Well, you place your confidence about the physical resurrection on rather flimsy grounds. The two earliest gospels, Mark and John (I can justify John as originally written in the mid-50's before a rewriting in the 80's if necessary) both appear to have multiple endings (Mark has 4 well-documented endings, John appears to have two) and in both gospels, the earlies apparent ending in the text does not include a physical resurrection. Justify endings that do not include such if it was real. Now if the physical resurrection is a cover story for some other evidence (see Galatians 3:1 for a hint that this might be the case), then adding a physical resurrection makes sense.
Now Matthew and Luke are later gospels, plausibly written when concealment of some inconvenient facts might be important, that is protecting the truth of the resurrection from Roman eyes. As for Paul's statement, it is totally ambiguous. It works as well with a physical resurrection as it does with some other evidence for the resurrection.
Now against your cited "evidences" stands 1 John 5:8 which describes the evidence for the resurrection, and which does not fit with the recorded physical resurrections. Please provide your reconciliation, then we may return to your train of thought. Unless your approach to apologetics is to simply brush off any objections in order to continue your line of argument and thus disrespect the person whom you are trying to evangelize, which is a very poor approach by the way. Most peole recognize when they are being disrespected and many will return the "favor".
I place my confidence in the NT, and you place your doubt on something flimsy,
apparently having something to do with 1John 5:8.
Seeing nothing to reconcile, I will share the next car, called the Propensity Principle (PP):
The PP points out that until proof is provided in the future at the eschaton, humanity’s existential need and desire for eternal life and ultimate justice (the duo of desirables or DOD) make it logical for truthseekers to have a propensity to hope and believe a God who provides the DOD exists, to determine the most credible revelation of God’s requirement for attaining heaven, and to cooperate with His revealed will. IOW, it seems logical–given the existential facts of death and imperfect justice–that
an unbiased truthseeker would have a propensity to hope the Christian view is correct, because there is no better (credible and desirable) way of attaining the DOD than NT theism. This PP restates Pascal’s wager in terms of comparison shopping (with all belief systems) instead of gambling.
The PP employs linear logic (rather than circular reasoning) to propose faith in the NT God as the best belief that solves the maze of reality as follows:
1. Current scientific knowledge cannot explain how the universe came to exist by means of natural causes, thus it is possible that the cause of the universe is a supernatural Creator/God.
2. The most creative species is humanity, whose traits also include language, moral conscience and God consciousness (personality), so it is possible that these human traits reflect attributes of a God who created humanity.
3. Existential reality indicates that humans are mortal and life is painful, but when life is happy, one wishes it would continue indefinitely. Thus, it is rational to seek ways to become immortal in a heavenly existence (where there is love and justice for all forever, the DOD).
4. Comparing all possible ways of achieving the DOD, the best or most credible way/hope at this point appears to be the God who resurrected Christ Jesus.
5. When words from God are sought, the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul seem to be the most highly inspired when compared with other scriptures (including the OT), because its concept of one God as the just and all-loving Judge (rationale for morality) is spiritually highest or most advanced, and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is most credible.
6. Thus, it is appropriate or wise to believe in the NT God and to accept Jesus as God’s Messiah.
Atheists deny the validity of this argument, but in the absence of disproof, I find the decision to reject the biblical gospel of salvation from selfishness, spiritual death, and a miserable destiny to be illogical or foolish. This is why
all truthseekers should agree on NT theism now rather than assume atheism is an unlucky guess.
As someone has said, heaven is like a vision of water in the desert: the scoffer will surely die where he/she is, while the believer will live if right. Again, however, this analogy should be viewed in terms of comparison shopping and logic rather than of blind faith and fear. True love for God is evoked by His love for humanity and is a reflection of His loving Holy Spirit (1JN 4:7-12); it cannot be coerced, although it can be imitated (2CR 11:14 calls Satan an “angel of light”).
Heaven may not be a mirage!
A biblical illustration of the PP is the OT story about Naaman being told to bathe in the dirty Jordan River to cure his leprosy (2Kings 5:10-14). The Naaman Example teaches us not to let sinful pride prevent us from being cured of spiritual sickness by methods we think are silly or do not fully understand. Some people might not understand why God ordained Messiah to atone for humanity’s sins, so they think the Gospel seems foolish or silly (cf. 1Cor. 1:18-25). However, they accept physical reality without necessarily understanding very well how it works (cf. John 3:8), and Jesus said that those who seek salvation will find it, which indicates that God graces every sinful soul with the ability or opportunity to understand how to be saved (Matt. 7:7, cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4), which might be called “seeking grace”.
This is how a truthseeking atheist should be led logically to amend his beliefs by doubting his doubts.
Any comments anyone?
.
