Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Sometimes Things Work Out Well

Over at Parchment & Pen, C. Michael Patton explained that "there are certain things that I would look for and expect if the resurrection of Christ actually took place."  Conveniently, the things he would look for and expect line up quite well with the things that he finds in the New Testament.  Who'd a thunk it?  Happily, he didn't expect anything inconvenient like independent accounts of the events from secular historians.

I couldn't help but think of Margaret O'Brien's line from Meet Me in St. Louis:  "Wasn't I lucky to be born in my favorite city?"


  1. I was disappointed in Patton’s…simplicity. At least when I attempted to re-create “what would happen?” I reviewed other religions, patterns & people to come up with scenarios. Some conformed with what I expected; some did not.

    I also am fascinated with the self-absorption in the concept of a creator desiring to communicate with humans. Why? If we are the tops in intelligence in the Universe, I pity the creator who made such a universe. Or that this terrible means…poor writing transmitted over centuries…was the “best” this creator could think of doing.

    They first create a HUGE god in their theistic theory; and then make it a disastrously tiny person, unable to perform even the simple task a child can do. And I’m called irrational…

  2. 'As well, the Gospels themselves did not identify who the writers were. If they were making this story up, why not fabricate a credible source?'

    You have to love this.

    Look, there is no credible source.

    It must be true. If it was false, there would have been a credible source.

    Do Christians realise just how silly they sound when they open their mouths?

  3. I sometimes wonder whether they actually read the things that they write. I was pointing out to a "minimal facts" guy the other day that nowhere in the New Testament does anyone say that James was a skeptic up until the point that he converted as a result of an appearance. His response was that it would be less believable if anyone actually said that it happened. The fact that apologists piece it together from multiple writers who may not even be talking about the same person somehow should give us more confidence.

  4. Odd. He seems to have posted the polar opposite of a post that I made one day before his.

  5. The brother converted did he?

    I was watching a Find the Lady game in the street yesterday.

    I was not sure of how honest the dealer was.

    Happily, his brother told me that he also used to be skeptical of his brother, but was now convinced it was all on the level.

    How much more proof does anybody need that it was all on the level?

    The very brother of the dealer used to be skeptical but now told people it was all above board. You would have to be one of those ultra-skeptics not to realise how strong such testimony is.

  6. Steven,

    Don't you get it man? He was a skeptic. A SKEPTIC! Nobody who is skeptical about Christianity ever changes their mind without personally witnessing a supernatural manifestation of the Risen Christ.


    Very interesting post. I got through about half of it and I'll finish it tomorrow if my hangover will allow.

  7. It's a good thing I don't like spinach. Because if I liked it I'd eat it. And I hate spinach.