Feedback on resurrection debate
Here is some of the feedback the programme received.
From: Nick P.
Sent: 12 April 2009 23:58
Honestly Justin, I was quite disappointed. Stevie should have been a walk in the park as his arguments have been answered a number of times, namely by J.P. Holding. A good scholar of Pauline literature would have demolished him. My main problem was that I thought the Mormon technique was being used. Here we have Stevie saying that all Christians have is there testimony and experience and what do the callers do? Even your Christian on the program did it! They just pointed to personal testimony instead and said that they have experienced God and that Stevie just needs to ask God to reveal the truth to him.
Odd. The Mormons say the exact same thing to me.
If we have an atheist saying all Christians have is their testimony and Christians just give him their testimony, then I believe they have done a disservice to the gospel. Stevie instead has his opinion further cemented that this is all Christians do. His opponent should have used a line of argumentation much like N.T. Wright used in "The Resurrection of the Son of God." (Dang. If you'd had N.T. Wright there, it would have been a massacre.)
Looking forward to next week Justin. I always listen to your show. I was just disappointed with how the Christians did by and large on this one.
Not one word of refutation of any arguments I used, and an implicit admission that the debate was a victory for me.
Of course, I was prepared for Wright's arguments, nor can Nick Peter say just how Wright would have 'massacred' me.
From: Steps Olu
Posted At: 11 April 2009 16:10
Thanks for a brilliant forum for arguments for and against biblical doctrines/beliefs. I believe that Mr. Carr's evidence to disprove the bodily rising of Jesus from the dead from the Scriptures would fail if he looks at the whole evidence that the Bible has to offer, rather than a minute portion about the order of resurrection in different planes. If we start from the premise that there was a resurrection (of Jesus that is), be it spiritual or physical, then we can proceed to identify (from the Scriptures) the actual nature of it.
When Jesus rose, his body was no longer where it was laid. He Himself later stated that He couldn't have been a mere spirit as he had flesh and bones.
Paul said further in 2 Corinthians 5 that our present bodies will be "clothed upon" or superimposed upon by an attribute no longer subject to death. Futher he wrote in 1 Thessalonians that the dead shall rise first and we that are alive and remain will be caught up in the air to meet the Lord (being our futuristic experience of resurection life). The resurrected body is the original physical body but changed through an operation of GOD into an eternal imperishable body. That's why even those dead already will have their decayed bodies reconstituted and turned into one that will withstand eternally.
Even as in Revelation 20, the unsaved dead will have their bodies back!
Having said all that however, it takes a spiritual mind to see and understand that these things are true, but it is unusual (but not impossible) for God to impose spiritual truths about Himself on our wills and minds, especially if we have become predisposed to disbelieve Him. If Mr. Carr is willing to approach GOD with the openess of a child, he might have a life-transforming experience! (or is he a bit afraid that it might actually happen that way?)
Of course, Paul never says in 2 Corinthians that 'our present bodies' will be clothed upon. Paul says the earthly body is destroyed. 'Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.'
The present body is destroyed, not saved.
It is always good to know Christians can only refute you by making things up , in this case, making up the claim that Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5 that 'our present bodies' are clothed upon.
Revelation might well contradict Paul, but that proves only that Christians contradict each other.
Similarly, Luke 24 does make Jesus say he was not a spirit (pneuma)
But Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that 'the last Adam became a life-giving spirit (pneuma)
It seems Christians think that if they find a bit of the Bible which contradicts another bit, then they have proved the Bible is true....
From: Andy Evans
Posted At: 11 April 2009 19:52
I'm one of your few atheist listeners and normally enjoy your show. This week was an exception. Not only am I surprised that you got Steven Carr on (who as far as I can make out has no credentials whatsoever) but out of all the shows in your archive you chose this one to repeat!
As far as I'm aware Steven Carr has been heavily influenced by Richard Carrier. Now I don't for one moment think that Richard Carrier has the best arguments atheism has to offer (Mike Licona refuted them in his debate with Richard Carrier ages ago and last month William Lane Craig did the same thing. In fact Richard Carrier admitted on his blog that william lane Craig won which for someone liek carrier who is not famous for their modesty is quite astonishing!) Nonetheless if you wanted a debate on this subject why not get someone like Richard Carrier who at least has some credibility. Carrier says on his website that he is more than willing to do debates (http://www.richardcarrier.info/speaking.html)
Nonetheless you could probably do better still. Why not try and get Robert Price onto your show and do a debate? http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/
If I hadn't listened to your other shows then I would asusme you got an Internet troll like Steven Carr on to give the Christian an easy target to destroy...I hope this blip in the quality of your guests was a one off.
Mr. Evans is unable to find one word of criticism of what I actually said, or one word of praise for anything Canon Michael Cole said.
He cannot produce one word of these alleged 'refutations', and contents himself with personal abuse, as for some reason known only to him, he is unwilling to tell people what these 'refutations' are.
Guess what? There are no refutations.
Or else Mr. Evans would have produced them, rather than claim that the Emperor has Clothes, even if he cannot say what they look like.