Question For The Christians

[centauri]

You are changing the argument. The question is whether a Jew will go to hell for being a Jew. So, let's start with Paul's letter to the Romans (chapter 2:

 

[/size][/font]6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.

Here we see that God judges people for the hardness of their hearts and for not even living up the the standard by which we judge others. To obey unrighteousness is to rebel against God and his righteousness and for that people who are unrepentant will experience God's wrath and fury. However, God shows no partiality in his judgment and he doesn't judge people for being Jews, Greeks, Muslims, Catholics or Protestants. He judges people according to their sin of rebellion.

Unbelief in Jesus is rebellion and unbelief is sin.

Paul’s musings don’t change what the Gospel of John says.

Paul is advocating salvation by works, which is ironic because elsewhere he denies it as a vehicle for salvation.

The Jew that denies Jesus as his savior commits a primary sin according to John.

Willful unbelief is a primary sin that results in damnation.

[Phanta]

Also, lets not forget Overcame Faith's example of the Amazonian native who lived and died without knowledge of Jesus. Since the Christian message spread out from Israel in the early years of the 1st Century A.D., what of those uncounted billions who died before being able to make the necessary decision LNC says is required for salvation? You know. Everyone in Europe, Africa, Asia, the Americas and Australasia. Don't they get a shot at this? If (as I've speculated earlier) God writes the requirements of his Law on the hearts of the Gentiles, just as Paul says in Romans, of what use is that when it comes to salvation? Paul is quite clear that the Law does not bring salvation, only condemnation. So, even if the Amazonian did listen to these requirements, he's still doomed. Firstly, because he couldn't live up to the required standard (nobody except Jesus can) and secondly, even if he could, doing so would not bring him salvation. The only way to salvation is thru Jesus, remember?

 

I'm a little confused...I thought the Jesus route of salvation is because no one is capable of living up to the standards. If we could live up to the standards, we would have salvation...but it is not possible for humans (except Jesus).

 

No?

 

Phanta

[bornagainathiest]

Also, lets not forget Overcame Faith's example of the Amazonian native who lived and died without knowledge of Jesus. Since the Christian message spread out from Israel in the early years of the 1st Century A.D., what of those uncounted billions who died before being able to make the necessary decision LNC says is required for salvation? You know. Everyone in Europe, Africa, Asia, the Americas and Australasia. Don't they get a shot at this? If (as I've speculated earlier) God writes the requirements of his Law on the hearts of the Gentiles, just as Paul says in Romans, of what use is that when it comes to salvation? Paul is quite clear that the Law does not bring salvation, only condemnation. So, even if the Amazonian did listen to these requirements, he's still doomed. Firstly, because he couldn't live up to the required standard (nobody except Jesus can) and secondly, even if he could, doing so would not bring him salvation. The only way to salvation is thru Jesus, remember?

 

I'm a little confused...I thought the Jesus route of salvation is because no one is capable of living up to the standards. If we could live up to the standards, we would have salvation...but it is not possible for humans (except Jesus).

 

No?

 

Phanta

 

Agree, Phanta.

 

But I'm trying to understand LNC's definition of what is necessary for salvation (belief in and trust in Jesus) in the wider context of every human who's ever lived - born or unborn, Jew or Gentile, B.C. or A.D, anywhere in the world.

 

Since he's stipulated the necessary requirement and I'm asking how three categories of human beings could satisfy it. I'm asking how the unborn can satisfy it, how those who lived and died before Jesus was born could satisfy it and how those who lived and died before Christian missionaries brought the knowledge of the requirement to them, could satisfy it too. These categories constitute the bulk of the human race. I await LNC's answer.

 

My current understanding (rightly or wrongly) is as follows...

* Nobody can obtain salvation by themselves. We all need Jesus to deflect God's wrath from us onto himself. He did this and all we need to do is to believe in and trust him. Once we do this, God's wrath no longer remains on us and we are saved from it.

* Yes, nobody is capable of living up to the standard required. Only Jesus is sinless and perfect. That is why he is the only one fit for the task - sacrificing himself and removing God's wrath from us.

* LNC maintains that we must decide to believe in and trust in Jesus to partake of his sacrifice and escape the wrath that is due to us.

* I'm asking how the unborn can make that decision. How can they comprehend the necessary concepts to make that decision?

