Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostDo you think someone is mistaken about an ear growing back?
No. It's dogma. Miracle accounts are also based on observation and a number have medical documentation and even mention in secular newspapers. Being skeptical of miracles does not mean you are reasonable. It means you are skeptical. When more and more evidence piles up against the position, it is unreasonable. No argument has been given that is persuasive as to why miracles cannot occur and have no occurred. Miracle accounts have been presented and you have to accept for your position that most people are lying or delusional.
Because they are. Either the person is saying X is true while knowing it is not, which is lying, or they are saying X is true, while it is not meaning they think it is for some mistaken reason, which I am putting under the word deluded, or else they are saying X is true and it is true, in which they are telling the truth.
I have explained what I mean. If you know of a fourth option, give it.
No. This assumes deity is a class of being. It isn't. God is not part of a genus but rather being in His very nature. This is shown through good arguments in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition.
And we believe testimony that can send people to death row on the testimony of strangers regularly. I prefer to think that the common man is not really as stupid as we think he is and if only a few people were claiming miracles, that'd be something. When millions all over the world are if not more, that's something else.
And your evidence that your present understanding of the world is accurate is?....
So is a feather's nature. It has mass and matter as well. Do they fall the same way on Earth? Nope.
Correct. Much of Aristotle's science is bunk. Much of it is not. That does not apply to his metaphysics.
But also, this isn't much of an argument. It would be like saying "William has got some things wrong in this thread. Therefore everything he says should be viewed with suspicion." Saying people got things wrong is not an argument to show they did not get some things right. The argument is simply about metaphysics. For that, referring to today's scientists will frankly be useless. Scientists are not philosophers in that sense.
Of course not, but it eliminates lying and if he's persuaded he's telling the truth, it's up to us to examine the claim.
I have presented the scholarly evidence that does not doubt the appearance tradition. This is not the issue with scholars. Ludemann tried to get this to fit with Acts 2 and Pentecost, but he has since abandoned that position and is not sure last I heard what Paul is referring to. Paul is sharing a statement known to Christians all over. This would mean that no Christian ever bothered to go and consult these eyewitnesses, which flies in the face of rich and influential pagans and Gentiles becoming Christians.
And people in churches today do not live in honor-shame societies where their reputation is on the line for what they believe and where claims of falsehood can be met with death. What would it be like for people walking around Jerusalem and other areas to claim they had seen Jesus risen and He was the Lord? Ask yourself what it would be like to be a Christian in a country where ISIS has a strong hand and claim that Jesus is Lord.
Actually, it is one. Paul is replying to questions that they have at the time. In the sequel to this letter, we see no indication that any of this was disagreed with.
So it looks like the standards change when it suits you. Earlier, Paul had a reputation as a liar. Now he has a reputation as someone they would trust. Which is it? If he had a reputation as a liar, to preserve his honor he would want to change that. If he had one as trustworthy, to preserve his honor he would want to keep that trust.
I didn't say anything about it being true there. I said it's a major figure and it's early. We would love to have this for any other ancient figure. Your adding in to my claim is what is silly.
I believe you're the one who had started the discussion about miracles and other religions. I was just answering.
No. I know no such thing. In fact, I am quite certain their memories were better and ours are usually horrible. Now if you think this is not the case, then please present scholarship on ancient societies and how they handled oral tradition.
Of course they rehearsed, but even still, many people heard things one time and they could memorize it all. Lord has shown this in even some modern societies where oral tradition is strong. Jews especially valued memorization. A young student was to repeat a text of Scripture 400 times and then do it from memory. If he couldn't, he did it 400 more times.
Our first biographies of him show up 400+ years after he lived. If 400+ years isn't a problem, the timeframe for the Gospels shouldn't be.
Then you should discount Alex because that's centuries later and that's a passage of time. Again, your methodology would destroy all of ancient history.
I have pointed to the work of Martin, Licona, Wright, and Gundry on this issue and argued repeatedly why this isn't a spiritual resurrection. There has been no response other than to repeat the claim.
Then do what stein and OBP and Adrift and others have been asking along with me. Give a better explanation of the data.
Why would you say you just think so? I don't know a historian who doubts this of the time.
No. It's never hinged on them because I prefer to use earlier material with claims accepted by critical scholars.
This ignores much of what I said unfortunately.
