Wicca is an evil, demonic power thirsty faith.

[Adrift]

Adrift;
I believe that there is historical evidence to completely corroberrate Christ's existence. And I do not dispute that he rose from the dead. But neither am I particularly interested in ressurrection proof at this point. Its something merely that I take on faith 1) because I know Jesus, 2) I agree with the eyewitness testimony as stated in Scripture, and the following writings of the early church Fathers, but again, its not something I'm interesting or have particularly set out to prove and slam in someone's face as this is true you have to believe it, etc. but I'm not really an apologetics/evangelical person. Its more this is what I believe this is what I'll teach my child to believe, and because of it I'll act/live a certain way, and if you have questions you can ask me about it.

That's fair, and I don't think its something to slam in anyone's face either. I also believe that the resurrection can't be "proved" by showing someone the minimal facts, however the minimal facts (historian Gary Habermas counts at least 12 minimal facts that even most critical scholars agree on) do require an explanation, and it seems that the resurrection appears to be the best explanation for those facts (assuming that the supernatural is possible). This isn't the only reason that people accept Christ though, which seems to me both a working of the Holy Spirit and the human intellect.

Just out of curiosity, when you say that you take the resurrection on "faith", would you mind defining what you consider Biblical "faith"? I've found that different people (including Christians) put different emphasis, or have a different definition for that word. I personally understand it to mean something like trust or confidence in God based on his promises and past performance, but what Biblical faith isn't is blind or "belief not based on proof".

[Scrawly]

Thank-you Adrift for providing some of the reasons why those facts are generally accepted, even by critical scholars. I wasn't trying to slam this in Durths' face, but rather, I presented those minimal facts in order to demonstrate that there is historical evidence for the resurrection. I believe that the resurrection hypothesis is quickly dismissed, not on historical grounds, but rather on philosophical grounds, namely, that God does not exist or He does not or cannot intervene in history.

Thanks again!

[Catholicity]

I also believe that the resurrection can't be "proved" by showing someone the minimal facts, however the minimal facts (historian Gary Habermas counts at least 12 minimal facts that even most critical scholars agree on)

Forgive me, I am extremely unfamiliar with Habermas that is until I googled his name. As far as the definition of the word "scholar" I would disagree in that he has a bias in that he is an evangelical Christian. That aside, I agree with this statement of yours

This isn't the only reason that people accept Christ though, which seems to me both a working of the Holy Spirit and the human intellect.

The ressurrection, well documented through eyewitness testimony and written down through the Apostles (St, Paul being the only one who did not apparently "know Jesus personally") But had an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus after his assumption writes this: "If Christ was not risen from the dead, then our Faith is in vain." Biblical faith as I understand it is essentially: Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. 2 For by this the ancients obtained a testimony. Hebrews 11: 1-2, This is Biblically the definition of Faith. Today we cannot see the ressurrection, but we have our reasoning, we have eyewitness accounts left behind, and we can study the scriptures, asking that Jesus open our eyes so that we may know the Truth. And it is by Him and through Him and only through Him that we are able to have this Faith. It is a gift which comes from of course the Holy Spirit (Now of these three things remain Faith (which just defined) Hope and Love...etc.) Naturally the use of intellect comes when we have the eyewitness accounts of the ressurrection. How I reason these to be true is this formula. In Hebraic culture, by law you had to have two witnesses to prove an event. We have more than two witnesses which collaberate the empty tomb and the risen Christ. (They recognized Him in the breaking of the bread and according to St Luke spent 40 days with Him and watched his ascension. St Luke was a disciple if my memory serves me well.) This is more than adequate to serve the Hebraic law of witnesses to collaberate an event. My mind is satisfied that the ressurrection was an actual occurence. The only other choice is that All involved were crazy and it was a mass hallucination. The latter is less likely and my moneyis on the first By historical account, Jesus existed and was crucified (thankfully the Romans were great record keepers.) Rarely one finds a rogue scholar who denies the existence of Jesus, but its more common to find an historian who attempts to disprove the ressurrection.

