Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Dr. David Wood proves resurrection and I quibble on details

His presentation:

Dr. David Wood Proves the Resurrection of Christ
Trinity Apologetics | 17.IX.2016

My quibbles:

3:48 No, it's not a tragedy of the internet age.

It's an asset.

Carter considered it a tragedy of the internet age that flat earth is taken seriously. On the contrary, it shows up who is likely to be flat earther : some shades of Judaism or Judaising Christianity (only know of the latter). As if Muhammed got his flat earth view from Talmudists.

It also puts a focus on flat earth supposed passages, some of which are the four corners clearly passages, and the clearest of these is Apocalypse 7.

Did you know Babylonian numericals for 40, 2400 and 144 000 look like four corners, three in first and one in second row?

Similarily one corner followed by a vertical wedge is 11, 660 and so on, now focus on 660.

To write 6, you have two rows of three vertical wedges.

So, what number and what shape do you get for corner, one wedge, two rows of three wedges? The simplest one on this is 666. And the shape looks like a rocket.

God bless the internet, as long as it lasts!

What you are nostalgic for is a world where academics could sit four or five in a room, and laugh at an outsider because he had no support in their charmed little world.

As you made heavy weather of "scholarly consensus" - here is a scholar I prefer to fight without that, because he has credentials:

Richard Cevantis Carrier
B.A. (History), M.A. (Ancient history), M.Phil. (Ancient history), Ph.D. (Ancient history)


He thinks the likelihood of a mythical angel being crucified in the first place is nil.

So, how do you answer him out of scholarly consensus? He's a scholar.

I answer him out of ancient sources.

10:12 Suppose you are correct, which definitely you could be, that St Paul is not just reformulating himself a tradition he had received in other words, but actually reciting near verbatim a meant for recital creed, a tradition given in identic words to be learned by heart.

It says twice "according to the Scriptures" and this does not refer to Gospel of St Matthew or 1st Corinthians, this refers to OT Scripture.

However, Jews claim to read this OT Scriptures without finding the death and resurrection of the Messiah there. Ergo, the message is not written in totally plain letters over the immediate surface meaning of all the OT.

This means, the creed here referred to is stating as a credal point that Christians have access to an OT exegesis which had been hidden up to the fulfilment in Jesus. You may say "hidden in plain sight" but you can't say too visibly there.

This is then a very clear refutation of Sola Scriptura in OT exegesis.

Besides how many disputed Catholic doctrines are involved in an OT exegesis neither more nor less "tenuous" than the one St Paul ties all Christians to.

That said, Dan Parker of Atheist League had stated Paul could have been pulling an easy bluff, no way the hearers could have checked the claim.

And I replied to that one:

somewhere else : What a blooper, Dan Barker from Atheist League!

10:58 James didn't believe ... before appartition, you stated.

According to Proto-Gospel, he did.

You might be basing this on the passage which has also been abused to claim the Blessed Virgin didn't believe.

The occasion in Matthew 12 / Mark 3 don't show the Blessed Virgin or St James Brother of God individually stating doubt. They came along in a larger group doing so.

In this group they had the least power : James was youngest and Mary was a woman. Only the sisters had, if even so, less power than the Mother of God, but arguably they were St Joseph's daughters of an earlier marriage (he was widower in the beginning of Matthew) and can even have been older than the Blessed Virgin.

The belief is why only James shared his heritage with Jesus after older brothers had bereft Him of His own share. The belief is also why he was called Brother of God, while the other brothers were rather called Brothers of James in Church tradition.

11:26 Carrier and William P. Lazarus are scholars as well as present on the internet.

As to the pretence, it's not their scholarship, nor putting yours over theirs, but rather a reevaluation of what "legendary development" can and can't do which is the answer.

Let's say Imhotep is a rehash of Joseph in Egypt (my position and that of some other Christians) or inversely even Joseph of Imhotep (I do not grant it, but we can use it for argument's sake) as per novelist the late Bernard Simonay, there are some things we don't find legendary development doing.

It's not turning an "engineer" (of sorts) into a warlike general.

It's not turning a dreaming prophet into a public preacher and miracle worker like Elijah.

It is however garbling identities and alignments and even (given king lists like Turin and Abydos) chronology.

Now, adding a resurrection is not garbling an identity, nor an alignment, nor chronology. It's just changing everything in a way legendary development won't do.

Or take the Germanic legend of Rabenschlacht, it may be conflating two different battles at Ravenna, and is certainly pitting two people against each other who lived at a century's different times : Theoderic and Ermaneric.

But both were kings and warriors in real life and both remain kings and warriors in the legend.

17:59 "despise anything which has to do with Christianity"

Bingo. Christ affirmed Adam and Eve were created at same time, or taking hyperbole into account very little after (six days would do) the creation of the universe.*

How many have rejected Christ because of a commitment to Evolutionary paradigm?

Btw, recently an upsurge of interest in Biblical terms of cosmology have also come to ... so far often the rescue of atheism.

Joshua 10:12 and a place in Habacuc parallelling next verse in Joshua 10. While Joshua 10:13 is compatible with phenomenal language of narrator, previous verse includes language by miracle worker and Habacuc 3:11 excludes phenomenal language by adding stood still in their habitation also given as "in their orbits".

As you cited "evidence for common descent" any such is at least as much "evidence for common maker".

* Mark 10:6, perhaps less clearly Matthew 23:35 for those who argue Abel and Zacharias are cited in order of OT books rather than overall chronology.

No comments: