Last October (2012) Gary Habermas delivered a lecture to the Ratio Christi chapter at Liberty University on the historical data concerning the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The video was professionally captured and you may view the videos in the links below.
I am interested in becoming a Christian apologetic but these couple questions are kind of a stumbling block for me. Do you think you could answer these questions for me so I could understand Christianity more?
1.What is the ontological argument? To mean it seems like a lot of lip service. Basically tell me if I’m wrong the ontological argument is that if you think something exists it does or if your mind can imagine something it exists? It doesn’t make sense to me. A perfect concept does not prove a perfect being.
2. I was watching a philosophical interview with Greg Koukl who was talking about abstract uncreated beings. From what I got out of it uncreated beings do not exist and God created everything even Numbers But if that’s the case then how can God be bound by logic? Like the answer to the question can God make a rock to be he can’t lift? One would say that God can do anything LOGICALLY possible and since there are no rocks he can’t lift then the question is logically impossible. So how does this make sense? Do you know about created and uncreated abstract beings and can you explain more about the study of them and what they are?
On 8 November 2012 I did a presentation to the Ratio Christi club at Liberty University on how to argue for the existence of God. It was designed to be a smaller training session for the Ratio Christi members. I discussed the importance of apologetics and the difference between knowing your faith to be true and showing your faith to be true. That was the followed by methodological differences and my use of the classical approach.
I then gave three arguments: 1) Thomas’ cosmological argument from contingency, 2) the abductive fine-tuning argument, and 3) the abductive moral argument (or as I like to say, the new moral argument).
Recently, Dr. Michael Licona (Houston Baptist University) spent time in Canada debating Yale professor Dr. Dale Martin on questions concerning the resurrection and self-understanding of Jesus. Below are links to the videos.
Dr. Michael Licona and Dr. Dale Martin discuss the question “Did Jesus Physically Rise From the Dead?” The first evening of the 2012 Religion Soup discussion took place Oct 18, 2012 at St. Mary’s University.
www.religionsoup.ca
The follow is a list of terms every beginning apologist should know.
Christ of Faith—The theological person of Jesus
Historical Jesus—The actual person/man Jesus who walked the earth
Source Criticism—Attempt to trace back the literary source of the Gospels
Synoptic Problem—How do we account for the similarities and differences between the synoptics?
Two Document Theory—Mark, earliest Gospel, gives framework but lacks much teaching and from Q
Q—(1890) Source that contained many of the sayings and teachings
Form Criticism—An analysis of the forms in which the narratives of the Gospels come down to us
Demythologize—Getting rid of miracles and get to the sole teaching of Jesus—Gospels not historical, spiritual truths, dropping theological claims (Bultmann)
Criterion of Double Dissimilarity—Something that Jesus said that was either according to early Judaism or early Church Jesus probably didn’t say
Criterion of Multiple Attestation—Many sources giving the same account
Criterion of Embarrassment—If the information could potentially damage the truth to the claim it was probably true
Redaction Criticism—Effects of the editor’s own literary styles and theological presuppositions as put together in the Gospel accounts
Though there is no set date (considered to be the late 1970s to present day), the third quest for the historical Jesus began as a reaction against the second search. Theological assumptions were controlling historical investigation. It attempts to do history apart from theological presuppositions, which yielded two results. First, there were many divergent positions from evangelical scholars to liberal theologians. Second, the third search, in general, is much more open to the supernatural. Miracles are not ruled out a priori.
There are a few major characteristics unique to the third search. There was an emphasis and concentration on understanding Jesus as a first century Jew–the social and religious climate becomes paramount. A rejection of strict attachment to the “criteria” of the second search, especially the criteria of double dissimilarity. There was a high view of the accuracy of the oral tradition.
After the first search for the historical Jesus ended in 1906 the next search, or better said, the period of no quest, began and lasted until 1953. At this point there was little optimism for finding the “historical Jesus.” Karl Barth (1886-1968) was the key figure during this time. He claimed that the Jesus of history has little to do with theology–the Christ of faith is more important. Barth ushered in Neo-Orthodoxy–an emphasis on sin, sovereignty, grace, and faith. This was a de-emphasis on what actually happened.
This led to form criticism: An analysis of the forms in which the narratives of the gospels come down to us. Not literary, but their pre-literary oral forms. The idea was that different kinds of stories have distinctive kinds of forms that effect how they should be interpreted: miracle stories, healing stories, apothegms, etc.