I personally understand it to mean something like trust or confidence in God based on his promises and past performance, but what Biblical faith isn't is blind or "belief not based on proof".

Well there are many that have come to know God based on reason and intellect. But at a certain point, Faith does take over. My Faith is not based on total blind acceptance of everything handed to me (if it was I'd still be a fundamentalist) rather it is and still remains based and founded firmly in what I like to call a long time intellectual quest for who God is in my life, where does he fit? Is God even real, and how do I find Him not on an emotional level (emotions left me in the dust) but on a logical level

[Bill the Cat]

Colossians 4:5-6

1 Cor 4:13

[headheart]

1 Cor 4:13

Romans 12:14-21

Finis.

[Adrift]

Forgive me, I am extremely unfamiliar with Habermas that is until I googled his name.

Sort of unusual in that he's not an unfamiliar name on this forum, but maybe he's just more well known in the Apologetics 301 sub-forum, which I don't think you post in that often.

As far as the definition of the word "scholar" I would disagree in that he has a bias in that he is an evangelical Christian.

Being an evangelical Christian doesn't make one any less a scholar. Here are his qualifications,

Ph.D., History and Philosophy of Religion, Michigan State University (1976)
M.A., Philosophical Theology, University of Detroit (1973)
B.R.E., Christian Education, Bible, Social Sciences; William Tyndale College (1972)

Distinguished Research Professor; Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School; Chair, Department of Philosophy and Theology, Liberty University; current appointment: teaching in PhD program, Liberty University, 1981-Present.
Chairman of Philosophy Department, Associate Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy of Religion, William Tyndale College, 1979-1981.

He has a number of peer reviewed papers, and has published over 36 books. So he certainly has the credentials and meets the requirements of an academic scholar, evangelical Christian or no. Concerning his Minimal Facts thesis,

Studying relevant historical, philosophical, and religious questions, Habermas proposed an historical study of Jesus’ resurrection (what else?) for his Ph.D. dissertation. The topic was approved by his committee, but he was told specifically that he could not use the New Testament as evidence, unless the individual passages could be affirmed by ordinary critical standards, apart from faith. During his doctoral study, Habermas developed what he now terms the "minimal facts" approach to the resurrection. According to this method, the chief (if not the only) historical data that could be utilized were those that passed two critical tests: 1) each datum had to be multiply attested by normal critical means, preferably from more than one angle. 2) The vast majority of critical scholars had to concede the probability of this historical fact.

In addition to the data itself, this meant conducting a long, arduous study of most of the critical publications on the subject of the resurrection, in order to ascertain the scholarly "lay of the land." Habermas concluded that the resurrection could be known according to probability as a normal historical fact. To this day, he marks the conclusion of his study as giving him the conviction that the resurrection had occurred in history and could be evidenced as such. His dissertation was accepted by his committee and he began to pursue a college teaching position.

Dr. Habermas probably has the best understanding of the scholarly consensus on the question of the Resurrection than any other scholar in Academia (that I know of). In 2005 he wrote a peer reviewed paper that took him 5 years of research on over 1400 scholarly publications dating between 1975 to 2005 and which included a range of scholars (critical, moderate, and conservative) from America, England, France, and Germany.

Again though, I don't think Habermas' research is set to prove the resurrection so much as to show that the resurrection is the most likely explanation for the data.

That aside, I agree with this statement of yours

The ressurrection, well documented through eyewitness testimony and written down through the Apostles

If you're referring to the Gospels, I believe only two of the authors are considered Apostles (Matthew and John), though we have the Epistles of Peter which I believe most scholars think were written by his disciples or a Petrine school with different authors or scribes for each book (see Richard Bauckham on this).

