Is the Ascension Story an Embellishment?

[Gary]

No, but I don't think one needs to read both books to understand the subject of the inner witness. It's a pretty simple concept. I've read Reasonable Faith and as well as Craig's blog and the passages Craig footnoted if they're available to me. I don't buy or borrow each book footnoted in a book on this or any subject typically. Some references show up on the web (where us would it be displayed but the web?)

Let's say I hadn't though. In terms of comprehending what these things are, what fundamental part am I misunderstanding about religious epistemelogical certitude and how it's arrived at?

The part about Dufrense was from a blog, I believe, although Plantinga used a more generic term rather than a character from a movie.

This crowd is VERY big on reading their books. If you don't read their books, you are an ignoramus. So prepare yourself for the backlash.

[Gary]

Maybe you should reread it then.

Does Paul ever say anywhere in his epistles that the original bones and flesh of the dead will be resurrected and reconstituted into a new, Spirit-vivified body? I don't know. I'm just asking.

[Adrift]

This crowd is VERY big on reading their books. If you don't read their books, you are an ignoramus. So prepare yourself for the backlash.

God forbid you'd actually have to invest time understanding the complicated views you're so anxious to debunk. I suppose that's the curse of the convenience of the Wikipedia age. If you can't summarize it in a few paragraphs, it's not worth reading. And besides, books are so heavy, and they take up so much room.

[Adrift]

Does Paul ever say anywhere in his epistles that the original bones and flesh of the dead will be resurrected and reconstituted into a new, Spirit-vivified body? I don't know. I'm just asking.

Did you or did you not read The Resurrection of the Son of God as you claimed to have done?

[Gary]

News alert: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia found dead.

[Gary]

did you or did you not read the resurrection of the son of god as you claimed to have done?

yes
i
did.

[Adrift]

yes
i
did.

Then you should already have the answer to your questions.

[whag]

Hmm.




What indeed?...

As far as I know, Craig is the only author to name the feeling "Holy Spirit epistemology." Robrecht never even heard of it, and he's theologically very well read, AFAIK.

I'd want to read a whole book about it and see what parts of it I've misapprehended. I think I have the only book to concisely explain what it entails. There's also lots of great videos and podcasts (Craig calls them resources) on RF and YouTube where Craig talks more about the subject, presumably to "teach" people interested in his views.

[whag]

This crowd is VERY big on reading their books. If you don't read their books, you are an ignoramus. So prepare yourself for the backlash.

You're only right in that it tends to be a useful tactic for wingnuts to accuse you of lack of study and scholarship. Kent Hovind would demand you read all his books before you fully understand the validity of YEC. But the inverse truth is that these are concepts simple enough for a Christian child or unread (or even uneducated) grandmother to understand. My having read RF is more than sufficient knowledge to judge the quality of Craig's concept of Holy Spirit epistemology. Heck, even Christians have done that. I've seen many Christians here who acknowledge the problems of it and don't hold to it.

[robrecht]

What do you think the Bible teaches?

Authors of the books of the Bible teach various things. For example, Qohelet expresses pessimistic doubts about whether there is an afterlife:

I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth? So I saw that there is nothing better than that all should enjoy their work, for that is their lot; who can bring them to see what will be after them?

Thus one should not be surprised that during the time of Jesus, the Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife. I think Jesus agreed with a different Jewish opinion at that time that believed in a time of purgatory for some. Origen is famous for not believing that God's love was infinite and would eventually accomplish the salvation of all. A popular opinion among Catholic theologians, even a few prominent Cardinals, is that it is orthodox to hope for the salvation of all. That is my own personal belief, but many here will surely denigrate this view as insufficiently litteralist.

[robrecht]

So, your argument is that Paul and the gospels were not at odds in regards to Jesus having a physical body that could be seen and handled, but just used different ways to describe it.

No, I have not presented any argument one way or the other. Surely Luke and John were of this opinion, Mark is silent on the topic, Matthew somewhat ambiguous. As I said above, Paul clearly believed in a very real incorruptible spiritual body, more real than our corruptible earthly bodies.