* How did the unborn actively rebel against God? LNC holds that rebellion causes God's wrath, not unbelief. So how do the unborn 'unbelieve' or rebel? (Ooops! They're screwed! All umpteen billion of them.)

* Ditto Overcame Faith's Amazonian native. How could he rebel against that which he didn't know? Paul says in Romans that even Gentiles have the requirements of Mosaic Law written on their hearts by God himself.

* I'm asking how this helps. Nobody except Jesus can live up to the required standard, so what's the point of God writing the Law's requirements on their hearts? Not to save them, only Jesus can do that. So, our poor Amazonian not only lived and died without knowledge of Jesus (He's screwed!) , but even if he could live up to the Law, it doesn't bring salvation - it's not designed to. Only Jesus brings salvation. The Law was given to the Jews to guide them to Jesus, the only one who could satisfy all of the Law. (So the Amazonian's screwed - twice over! Not only is he imperfect and unable to live a sinless life, he's also died without knowing anything about Jesus. So he could never have chosen to believe in and trust Jesus in the first place.)

* I'm also asking how OT characters like Enoch and Elijah can enter the Father's presence without being destroyed by His wrath? Where did they hear about Jesus? How could they make the right decision, centuries before Jesus was born?

* You've asked a similar question about Abraham.

 

We're waiting on LNC for some answers.

 

That help?

 

BAA.

[Phanta]

Yeah, the part that confused me was when you said that even if the Amazonian lived perfectly, the Amazonian wouldn't have salvation.

 

I would think, in this system, he/she would.

 

I'm probably being thick. You were probably saying that to drive in some kind of point.

 

Phanta

[DesertBob]

* I'm asking how the unborn can make that decision. How can they comprehend the necessary concepts to make that decision?

They can't. So far as I know the Bible is silent on this topic. The very idea of unborn (or even very young born) babies burning in hell is abhorrent enough that the concept of the "age of accountability" has arisen in most evangelical circles. That at some unspecified point God decides that an individual is developed enough to mindfully accept or reject the light that's given to them. If "the light that's given to them" is understood in a certain way this also lets the heathen who have not heard the gospel off the hook. At some point it's assumed that a heathen who is at least true to the revelation of creation and of his own conscience will seek god via nature and good works and such and that god will honor this commitment.

 

Different groups slice and dice this differently. Some will say that to qualify for exemption the person must be "honestly" seeking the "true" god in some way, else they could be considered willfully ignorant (they invoke the passage that says god "gives over" such people to their base desires, etc). Some say that god will supernaturally guide and lead these people and that this guidance would be away from the unbelief or false gods of their culture. Some would assert that if there were such a "true" seeker that s/he would find the "true" god every single time; others allow that they may die in ignorance yet be spared punishment.

 

But this is all a philosophical construct that has evolved to explain a gap in holy writ; so far as I know whatever scriptural basis it has is thin to say the least. It just boils down to making up a pleasing backstory to fill in some missing links.

[Dagan]

LNC,

 

You seem to have totally skipped over John 3:18 (with no explanation) which totally contradicts your position. I put it in bold for you above.

 

Why is the person who does not believe condemned? Jesus answers : BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BELIEVED .

 

Yet you have the brashness to state (underline added by me):

 

John 5:24 - again, this speaks about how to avoid being condemned (something Jesus assumes we will face apart from trusting him); however, it does not say that one will be condemned for not believing in Jesus, only that we will be apart from trusting in him.

 

Two quotes prior, in 3:18, the character Jesus contradicts you. You simply ignored the verse.

 

You tend to do that a lot. Ignore the things which people say , even the biblical Jesus, which do not fit tidily into your positions.

 

EDIT ***

And, in case you try to deny you never said a person was NOT condemned for not believing, here's another place where you state it:

I wonder where you get the idea that the Bible condemns a person to hell for not believing in Jesus as Lord and Savior? That is an infidel meme that seems to be propagated on sites like this. The Bible doesn't say or indicate that a person is condemned for that reason;

 

 

***** END EDIT

 

I didn't intend to skip this verse, it was a mere oversight on my part. Thank you for pointing it out. So, let's deal with this verse which seems to indicate what you say on the surface; however, it is always important to take context into account, as well as the rest of the NT. So, for context, here the passage:

 

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁷For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. ¹⁸ Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment:the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. ²⁰ For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. ²¹But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God."...³⁶ Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

 

