Resurrection (Alward rebuts Carter)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>Ed

>

>I don't think that there's any question that the early Christian martyrs

>believed in what they died for, just as there's no question that the many

>Muslim martyrs have believed in what they died for.  Obviously,

>Christianity and Islam cannot both be true, so it is clear that one's

>willingness to die for a belief is not a testimony of the truth of that

belief.

CARTER
There is a difference. Muslims died (and die) for they believe in the
truthfulness of Mohammed's -teachings-.  

The early Christian, especially the apostles and early witnesses, died
defending the death and resurrection of a crucifed peasant. The difference
is this: The early Christians (again, especially the apostles) were in a
position to -know with certaininty- whether or not the resurrection
happened. Yet they testifed to the upmost of its occurance. In fact, Paul
the importance of the truth of the resurrection especially clear throughout
his epistles. "And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is in
vain, and you are still in your sins", and "We have not followed cleverly
devised myths..". What evidence was there to convince a man who was
involved in the systematic murder of Christians to become a preacher of
Christ? What event caused the men who had seen their leader die disgraced
upon a cross to dedicate the rest of their lives to spread a story like the
resurrection?
How also was such a belief not immediately shot down by the Jewish leaders
of this time? Do you see the difference? 

-Jason 

• Previous message: Shaking Matt's Faith
• Next message: Resurrection (Alward rebuts Carter)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]