Scan barcode
potatoh_soup's review against another edition
0.5
It’s not even bad for the fact I don’t believe it; it’s just really bad
ensara's review against another edition
LOL! i need to get my work done, so i will not be writing a long review. essentially, this is a step by step checklist on how ch***tians can convince u they're right, and after having read the whole thing, i'm not convinced 🙏🙏 let me leave out the blatant ignorance towards other groups. so many other things u could read to waste your time with, dare i say, even *** *****.
as always, i will share a pro: the authors say to approach all convos with peace and love! so real! (even if they don't exactly do the same)
as always, i will share a pro: the authors say to approach all convos with peace and love! so real! (even if they don't exactly do the same)
sarahed's review against another edition
4.0
An excellent book for summarising the arguments for and against the Resurrection of Jesus in a logical and considered fashion.
I like the minimal facts approach to historical data, meaning that inerrancy is not a prerequisite for belief in the Resurrection. I also like the way the writers dealt with 'a priori' arguments, together with some debate on the existence of God.
The main debate of the book is about 40% of the total reading material. The next 20% is on how to discuss the subject with other people. The remaining 40% is a detailed summary and list of sources and so forth.
A worthwhile read.
I like the minimal facts approach to historical data, meaning that inerrancy is not a prerequisite for belief in the Resurrection. I also like the way the writers dealt with 'a priori' arguments, together with some debate on the existence of God.
The main debate of the book is about 40% of the total reading material. The next 20% is on how to discuss the subject with other people. The remaining 40% is a detailed summary and list of sources and so forth.
A worthwhile read.
ferris_mx's review against another edition
1.0
This book is sophistry at its worst.
In the introduction, the authors state "... intellectual integrity requires that we set aside biases to the point that we can recognize them for what they are. Then we can ask tough questions and conduct responsible research". Reading the text quickly disproves this red herring. Not only does the book present every bit of evidence in a lopsided and biased manner, but it explains to the reader how to marshall the arguments in the book to maximize effectiveness against an unwitting conversant. There are even "certificates of completion", which I have never found as a reward for reading a serious book.
The standard of logic is a stark double standard. The book is rife with phrases such as "the vast majority of scholars agree with X", without presenting hard evidence, sourcing the claim, or identifying the scholars who do not agree. Any argument that refutes one of the tenets of the authors' thesis is discarded as not disproving any other tenet and thus falling short. Any attempt to refute the entire theory is criticized as being probabilistically unlikely, as though probability favors that a human being with siblings and parents was God incarnate and rose from the dead. Sorry, fellas, probability isn't on your side. And your argument is pedantic and tedious.
"...in his capacity as a scientist or historian, he perhaps could not draw the conclusion: 'God raised Jesus from the dead', since he is unable to detect God's actions with the tools of his trade. Of course, this would not prohibit the scientist or historian from believing that God raised Jesus, as many of them do." Thank you. It's a question of belief, not evidence.
I'd like to single out for special distaste the idea that every potential miracle must be examined and discarded before we can disallow the supernatural in our lives. That's a ridiculous standard, and completely contrary to the probability argument offered previously. It's not my obligation to spend my life debunking miracles in order to have a consistent philosophy/theology.
Bart Ehrman's answer to this logic is way more compelling than this drivel. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GHJE7cetkB4
Evangelists like this do a disservice to humanity. They are exceedingly lucky that there is no afterlife. Jesus' message of 2,000 years ago falls on their deaf ears.
I could go on. But I've got better things to do. This lamely closed-minded and predetermined argument undermines the assumption of fact in these ancient texts, because assuming so requires BELIEF in the integrity of the authors that is shockingly lacking here.
In the introduction, the authors state "... intellectual integrity requires that we set aside biases to the point that we can recognize them for what they are. Then we can ask tough questions and conduct responsible research". Reading the text quickly disproves this red herring. Not only does the book present every bit of evidence in a lopsided and biased manner, but it explains to the reader how to marshall the arguments in the book to maximize effectiveness against an unwitting conversant. There are even "certificates of completion", which I have never found as a reward for reading a serious book.
The standard of logic is a stark double standard. The book is rife with phrases such as "the vast majority of scholars agree with X", without presenting hard evidence, sourcing the claim, or identifying the scholars who do not agree. Any argument that refutes one of the tenets of the authors' thesis is discarded as not disproving any other tenet and thus falling short. Any attempt to refute the entire theory is criticized as being probabilistically unlikely, as though probability favors that a human being with siblings and parents was God incarnate and rose from the dead. Sorry, fellas, probability isn't on your side. And your argument is pedantic and tedious.
"...in his capacity as a scientist or historian, he perhaps could not draw the conclusion: 'God raised Jesus from the dead', since he is unable to detect God's actions with the tools of his trade. Of course, this would not prohibit the scientist or historian from believing that God raised Jesus, as many of them do." Thank you. It's a question of belief, not evidence.
I'd like to single out for special distaste the idea that every potential miracle must be examined and discarded before we can disallow the supernatural in our lives. That's a ridiculous standard, and completely contrary to the probability argument offered previously. It's not my obligation to spend my life debunking miracles in order to have a consistent philosophy/theology.
Bart Ehrman's answer to this logic is way more compelling than this drivel. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GHJE7cetkB4
Evangelists like this do a disservice to humanity. They are exceedingly lucky that there is no afterlife. Jesus' message of 2,000 years ago falls on their deaf ears.
I could go on. But I've got better things to do. This lamely closed-minded and predetermined argument undermines the assumption of fact in these ancient texts, because assuming so requires BELIEF in the integrity of the authors that is shockingly lacking here.
revbeckett's review against another edition
5.0
In discussions of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, there exists two opposing contentions in whether His resurrection actually occurred. One side argues there is little to no evidence of His resurrection whereas the other argues there is sufficient historical evidence. The resurrection of Jesus is crucial to our Christian testimony, for “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Corinthians 15:17-19). The resurrection of Jesus is the most fundamental doctrine that Christianity—and our hope—rests on, for if He did not rise from the dead, our hope is lost and our faith a farce. The authors provide excellent and sufficient evidence for the historical fact that Jesus is risen from the dead. They cover the fraudulent and fallacious claims of skeptics, most of which tend to be dogmatic rather than scientific. Habermas and Licona utilise the minimal facts approach to lay out the sufficient evidence that Jesus is, indeed, risen from the dead. For the Christian faith is not blind faith, but reasonable faith.
doggerdog's review against another edition
3.0
Omg can’t believe I was convinced into doing this by Jared
More...