I dropped off this thread a while ago as well – Holidays, and what-not. I took no offense from you via this exchange.

God Bless

So please endure one final contribution from me here.

qmonkey, Im sorry I was part of getting this post off topic. I know this is belated, but for what its worth I think your topic is a good one. I have even had some of the same thoughts myself. I think that is a underrecognized problem with evidential apologetics — i.e.., if it takes people like William Craig writing 2000 years after the fact using a wide array of philosophical analyses to establish Christianity as “true” , well, doesnt that fact itself just cry out for explanation? Doesnt that make salvation a matter of the intellect? Why does an almighty Creator have such a hard time getting his message across in a clear way?

Christians often claim that no, it isnt a matter of the intellect, its a matter of the Holy Spirit or God’s direct action on your heart, or some variant of that answer, but that seems to me to beg the question — i.e., how do we know there is a Holy Spirit or that it does any such thing? Because Christiainity teaches it? But the veracity of Christian doctrine precisely whats in question.

So, qmonkey, I appreciate your thoughts on this matter and Im sorry I let myself get carried away on other matters. Hopefully this issue will come up again and we can take another shot at it.

Jim, if I was testy with you during this exchange please understand that that was a function of the heat of debate and not of my view of you. And if I was (its hard for me to tell if I came across that way), then I apologize. You behavior here has been nothing but honorable, and that is no mean feat in todays world, especially when discussing something as charged as this. I wish we had more people such as yourself, willing to engage in spirited discussion in a thoughtful and respectful way.

While you still have not convinced me that there is any good argument for regarding the apostles claims as unique or their experiences as unmistakble, and I still maintain that ordinary and very fallible human belief-formation can do far more than you assume it can, nevertheless I will drop the matter for now and move on to other threads. Perhaps I will write a new post specifically on this topic, and we can discuss it at more length there! So, Jim, I have enjoyed engaging with you here and I hope you had a merry Christmas–

Richard

I did. But I’m wondering, how does that invalidate my question. From what I understand from this:

“Indeed. You don’t get to quarantine yourself off from having to prove your worldview by saying it’s not a worldview. Of course, it is a worldview and you are trying to win converts… or deconverts. Let’s be honest.”

equates Atheism with every other world religion merely for being a world perspective.

And instead of writing off the apostles sanity, I’d like to see you confront that. UFO observers: probably insane. Those who witnessed miracles: what’s the difference?

There were many names containing “Ham” and “Hamm” and this meant “Home”. There were many names ending in “mond” and this meant “protector of …”. The name “Hammond” would then seem to be “Protector of the home”. Yet, for some reason experts are in debate about this. What seems clear to the somewhat educated, somehow became troublesome for the highly educated. Interesting phenomenon.

But if this un-sharp tool read another museum pamphlet that said the opposite… he wouldnt be in as good a possition as the japanese prof in deciding which, if either, were more likely true.

granted?

I think intellect (combined with an open and curious mind) indeed helps one to determine what transpired in the past. However, if someone who is not the sharpest tool in the shed reads one museum pamphlet and professes that “In 1533 the Muromachi Shogunate halted all religious events”, he would be no less correct than the professor of Japanese history who spent his whole life dedicated to this study.

Faith follows similar patterns. I spent decades in various stages of belief or doubt, and after much research decided that the Bible was accurate and realized that I had known it for a long time. Other people hear the story of Jesus once and accept it immediately. Both of us are equally correct. So, while intellect can help research and understand things, it is not requisite to arrive at the truth.

The person who knows less and researches less can probably be fooled more easily. But the skeptic can often fool himself.

Understanding and interpreting history, deciding on the reliability of claims, demands intellect. The higher the intellect the more likely one is to be correct in his/her analysis of ancient places and events… whether it be in the field of archaeology, literature, chemistry, DNA analysis…

It’s rare that people wake up on a Tuesday morning, and think to themselves, I think a man called Jesus existed 2000 years ago, and when he died, he rose from the dead. People take a view on all such mythical and non-mythical claims… and make a judgement call based on the evidence (unless they feel they have been directly spoken to by someone/thing outside of nature/history)

So to rephrase the question slightly – is mental capacity and intelligence any factor is accepting/rejecting the resurrection as historically accurate? (is it that its an uncomfortable question?)