an associate sent me an interesting line of inquiry to be chewed upon whil searching for the Body of Christ.
it appears that some time ago, somebody ordered the deaths of thousands of trees to stimulate the economy of pilpul, by writing a book "proving" the resurrection.
it appears that this person committed the sin of not agreeing with albert mohler's vision for world conquest, and mohler was understandably non-plussed.
citing salient parts of mohler's response to the non-event of somebody thinking they, not Christ, can proive the resurrection, here are a few crumbs that fell from my paws.
:"that the Bible is “free from all falsehood or mistake” — is an essential safeguard for the Bible’s authority as the very Word of God in written form."
:"Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God’s written Word."
back to authority >>>over<<.
:"The 700-page volume is nothing less than a masterful defense of the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."
does it contain even >>>>one<<< independent eyewitness?
does it contain one statement from someone not a "co-conspirator"??
did he find the restaurant tab for the honey and fishes?
then there is no "historographic" anything.
since i firmly, totally "believe in the resurrection" and have spent much time travelling to and fro, up and down looking for the Body of Christ i'm puzzled.
so is occam, and his progenitor, iorek byrneson.
:"has argued that a historical fact is “something that happened and that historians attempt to ‘discover’ through verification procedures.” "
"since we believe it must be true".... hmmmm
events are their own verification.
that is, if a tree falls in the forest w/o moeler's permission, does it go to hell?
the tree remains indifferent, but now insects get new homes.
mohler notes, settin g up his trantrum that " Crossan operates out of a naturalistic worldview that precludes belief in anything supernatural, such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."
:"In taking on Crossan [lincona demonstrates ] first of all, that Crossan operates out of a worldview that simply denies that a resurrection can happen."
given that he is agreeing with crossan over what crossan said, where is the "taking on?"
when did "you said what you said" become a contrary or meaningful statement when the "accused" does not deny what he said?
The center of the problem for mohler appears to be whether mat 27:51-4 is a "newspaper account" or a " truth". and yet, the romans nor the Jews, nor the random samaritan have any records of those events.
nor does archeology provide any evidence of such a happening.
:"First of all, if we ever accept the fact that we are to explain what anyone in the Bible was doing when the Bible does not tell us, we enter into a trap of interpretive catastrophe."
the only "way out" of that one is to note that actors in a play who are not reciting their lines are offstage.
that, by itself, blows mohler's standard for "inerracy" to "Thy Will be done."
:"In his treatment of this passage, Licona has handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon "
in my random samplings to and fro amongst " believers in the resurrection" i seem to be the only one who ever asks "is Christ here now?" and answers "yes" without equivocation.
which makes me an enemy of the resurrection.
:"Norman Geisler addressed two open letters to Michael Licona, charging him with violating the inerrancy of Scripture in making his argument about Matthew 27:52-53."
is anybody with a german last name the pope?
somebody is... but i don't recall ratzinger starting with a "g." but then, i am a simple beast of the fields, and as such miss ever so much.
:"As one evangelical scholar retorted: “For Gundry, then, the nonexistent house was where the nonpersons called Magi found Jesus on the occasion of their nonvisit to Bethlehem."
well...yes. what's your point?
lincona states:" I always regarded the entirety of Matthew 27 as historical narrative containing apocalyptic allusions.”
and mohler asks, "But what can this really mean?"
most likely it means that lincona regards "the entirety of Matthew 27 as historical narrative containing apocalyptic allusions."
lincona may be operating under the understand that Christ is the Judge, and not mohler, so he may be forgiven.
:"What could one possibly find in the Greco-Roman literature that would either validate or invalidate the status of this report as historical fact?"
an explanation for how the phreaking romans were running jerusalem?
explanations for how "egypt" was outside herod's control?
:"That is what makes The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy so indispensable and this controversy over Licona’s book so urgent."
when did Jesus prophesy chicago?
where in Revelations does Christ assert "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy"????
perhaps in matthew 10:17.