Linkedin This review first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume30, number6 For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: Norton,a defense of Darwin. A Theory in Crisis Adler and Adler,
However, the infinite theistic God is as unlike us as a deity could be the maximally great being! Humans making gods in their own image would indeed invent the likes of Zeus and Apollo; but not the Holy and personally demanding deity of the Bible! That would be like arguing that the fan who is just certain that a certain pop idol simply must like the same things they like thereby proves the non-existence or deluded status of belief in the existence of the pop star concerned!
The idea of a copycat religion really arose in Germany at the end of the nineteenth and the start of the twentieth century. This seemed an attractive hypothesis for a while, but subsequent scholarship has examined this hypothesis and found it wanting, for a number of reasons.
Nowadays it is regarded as a dead issue by almost all scholars. And certainly nobody claimed that the one and only God, the creator and judge of the whole earth, had embodied himself in Apollo, Hercules, Augustus, and the rest But no better ones have been put forward.
Analogies from the Hermetic literature, the Gnostic Redeemer myth or the Mandean literature are all post-Christian and therefore quite unable to account for the rise of the Christian belief; they may all also be influenced two of them certainly are by Christian beliefs.
Bultmann was among many scholars who Since then, however, scholarship has moved on considerably.
The parallels between the pagan myths of dying and rising gods and the New Testament accounts of the resurrection of Jesus are now regarded as remote, to say the least It is at this point that the wisdom of C. Lewis — who actually knew something about myths — must be acknowledged.
Perhaps most important, however, was the realization that the gnostic redeemer myths — which the New Testament writers allegedly took over and applied to Jesus — were to be dated later than the New Testament.
The challenge posed to the historicity of the resurrection by these theories has thus passed into textbooks of the history of ideas.
Christian Orthodoxy and Modern Theologies, ed. They all post-dated the first century. Thus, it is certainly a plausible theory that the mystery religions borrowed this aspect from Christianity, not the reverse.
Mettinger takes what he admits is the minority position that there are three to five myths about dying and rising gods that do predate Christianity, but he nevertheless concludes that none of these serve as parallels to Jesus, let alone as causal factors in the Christian understanding of Jesus: The death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions.
Second, many alleged similarities are exaggerated or fabricated. Third, the chronology is wrong.
Writers cite beliefs and practices that postdate the first century in an attempt to argue that they influenced the first-century formation of Christianity. Fourth, Paul would never have consciously borrowed from pagan religions; in fact, he warned against this very thing.
Fifth, early Christianity was exclusivistic; any hint of syncretism in the New Testament would have caused immediate controversy. Sixth, unlike the mystery religions, Christianity is grounded in actual historical events. And seventh, what few parallels remain could reflect a Christian influence on pagan beliefs and practices.
Pagan attempts to counter the influence of Christianity by imitating it are clearly apparent. The Case for the Real Jesus, Zondervan,p. Jesus and his disciples were first-century Palestinian Jews, and it is against that background that they must be understood. Christian Truth and Apologetics, Crossway,p.
My opening speech gave a definition of God in the process of giving the ontological argument. God is the maximally great being. In response Copson seems to misunderstand this objection as an attempted argument for theism.
This is a bad analogy cf. However, the house gave three arguments for theism, so even if the house did have a burden of proof, we would have met it! Bill Craig got his first word in here cf. Ahmed dismisses the argument from miracles as confusing temporal order and causation i.
After all, miracles are by definition rare events! Dr Ahmed brings up Intelligent Design theory and responds with an appeal to authority. It makes no conceptual sense to ask what caused the un-caused being! However, everyone has to act one way or another with respect to the question of how they are going to relate to God if there is a God.
Hence the motion is intensely practical. Second Speech for the House:TheGodDelusion1Debate(Transcript))alphabetnyc.comnnox1 alphabetnyc.com1 31 JJJBeginning!of!debate!and!transcriptJJJ!
Furthermore, Lennox also seemed to be very accustomed with Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, as well as the people Dawkins would quote. For example, Dawkins had misused David Hume’s quote in the connection of the laws of nature.
For The God Delusion Debate, Gayathiri and Sandra chose to listen to Dr John Lennox because the two of us personally believe there is a God while Len Jin and Jerome chose to listen to Professor Richard Dawkins because the points brought forth by Dawkins has more relevance to them personally.
Debunking Dawkins: The God Delusion by Rich Deem Introduction. Richard Dawkins has stepped out of his usual area of expertise, biological evolution, and has attempted to become atheism's greatest apologist.
Early in “The God Delusion,” Dawkins quotes Sagan’s book ” Pale Blue Dot” and concludes: “All Sagan’s books touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder that religion monopolized in past centuries.
My own books have the same aspiration.” Unfortunately, in “The God Delusion,” he doesn’t succeed. The God Delusion Debate was filmed on October 3, before a sold-out crowd at the University of Alabama-Birmingham’s Alys Stephens Center and broadcast to a global audience of over one million.