(St, Paul being the only one who did not apparently "know Jesus personally")

Though he apparently knew his brother James, which is considered great incidental evidence for the historicity of Jesus (though RC's don't believe that Jesus had brothers I suppose).

But had an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus after his assumption writes this: "If Christ was not risen from the dead, then our Faith is in vain."

Biblical faith as I understand it is essentially: Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. 2 For by this the ancients obtained a testimony. Hebrews 11: 1-2, This is Biblically the definition of Faith. Today we cannot see the ressurrection, but we have our reasoning, we have eyewitness accounts left behind, and we can study the scriptures, asking that Jesus open our eyes so that we may know the Truth.

Crossway's ESV Commentary (my quick and dirty "go to" for commentaries) has a great break down on this passage that I think condenses both our thoughts on the subject maybe,

Crossway's ESV Commentary

Heb. 11:1 assurance. Greek hypostasis, also translated “confidence” (3:14). hoped for. On hope, see 3:6; 6:11, 18; 7:19; 10:23. conviction of things not seen. By defining faith (Gk. pistis) as “assurance” and “conviction,” the author indicates that biblical faith is not a vague hope grounded in imaginary, wishful thinking. Instead, faith is a settled confidence that something in the future—something that is not yet seen but has been promised by God—will actually come to pass because God will bring it about. Thus biblical faith is not blind trust in the face of contrary evidence, not an unknowable “leap in the dark”; rather, biblical faith is a confident trust in the eternal God who is all-powerful, infinitely wise, eternally trustworthy—the God who has revealed himself in his word and in the person of Jesus Christ, whose promises have proven true from generation to generation, and who will “never leave nor forsake” his own (13:5). Such faith in the unseen realities of God is emphasized throughout ch. 11 (e.g., 11:7, 8; cf. v. 3) and has provided confidence and assurance to all who receive Christ as their Lord and Savior.

© source where applicable

And it is by Him and through Him and only through Him that we are able to have this Faith. It is a gift which comes from of course the Holy Spirit

I think maybe the spiritual gift of faith is something different from the more ordinary type of Biblical faith as described in Hebrews 11:1, but maybe that's best left for another sort of thread.

(Now of these three things remain Faith (which just defined) Hope and Love...etc.) Naturally the use of intellect comes when we have the eyewitness accounts of the ressurrection. How I reason these to be true is this formula. In Hebraic culture, by law you had to have two witnesses to prove an event. We have more than two witnesses which collaberate the empty tomb and the risen Christ. (They recognized Him in the breaking of the bread and according to St Luke spent 40 days with Him and watched his ascension. St Luke was a disciple if my memory serves me well.) This is more than adequate to serve the Hebraic law of witnesses to collaberate an event. My mind is satisfied that the ressurrection was an actual occurence. The only other choice is that All involved were crazy and it was a mass hallucination. The latter is less likely and my moneyis on the first By historical account, Jesus existed and was crucified (thankfully the Romans were great record keepers.)

Luke was Greek, and a disciple and companion of Paul, but other than that, fair enough.

Rarely one finds a rogue scholar who denies the existence of Jesus, but its more common to find an historian who attempts to disprove the ressurrection.

I think most historians are less interested in disproving the resurrection than they are simply documenting history which means the most critical scholars just talk around the resurrection event and/or base their conclusions concerning the minimal facts on anything within the naturalistic realm that they can grasp on to. I'm reminded of scholars like "Bishop" John Shelby Spong, who denies that the resurrection was an historical event, yet cannot deny that the disciples experienced something tremendous and transformative, and (if I remember correctly) concludes that the story of the resurrection was simply the result of inner catharsis and relief from guilt for abandoning Jesus at the cross.

Well there are many that have come to know God based on reason and intellect. But at a certain point, Faith does take over.

Agreed.

