My good buddy just sent me a link. He believes whole-heartedly in the bible. He squares every circle to ensure anything science comes up with can help explain or remains meaningless towards the biblical account.
I saw “apologetics” in the name and told him my skeptical cortex immediately turned on (it’s located in my neocortex, if you must know).
Anyway, I will pick this apart later on. But for now, I’d like you all to have at it. It’s not going to be very difficult. I skimmed it and immediately saw things like this gem:
(3) John, an eyewitness, certified that he saw blood and water come from Jesus’ pierced heart (Jn 19:34-35). This shows that Jesus’ lungs had collapsed and he had died of asphyxiation. Any medical expert can vouch for this.
An eyewitness, 2000 years ago, noticed water and blood coming from a wound. I wonder how he knew it was water. I wonder why the water and blood didn’t mix. How do you know it wasn’t sweat, a symptom of shock. One might assume a person having their hands and feet nailed to a cross would go into shock. How does this prove death by asphyxiation? And really… “Any medical expert” would vouch for that? Because I happen to live with a doctor, my girlfriend. And I don’t think she would vouch for that; just a hunch.
Here’s another great line:
Jesus could not have survived crucifixion. Roman procedures were very careful to eliminate that possibility.
Jesus died and rose. He’s god. Jesus could not have survived crucifixion because… why? He’s god, remember? Am I the only one face palming right now?
But ultimately, the best is in the opener.
We believe Christ’s resurrection can be proved with at least as much certainty as any universally believed and well-documented event in ancient history. To prove this, we do not need to presuppose anything controversial (e.g. that miracles happen). But the skeptic must also not presuppose anything (e.g. that they do not). We do not need to presuppose that the New Testament is infallible, or divinely inspired or even true.
Well, there you have it folks. We do not need to go on the presupposition that the New Testament is even true… even though many (many!) of the arguments that come later are based on biblical scripture.