I actually added verse 36 at the end of the passage as it helps bring everything together. I have highlighted some key text within this passage that brings clarity to it. As you see in the verse you mentioned, vs. 16, the person is condemned already, Dr. D.A. Carson says,

"Already in need of a Savior before God's Son comes on his saving mission, the person compounds his or her guilt by not believing in the name of that Son. As with the arrogant critic who mocks a masterpiece, it is not the masterpiece that is condemned, but the critic. There is no need to await the final judgment (though it will come, 5:26-29): the person who disbelieve in the Father's one and only Son stands condemned already, and God's wrath remains on him (3:36) Thus the potential for condemnation is bound up with the mission of the Son to bring salvation. --The Gospel According to John by D.A. Carson

 

So, what Carson says is exactly what I have been saying all along that the condemnation is already set and only by trusting in the Son, Jesus, can a person escape the wrath of God that is the consequence. Again, thanks for pointing out the fact that I missed that verse, I wouldn't want that confusion to remain out there unaddressed.

 

LNC

 

So God's default setting for all humanity is "BURN" from babies to people with special needs to the infirm. Thanks for having the guts to say it outright.

[Snakefoot]

 

So God's default setting for all humanity is "BURN" from babies to people with special needs to the infirm. Thanks for having the guts to say it outright.

a.k.a. TULIP Calvinism.

[Mister Pappy]

This pre-Jesus salvation is something that I've put to LNC and now I'm patiently waiting in line for my turn.

... and you will be sorely disappointed when you get the pitiful answer, after putting much time and thought into your question.

[Dagan]

Any and all conversations with LNC remind me of that scene from Family Guy when Peter farts in an elevator and blames it on the only other guy there.

[LNC]

Habermas isn't smarter than anybody. In fact he's either a dunce or just dishonest.

 

And yes you are a bot.

 

What in particular have you read from Habermas that you disagree with and why? I would be interested in exploring this with you rather than simply leaving it as your name-calling. Let me know where and why you disagree with him.

 

LNC

[LNC]

'god' has yet to speak. At all.

 

But why are you messing with my piddly insignificant little posts when there are people waiting for you to answer really substantial questions?

 

 

Why do you post if you consider them to be "piddly" and "insignificant"? I try to take posts in order, so if I haven't addressed a particular post, it means that I simply haven't gotten to it. Although, I have been known to inadvertently skip one here and there when I forget where I left off.

 

LNC

 

 

[LNC]

If I were you, I wouldn't let too many people, who have ever read anything this fool has written, know that he is smarter than me.

 

No worries. If someone has a low opinion of Habermas, I would simply take that as probable evidence that they have not read him directly or comprehensively. I know him and he is no light weight. Not even skeptical scholars like Crossan, Price, the late Antony Flew or others would consider him anything less than a first rate scholar. So, when people speak ill of him, I consider that opinion against those of people who should and do know better and put it in its rightful place.

 

LNC

[LNC]

That’s right – that’s why god gave us the Qur’an and the book of Mormon.

 

What evidence do you use to justify this opinion that you hold? I trust that you have solid evidence to come to this conclusion. I look forward to reading what you have.

 

LNC

[Mister Pappy]

I would be interested in exploring this with you rather than simply leaving it as your name-calling.

Why don't you try fully addressing the issues already on your plate before going off and attempting to create another bunny chase - as if you haven't already succeeded in creating an environment where you are at liberty to pick and choose what to address and what to simply ignore.

 

Nice tactics BTW - however conniving, but they could only work in this type of cluster-fuck environment, where "fucking the cluster" is allowed, or even encouraged, to thrive for some weird reason. You would find yourself totally handicapped inside the confines of a structured debate. Your maneuvers remind me everyday of why I have no desire to be a Christian.

 

 

[LNC]

I think it was Habermas who came up with the "minimalist" argument for the historical Jesus. If I remember right, it's the idea that since the majority (70%?) of the scholars believe Jesus was historical (or certain aspects of some of the key events) therefore it must be true. (I could be wrong, but that's what I remember.)