My Faith is not based on total blind acceptance of everything handed to me (if it was I'd still be a fundamentalist) rather it is and still remains based and founded firmly in what I like to call a long time intellectual quest for who God is in my life, where does he fit? Is God even real, and how do I find Him not on an emotional level (emotions left me in the dust) but on a logical level

I think emotions are fine. God created us with emotions, so he must have known that we'd use them. I just think that we need to keep them in balance, and not let them over rule our minds and the leading of the Spirit, but overall, yes, I agree with you.

[headheart]

No, not really.

Blessed Be, Dur

Okay, now that the cloud of unknowing has passed over. Let me try that again:

Hi Durthorin,

You wrote, "You see the only actual reports are essentially biblical," and quoted the following, 'Jesus was born somewhere in Galilee in the time of the Emperor Augustus, of a humble family, which included half a dozen or more children besides himself.". He adds elsewhere "there is no reason to suppose he was not executed"
Are you aware that this is a very light version?

Peace,
Eric

[Bill the Cat]

Romans 12:14-21

Finis.

I meant to say 1 Cor 11:14

[headheart]

I meant to say 1 Cor 11:14

Gary S. Paxton - Will There Be Hippies In Heaven [I Sure Hope So, I'd Like To Go]

Hey yeah.

Peace,
Eric

[Durthorin]

Okay, now that the cloud of unknowing has passed over. Let me try that again:

Hi Durthorin,

You wrote, "You see the only actual reports are essentially biblical," and quoted the following, 'Jesus was born somewhere in Galilee in the time of the Emperor Augustus, of a humble family, which included half a dozen or more children besides himself.". He adds elsewhere "there is no reason to suppose he was not executed"
Are you aware that this is a very light version?

Peace,
Eric

Actually its the factual version without special pleadings which the minimal facts approach sort of requires. While it is "light" I believe it makes the point of the sparse data. None which validates the resurrection.

Blessed Be, Dur

[headheart]

Actually its the factual version without special pleadings which the minimal facts approach sort of requires. While it is "light" I believe it makes the point of the sparse data. None which validates the resurrection.

Blessed Be, Dur

Hi Durthorin,
Thanks for replying.

Looking back at your quote I noticed that you have copied it word for word from Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia. Am I to conclude from this that either you have not yet read/perhaps have once read "Jesus" by C. Guignebert, translated by S. H. Hooke (University of London), University Books, New York, 1956, p132 long ago and are thus either relying exclusively upon this source for your information or have made a careful and balanced evaluation of a wide cross-section of information in this regard?

If so would be willing to disclose which books you have read in this regard and what conclusions you came to as a result?

Peace,
Eric.

[headheart]

My dear Wiccan friends.

I have been and am researching Wicca and after posting this post to this forum, I think my disgust for certain Christian fundamentalists just reached and all time high: Is Wicca is an evil, demonic power thirsty faith. = No, I'd say that the Christians on this forum need to look to themselves before casting any more of their gall stones.

If there was ever a reason not to be a Christian I would say that this is it. I am shocked and disgusted that such a thing is still happening in our time.

Peace,
Eric

[MaxVel]

You're very weird, Eric.

I can't see anything so objectionable in this thread that Adrift posted for you to react the way you have in Apologetics. You come across as the one with anger and hostility issues, bro.

[Sparko]

My dear Wiccan friends.

I have been and am researching Wicca and after posting this post to this forum, I think my disgust for certain Christian fundamentalists just reached and all time high: Is Wicca is an evil, demonic power thirsty faith. = No, I'd say that the Christians on this forum need to look to themselves before casting any more of their gall stones.

If there was ever a reason not to be a Christian I would say that this is it. I am shocked and disgusted that such a thing is still happening in our time.

Peace,
Eric

Burn the witch!!!

[Bill the Cat]

If there was ever a reason not to be a Christian I would say that this is it. I am shocked and disgusted that such a thing is still happening in our time.

Peace,
Eric

What does the debatable behavior of a small group of people have to do with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection? Anyone who becomes/remains a Christian because of anything other than Christ is a fool.