FWIW, I think, ‘I believe what I believe because I believe it’, is the most honest and compelling argument a theist can make in the face of overwhelming lack of evidence. I don’t think any god worth his weight would be fooled by some cynical ploy to stay in his good graces. That said, your view is hardly the mainstream Christian view, is it?
Which would explain why so many fundamentalists adore our current president.
Really? I view their support of the current president as a ‘Trump’s Wager’, i.e. They support him in hopes of achieving objectives they really want in this world.
I have to ask, though, if you throw out the whole “redemption” narrative, what is really left of Christianity? We can piss on fundamentalists, but at least there’s some internal logic to their behavior. If you don’t believe any of it is literally true, what’s the point? It not as though there’s any profound moral philosophy in the Bible.
I think it’s there, but it isn’t unique to Christianity. If it conflicts with “love the neighbor” and “treat others as you want to be treated” I toss it. I could care less what anyone thinks about the existence of nonexistence of any deity. I realize that my religious views often satisfy neither believers nor nonbelievers. To the believers, I say “what are you gonna do if heaven is full of people you spent your life believing were damned?”. To the nonbelievers, I say " see you in hell. I’ll try to sneak in some ice water for us. "
It was not a regular event. This had not occurred previously. Not only did the prophesy come true, it shows God’s fore-knowledge of the future event of Ceasar’s decree.
Again: since you seem big on documentation, is there documentation of this odd event getting decreed in had-not-occurred-previously fashion at said time?
Not mainstream, but not as uncommon as you might think.
…
I was referring to the book “The Case for Easter,” by Lee Strobel (Zondervan c. 1998, 2003). Lee Strobel was an atheist reporter for the Chicago Tribune, whose wife became a Christian. He decided to investigate the claims in order to disprove them. He started with the resurrection. He focused on 3 questions (1) Was Jesus really dead (at the time he was entombed)? (2) Was his tomb empty on the 1st Easter morning? (3)Did credible people encounter him after his death? His investigation changed him from a cynic to a Christian.
That is not the only Biblical passage referring to witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection. Glad to see you are seeking for the truth, though.
The Apostle John was a eyewitness, and wrote about it in his Gospel.
Of course, he was biased.
There is a lot of argument about the birth of Jesus, but isnt that a bit of a sidetrack here? (Everything can be explained, but let’s not get into that, eh? Next Christmas is the tradition time)
There are quite a few historical references to Jesus.Sources for the historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia
I want to point out that that is really a LOT. We have almost nothing to show that Socrates really lived, except by the works of his followers, such as Plato. Same with Pythagoras and Lycurgus.
Not to mention Sun Tzu and several others.
I’ll stop short of calling him a liar and just say he takes certain ‘liberties’ in his [del]writing[/del] witnessing.
Is Christianity the last word on god/faith?
Strobel is not without his critics, even among Christians. Check out the article "The Case For (and Problem With) “The Case For Christ” in America magazine (The Jesuit Review). I’m not trying to convince you to abandon your faith. However, I daresay many more people have lost their faith in seminary than have found it after reading Christian apologetics. Proof texting is unlikely to convince anyone who isn’t already inclined to believe.
The “You should listen to me because I was a former atheist/Satanist/liberal/whatever!” is a common claim, usually by those who shown themselves to be woefully ignorant of their supposed former beliefs. Strobel was a former reporter who may or may not have been an atheist-this “fact” doesn’t seem to have any support in his writings prior his claim of conversion. I’ve read a couple of his books, and he has a tendency to take at face value just about any Christian claim put forth. He may have been a reporter at one time, but I can see why he switched professions because he certainly isn’t a competent reporter now.
I cannot find a non-Christian reference to this “registration” (instead of a “tax”), but here is one that refers to a Roman event that appears to have some historical basis:
*…such an enrollment had been determined on by Augustus, when at Tarracon in Spain, twenty seven years before; but he was diverted from it by some disturbances in the empire, so that it was deferred to this time, in which there was a remarkable interposition of divine providence."
*Luke 2:1 Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census should be taken of the whole empire.
*"The great classical archaeologist Sir William Ramsay, said that Luke was a “first rate historian…” *So, why not accept his writing as historical? Also, *“Luke’s gospel is just the first part of a two-volume set in which Acts is the second. Colin Hemer’s massive study, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History details at least 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of Acts that have been confirmed by either historical or archeological research.” Was There Really A Census During the Time of Caesar Augustus?
Can we save the Birth Of Jesus for next Christmas, and focus on the OP, which is the Resurrection?
I’m no historian; are you? Failing that, is there a tiebreaker around?
Lee Strobel is a crusading zealot who fraudulently uses fake pseudo-science to allegedly “prove” the unerrant literal correctness of the Bible. His “investigations” are so fraught with error in order to reach his predetermined conclusions that they are worthless. He even denies biological evolution, and has zero scientific understanding of the Big Bang, which he insists “proves” Biblical Genesis to be literally correct.
The many fantasies he declares “proven” about the historical Jesus could not possibly be known, and in fact the best that serious academics have been able to piece together about the real historical Jesus suggest that he probably wasn’t even a religious figure, but a political revolutionary seeking to liberate Judeau from Roman domination. The religious angle was likely some combination of political pragmatism and a tremendous amount of later embellishment. Not everyone agrees, but Strobel is certainly a crackpot and a fraud.