 

It is actually the minimal facts argument for the resurrection. It is based upon certain minimal facts (6) that are accepted by a vast majority of NT scholars (over 90% on these facts) which are sufficient to make the case for the resurrection. He also has six additional facts that are accepted by 75% or more of NT scholars that adds additional strength to the case. The historical existence of Jesus is not a debatable fact for the vast majority of NT scholars (I would guess in the high 90%). This is the way that history is done since we cannot go back and recreate events. It doesn't matter whether the subject is Jesus, Plato, Julius Caesar, or Alexander the Great, scholars have to examine the evidence and make a case as to why it is reliable. Then other scholars come along and either confirm the method and evidence or debate it. But again, that is the way that historical analysis is done. It doesn't mean that it is true with 100% certainty, but then we don't know anything with that kind of certainty. However, with the resurrection, we have a high degree of reliability.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Doesn't that count as a appeal to consensus?

 

You are confusing historical study with logical argumentation. Appeal to consensus or majority is not a reliable way to make a logical argument (although, it doesn't mean that the logic is wrong, it is just not a way to make a good case in logic); however, this is the way that historical analysis is commonly practiced since we cannot go back and recreate the event. We must rely on what evidence we have and then that evidence goes through peer review.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Habermas means minimal facts and multiple attestation - 'multiple attestation' meaning multiple books of the bible. 'Minimal facts' are things that are common to all four gospels; Habermas doesn't understand, or doesn't care, that the 'gospels' don't meet accepted requirements for historical documents and that nothing contained in them is supported anywhere else in contemporary literature.

 

You're close. Actually minimal facts are those facts that are considered to be reliable by a vast majority of NT scholars. Yes, many of these facts were multiply attested in 3 or 4 of the gospels; however, that is only a factor of what would count as one of Habermas' minimal facts. Can you explain why you think that the eyewitness accounts within the gospels don't meet the criteria for being historical accounts? Whether or not what is contained is supported in contemporary literature (and i would dispute you on that point) is immaterial as to whether the accounts are considered to be reliable. Your opinion seems to be at variance with the vast majority of NT scholars, so I will look forward to your justification of your view.

 

LNC

[LNC]

or ad populum (or ad populi, but I think populum might be the right one).

 

All depending on if I remember Habermas's argument correct.

 

Imagine if it was used as an argument for Evolution? I think pretty much 100% of biological anthropologists are certain that Evolution is a fact.

 

I have addressed this issue already. However, regarding evolution, I have heard that justification used for keeping alternate viewpoints out of the schools and for justifying the teaching of the neo-Darwinian model in light of some serious problems with the model. But, I am not going to dive into that subject in this thread. Maybe another thread at another time.

 

LNC

[bornagainathiest]

Hey Bob!

 

This pre-Jesus salvation is something that I've put to LNC and now I'm patiently waiting in line for my turn.

For what it's worth, what I was always taught is that the Old Testament economy "anticipated" or "foreshadowed" the coming Saviour and that all those who followed the Law were effectively trusting the Christ would would later arise out of that system.

 

Ditto here, as regards that teaching. But the onus still rests on LNC to prove his case...

* To show how this OT anticipation/foreshadowing delivers the Jews from God's wrath, something which the Law wasn't designed to do.

* To show how, without knowing the identity of the one they were supposed to believe in and trust, the Jews are spared god's wrath by this unknown future person.

* To show how the Jews, who only knew God the Father, were accurately informed by the prophets of the identity of the man God was to become.

* To show how a single, unlawful human sacrifice was going to take the place of the lawful, repeated animal sacrifices God himself commanded the Jews to perform.

There is a verse of somewhat unclear meaning in the N.T. (Paul was the author, I forget the reference) that talks about Jesus "descending into hell" (sheol) following his death on the cross and "leading captivity captive". There was a somewhat involved explanation that the Jewish afterlife was conceptually divided into two compartments, the "bosom of Abraham" for the righteous and "gehenna" for the wicked. Collectively these might be called sheol (supposedly, somewhat erroneously rendered "hell"). (I'm going by memory here; I think I have it generally right even if the particulars of terminology are muddled). At any rate the idea is that Jesus led the departed righteous of the previous age to the true heaven which they could not enter into because of his finished work on the cross.

 

I see that Bob, but where does this leave the unborn and those who died after Jesus ascended, but before the message of Christ reached their lands?

The first group can only be called 'righteous' if we take God's word that He foreknows these things. (And what of inherited, Original Sin?) So then we have a closed, circular argument. There is no way anyone else except God can know who will be righteous (had they lived) and we are therefore constrained to having to take this on faith. Independent, critical examination of these Biblical claims are impossible. The necessary information is forever denied us.

Likewise, the second group. If there are any departed righteous among them, we've no way of verifying this. The same limitations apply.

