JSG). Therefore: (1a) (JRD) is a necessary condition for (JSG). ============ Abbreviations: (JRD) Jesus rose from the dead. (JSG) Jesus is the divine Son of God. ============  In terms of symbolic logic, the argument is this: (2b) (JRD)    (JSG). Therefore: (1b)  (JSG … [Read more...]

What is Faith? – Part 9

Here are some key points from the first section (Relation of Faith to Reason) of Geisler's article "Faith and Reason" (Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 239; hereafter: BECA):The contents of faith "are above reason." and so must be revealed to humans by God. Faith "involves will (freedom) and reason doesn't coerce the will". Some theological truths "have been proved demonstratively" and can be based on reason, such as the existence of God.If we take the second point in … [Read more...]

The Logic of the Resurrection – Index

 The Logic of the Resurrection - Part 1Different assumptions about the existence of God have different implications concerning the resurrection.The Logic of the Resurrection - Part 2As Richard Swinburne has pointed out, a complete case for the resurrection must be a three-legged stool, resting upon general background evidence, prior historical evidence, and posterior historical evidence.The Logic of the Resurrection - Part 3The logic of the resurrection apologetic is … [Read more...]

The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 5

Before I continue to examine Theodore Drange's excellent article "Why Resurrect Jesus?" (The Empty Tomb, p. 55-67), I want to reinforce a key point: an important but neglected aspect of the case for the resurrection of Jesus is what Swinburne calls General Background Evidence, specifically reasons and evidence related to God's alleged purposes.I would ammend the title of Drange's article slightly to: "Why would God Resurrect Someone?"  Unless and until a plausible and defensible argument can … [Read more...]

The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 4

General Background Evidence

One of the neglected aspects of the case for the resurrection of Jesus is what Swinburne calls General Background Evidence.  I have summarize this part of the case this way:        (GTE) The God of traditional theism exists.(GPR) God, if God exists, has purposes P1, P2, etc. that are relevant to whether God would be likely to raise someone from the dead.(GLR) God would be likely to raise someone from the dead … [Read more...]

The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 3

Logic of Resurrection Apologetic

The logic of the resurrection apologetic goes roughly like this: NOTE: This does not represent Swinburne's case for the resurrection.  It is a rough representation of a case for the resurrection that follows the general logic laid out by Swinburne (constituting a three-legged stool).==============KEY TO DIAGRAM(DOC) Jesus died on the cross on the same day he was crucified.(JAW) Jesus was alive and walking around (unassisted) about 48 hours after he was … [Read more...]

The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 2

Case for Resurrection

The two most important writings on the resurrection of Jesus are, IMHO, Richard Swinburne's book The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003; hereafter: ROGI), especially the Introduction (pages 1-6), and Theodore Drange's short article "Why Resurrect Jesus?" in the collection of skeptical essays The Empty Tomb, edited by Robert Price and our fearless leader Jeff Lowder (Prometheus Books, 2005; hereafter: TET).   [Please feel free to disagree, and/or to offer your own … [Read more...]

What is Faith? – Part 7

I'm going to take a detour and temporarily set Mr. Swinburne's characterization of the Thomist view of faith aside.  But I will continue to examine the Thomist view of faith, specifically as presented by Dr. Norman Geisler.As Jeff Lowder has recently shown, Dr. Geisler's case for Christianity is a failure.  IMHO Jeff won that match with a K.O. of Geisler in the very first round: Let’s suppose, but only for the sake of argument, that the following evidence favors theism over atheism, i.e. … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X