Jesus: True Prophet or False Prophet? – Part 3

I am arguing that it is not possible for Christian apologists to make a solid rational case for the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead (GRJ).  My argument is based on the controversial claim that Jesus was a false prophet (JFP):1. Jesus claimed to be a prophet.2. Jesus was not a prophet.3. IF a person P claimed to be a prophet but was not a prophet, THEN person P was a false prophet.Therefore:4. Jesus was a false prophet.5. IF a person P was a false prophet, TH … [Read more...]

Jesus: True Prophet or False Prophet? – Part 2

There are three main areas of evidence required to build a rational case for the resurrection of Jesus, for the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead (GRJ):I. General Background EvidenceII. Prior Historical EvidenceIII. Posterior Historical Evidence  A key claim that Christian apologists need to support in relation to Prior Historical Evidence is that Jesus was a true prophet (JTP).  But the evidence we have, on the assumption that the Gospels provide historically reliable a … [Read more...]

Jesus: True Prophet or False Prophet? – Part 1

In his book The Resurrection of God Incarnate, Richard Swinburne argues that the case for the resurrection of Jesus must include three major components:I. General Background Evidence - evidence for and against the existence of God, and evidence about whether and why God would be likely to perform a miracle, especially raising someone from the dead.II. Prior Historical Evidence - evidence for or against claims that Jesus had certain characteristics, characteristics which based on the p … [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 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...]

The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 1

In thinking about the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus, one needs to either determine an answer to this very basic question:Q1: Does God exist?Or else one needs to determine some sort of approach to how this question is to be dealt with in relation to the two key questions about the resurrection:Q2: Did Jesus rise from the dead?andQ3: Did God raise Jesus from the dead?If one determines that there is no God, then the answer to (Q3) is obviously: NO.  Also, i … [Read more...]

What is Faith – Part 6

I have noticed a problem of unclarity in my own thinking and writing about the Thomist view of faith.  Before I go further in discussing Swinburne's characterization of the Thomist view of faith, I want to briefly consider the point of unclarity or ambiguity in my previous discussion of this view of faith. I have been sliding too easily over the distinction between possibility and necessity concerning the role of reasons and arguments in the Thomist view of faith.Aquinas believes that it is … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X