Whew, I guess "somewhat convoluted" is an understatement! I always looked askance at all this as it seemed inherently baroque and smelled of chewing gum and baling wire. But there you have it. I'm guessing LNC will resort to some version of this. It's one of those areas where expositors really jump through rings of fire and eat little pieces of glass to force fit some obscure passage of scripture into an explanation that's required to fix a logical inconsistency.

 

No! No! No! You've got that all wrong! It's so simple that a child could understand it.

 

Anyway, how's this angle?

 

How were Dionysius the Areopagite, the woman Damaris and some others spared God's wrath by believing in and trusting a god called A-GNOSIS? (See Acts 17 : 16 - 34, specifically verse 23, the words, AGNOSTO THEO, "to an unknown God") http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/act17.pdf

Theists say that those who listened to Paul knew from earlier reports (verse 20) that he was preaching about a new god, Jesus Christ. Fine. So they knew he was called Jesus, not AGNOSTO THEO. (Yes, that was a trick question!)

 

But you'll notice that, when speaking just to the Areopagus, Paul says nothing at all about LNC's combo - believing in Jesus and trusting in his finished work upon the cross.

Yes, he mentions Christ's resurrection, but not the crucifixion. That vital information is not explicitly mentioned. We know from verses 17 and 18 that Paul disputed with the Jews of Athens and the various Greek philosophers. We also know that Paul preached about Jesus and the resurrection. Prior to addressing the Areopagus, if Paul spoke about resurrection of the dead Jesus, it is logical to conclude that he must therefore also have spoken about how Jesus died. It is also logical to conclude that, in doing this, he would therefore have also spoken about Jesus' finished work on the cross.

 

So Dionysius, Damaris and the others were spared God's wrath only...

* If we make the two logical assumptions described above.

* If they were party to this earlier information.

* If they then combined it with what Paul actually did say to the Areopagus.

 

You see? It's simple! Not convoluted at all!

Just make the necessary logical assumptions about what isn't recorded in scripture and it all falls neatly into place!

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Btw Bob, I cite this NT example of Gentile ignorance of Jesus because, as far as I can see, LNC's also got to cover the OT Jewish ignorance of an 'unknown god' too. The Jews knew the Father, but what did they know about the Son? I suppose that, once again, it's just a case of making the right assumptions about scripture and prophecy to make it all fit together!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

* I'm asking how the unborn can make that decision. How can they comprehend the necessary concepts to make that decision?

They can't. So far as I know the Bible is silent on this topic. The very idea of unborn (or even very young born) babies burning in hell is abhorrent enough that the concept of the "age of accountability" has arisen in most evangelical circles. That at some unspecified point God decides that an individual is developed enough to mindfully accept or reject the light that's given to them. If "the light that's given to them" is understood in a certain way this also lets the heathen who have not heard the gospel off the hook. At some point it's assumed that a heathen who is at least true to the revelation of creation and of his own conscience will seek god via nature and good works and such and that god will honor this commitment.

 

Different groups slice and dice this differently. Some will say that to qualify for exemption the person must be "honestly" seeking the "true" god in some way, else they could be considered willfully ignorant (they invoke the passage that says god "gives over" such people to their base desires, etc). Some say that god will supernaturally guide and lead these people and that this guidance would be away from the unbelief or false gods of their culture. Some would assert that if there were such a "true" seeker that s/he would find the "true" god every single time; others allow that they may die in ignorance yet be spared punishment.

 

But this is all a philosophical construct that has evolved to explain a gap in holy writ; so far as I know whatever scriptural basis it has is thin to say the least. It just boils down to making up a pleasing backstory to fill in some missing links.

 

Agree, Bob.

 

The Bible is silent, but God's knowledge of each and every life is recorded in scripture and logically implied in his qualities of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Check out Psalm 139.

So, by my reckoning, LNC's got to show how God gives these babes the ability and opportunity to believe in and trust Jesus.

That, or demonstrate how their sin of rebellion requires God to stir-fry them for eternity.

 

Either way, good hunting!

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

This pre-Jesus salvation is something that I've put to LNC and now I'm patiently waiting in line for my turn.

... and you will be sorely disappointed when you get the pitiful answer, after putting much time and thought into your question.

 

That's ok Mr.P!

 

As I see it, this is win-win for our side.

 

If LNC gives us a pitiful answer, then this will just show how even articulate, intelligent, erudite 'true believers' are in a jam.