[robrecht]

Just curious. Do you believe that Paul believed that in the final Resurrection, the bones and decomposed flesh of the righteous dead will be reconstituted and resurrected into the clouds or just that a spiritual "body", similar in form/outward appearance to their previous earthly body, will rise up out of their graves?

I don't think we can say for sure. The seed analogy implies an element of continuity, whereas the clothed in a new body metaphor implies a note in favor of discontinuity. Paul is content to speak of this in terms of these metaphors and I see no reason to try and substitute some other idea in place of these metaphors. It seems like Paul is very slightly revising possibly contemporary Jewish metaphors attributed in the Talmud to Rabbi Eliezer, both of whom being in the tradition of the Pharisees.

[seanD]

No, I have not presented any argument one way or the other. Surely Luke and John were of this opinion, Mark is silent on the topic, Matthew somewhat ambiguous. As I said above, Paul clearly believed in a very real incorruptible spiritual body, more real than our corruptible earthly bodies.

Matthew was clear when the women grabbed onto his feet, and the word denotes they literally clung to him at his feet, so all three gospel authors were in agreement. Yes, Paul's body is miraculously transformed; no one disagrees. Since you keep denying that your argument is that Paul and gospel writers had different perceptions of the resurrected body -- a body that could be seen and handled -- then it's a moot point (though that isn't the initial impression I got from post #144).

[robrecht]

There are no viable belief options to orthodox/traditional Christianity. It is certainly viable (reasonable and rational) to be a Christian in the sense that you follow the humanistic and pacifist teachings of Jesus the man. But there are no reasonable and rational belief options regarding Jesus Christ the offspring of the copulation (allegedly in some non-sexual, non-physical manner) between a divine ghost and a human virgin; the reanimated-from-the-dead man/god, who currently rules the universe from somewhere in outer space (or in another dimension, if you are really avant garde.)

Dear Christian friends: Imagine if the Mayans still followed their ancient religion and believed the following: Although they do not perform any human sacrifices today, they honor and justify the human sacrifices done in the past as necessary, good, and holy. These sacrificed humans appeased the anger of God, giving the Mayan people the forgiveness of their evil doings against God. In other words, the shed blood of the tens of thousands of people who were sacrificed on Mayan alters for hundreds/thousands of years prior to the arrival of the Spanish atoned for the sins of the Mayan people.

How beautiful, right?

"What??" you say. "That is sick and barbaric!"

But dear Christians, have you ever stepped back and examined the underlying principles of your own (primitive) belief system? The Christian belief system can be boiled down to this:

"The Creator God was furious that humans ate his forbidden fruit. He cursed them to hard labor, sickness, suffering, and death. However, to redeem humans from his righteous fury for forbidden-fruit-eating, he sent himself, in the form of his Son, to be killed in a human sacrifice, so that his shed blood would atone for the sins of the entire people, thus appeasing the anger of...himself."

That is absurd, folks! That is crazier and more nonsensical than the beliefs of the Maya!

And imagine if educated Mayans came up with all sorts of philosophical and varied theological constructs for this core belief. What if there is an orthodox verison, a reformed version, and an evangelical version. Wouldn't you listen to these educated people chatter away about which version of this human sacrifice based belief system is correct and think to yourself: These people are certifiably NUTS!

That is how we former Christians/now agnostics or atheists see YOU.

It is madness, folks. Sheer madness. You can dress Christianity up with all kinds of fancy philosophical constructs, but bottom line: It is a belief system based on human sacrifice!

I don't have time to go into detail, but you might be interested in looking into the more ancient moral influence theory of atonement. Many modern interpreters of Paul read him as supporting this idea, which has none of the negative implications that you are criticizing here.

[robrecht]

Matthew was clear when the women grabbed onto his feet, and the word denotes they literally clung to him at his feet, so all three gospel authors were in agreement. Yes, Paul's body is miraculously transformed; no one disagrees. Since you keep denying that your argument is that Paul and gospel writers had different perceptions of the resurrected body -- a body that could be seen and handled -- then it's a moot point (though that isn't the initial impression I got from post #144).

But Matthew also says that some of the eleven doubted on the mountain in Galilee, which is why I consider him to be somewhat ambiguous on this issue. What you quoted and bolded from me in your post #143 was not speaking of differing interpretations among the writers of the New Testament, but in many other contexts.