 

Even if he refutes every single point, that's great too!

It doesn't automatically mean that...

 

A. He's actually right.

B. That Christianity is actually true.

C. That Jesus really is God.

 

All it does mean is that one man has clever enough to refute every single point put to him so far. If it take this standard of 'cleverness' to make a consistent case for Xianity, then we can relax about 99.99999999999999% of the other, less clever Xians out there.

 

If I've put much time and thought into my questions, good! Then I'll just put in some more. Debating with LNC and others like this'll keep all of us here sharp.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Ouroboros]

I think it was Habermas who came up with the "minimalist" argument for the historical Jesus. If I remember right, it's the idea that since the majority (70%?) of the scholars believe Jesus was historical (or certain aspects of some of the key events) therefore it must be true. (I could be wrong, but that's what I remember.)

 

It is actually the minimal facts argument for the resurrection. It is based upon certain minimal facts (6) that are accepted by a vast majority of NT scholars (over 90% on these facts) which are sufficient to make the case for the resurrection. He also has six additional facts that are accepted by 75% or more of NT scholars that adds additional strength to the case. The historical existence of Jesus is not a debatable fact for the vast majority of NT scholars (I would guess in the high 90%).

How about the majority of historians, worldwide? Let's include secular historians from Europe, are we at 90% still? Or should we only base our support on Christian scholars?

 

This is the way that history is done since we cannot go back and recreate events.

No. Historians know that there are always some doubt and that truth and facts are not created through popular vote. They look for artifacts to support the existence of a person or his actions, and sometimes they can conclude that stories about historical people are just stories and not true events. Did Lincoln really cut down that cherry tree as boy?

 

 

It doesn't matter whether the subject is Jesus, Plato, Julius Caesar, or Alexander the Great, scholars have to examine the evidence and make a case as to why it is reliable.

Yes, the evidence. And since you've read philosophy, you know what historians believe about Plato's late work that included Socrates. Did Socrates really say all those things? And regarding the evidence for Alexander the Great, the difference between Jesus and Alexander is that if Alexander did any miracles, historians don't jump on it and believe it to be true, but in the case of Jesus they don't stop at some small magical miracles, but they are supposed to swallow the whole story thing of death and resurrection and being God's son. When historians read miracle stories done by other miracle workers in history, they assume that they're not true. So why not with Jesus? Is it because you only listen to Christian historian or do you really listen to all historians?

 

Then other scholars come along and either confirm the method and evidence or debate it. But again, that is the way that historical analysis is done. It doesn't mean that it is true with 100% certainty, but then we don't know anything with that kind of certainty. However, with the resurrection, we have a high degree of reliability.

A high degree of Christian agreement, not reliability.

[Ouroboros]

or ad populum (or ad populi, but I think populum might be the right one).

 

All depending on if I remember Habermas's argument correct.

 

Imagine if it was used as an argument for Evolution? I think pretty much 100% of biological anthropologists are certain that Evolution is a fact.

 

I have addressed this issue already. However, regarding evolution, I have heard that justification used for keeping alternate viewpoints out of the schools and for justifying the teaching of the neo-Darwinian model in light of some serious problems with the model. But, I am not going to dive into that subject in this thread. Maybe another thread at another time.

 

LNC

You missed the point.

 

I'm quite certain that more than 90% of biological anthropologists agree that Evolution is true. Therefore--using the same method of ad populum argument Habermas does--Evolution is proven to be true to a high certainty. We can disregard all the other evidences and facts, they're not needed, since there is a consensus, and consensus makes it true.

 

Or we can look at the larger picture: More than 90% of the world's population do not believe Jesus is God's son or exists, therefore, Jesus does not exist.

 

Haberma's minimal facts (or whatever you want to call it) is a maximal ad populum fallacy. And I can't believe that you, of all people, still find it be to a valid way of deciding truth. You have after all studied logical fallacies and keep on hammering them on everyone else.

[bdp]

 

It is actually the minimal facts argument for the resurrection.

 

'Facts' that appear NOWHERE ELSE in literature. Lame, very lame.

 

And Habermas is dishonest and knows it.

[bdp]

If I were you, I wouldn't let too many people, who have ever read anything this fool has written, know that he is smarter than me.

 

No worries. If someone has a low opinion of Habermas, I would simply take that as probable evidence that they have not read him directly or comprehensively.

 

Wrong. Again.