Money? Sorry, but the early church was persecuted. That would mean the loss of possessions. Glory? From who? A Jew would want the glory of God most and to change their most cherished beliefs about Him would require darn good evidence. Attention? Oh they got attention alright. They got lit on fire for Nero's ceremonies. They got shamed. They got persecuted in general. Pride? Yeah. It feels good to be the leader of a sect seen as deviant and to be declared deviant yourself. Paul would definitely change his nice position with the Sanhedrin for that.
The only ones I know who deny this are mythicists.
“The fact of the death of Jesus as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable, despite hypotheses of a pseudo-death or a deception which are sometimes put forward. It need not be discussed further here.” (Gerd Ludemann. .”What Really Happened To Jesus?” Page 17.)
Christians who wanted to proclaim Jesus as messiah would not have invented the notion that he was crucified because his crucifixion created such a scandal. Indeed, the apostle Paul calls it the chief "stumbling block" for Jews (1 Cor. 1:23). Where did the tradition come from? It must have actually happened. (Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Third Edition. pages 221-222)
Jesus was executed by crucifixion, which was a common method of torture and execution used by the Romans. (Dale Martin, New Testament History and Literature. Page 181)
Or look at John Dominic Crossan:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-d..._b_847504.html
"Jesus' execution is as historically certain as any ancient event can ever be but what about all those very specific details that fill out the story? Are they fact or fiction and, if fiction, what is their purpose, intention, meaning?"
There are multiple ideas of what happened to Dionysus. Osiris meanwhile came back to life....in the underworld! He never returned to life again.
He would have had to have been. If all that was done was the body that was crucified got up again with no healing, no one would have thought this was a new and glorified body. David Strauss said this years ago and he was no friend of Christianity.
No. When you've given a natural explanation, I've shown what I consider problems with it. Those are not responded to other than pointing to biases and such supposedly that I find unconvincing. Meanwhile, every miracle account that is presented here is ipso facto dismissed.
Yeah. Ancient people knew the same kind of thing too. No one here is just saying "God did it." We're noting the life of a person charged with religious significance and a claim centered around their very theistic claims. The earliest eyewitnesses said it was a resurrection and we see that the other explanations are flimsy.
They would need to give evidence of that claim. We have in fact given evidence. We've argued He died, was buried, was seen again bodily and this by large crowds of people, and that the evidence was enough to convince the people who had the most to lose in an honor-shame society. We have not just said "He flew into Heaven."
Feel free to show it happened with Jesus.
Who said it was a ghost? It was just something. Even if it's a hallucination, they are still convinced they are seeing something.
I don't believe in ghosts, but I do believe that people are certain they see dead loved ones again and you know what it means to them every time? It means the person is dead. I don't know of cases where this happens and they say "Open the tomb! My spouse is alive!"
The same in the ancient world. If you saw someone like that, they were dead. A Jew would say it was the person's angel for instance.
I asked you to show something happened. If you have a case, make it. Don't just throw out an idea. Give evidence from the best scholarly material why that should be accepted.
Not in this case. For what reason would one superstition be traded for another, especially if this other one would put you on the outs with Rome and Judaism both and would mark you as shameful in your society as a whole?
Sure. Try Wax Tablets of the Mind, or try the Lost World of Scripture, or try Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels.
They get this by reading the ancients and by studying similar societies today. There are still oral societies today where memorization is praised.
Do you have any indication that this is going on in the case of Jesus? Do you have any indiciation of PTSD or that these were people who claimed to see dead people every day?
Nice assertion.
In an area that is readily available to all, sure.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RumTumTugger View PostI see we have a sufferer of Dunning/kruegar syndrome
--------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary Claims demand Extraordinary Evidence.
I'll buy that.
Extraordinary Evidence: after 2000 years, kind of difficult to come by - even so, there is enough to warrant a suspension of disbelief sufficient to take seriously the possibility of the claims being fact.
People in large numbers switching from perfectly adequate prior held faiths to embrace the faith being promoted by Hebrews (of all possible races and religions) - basing that faith on claims of the resurrection of some unheard of itinerant preacher from a backwater block of a backwater province of the empire? Someone who was all but unknown even to the incumbent procurator of Judea of his own time? Who would believe such extraordinary claims if they weren't documented?Last edited by tabibito; 08-22-2015, 12:48 PM.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostYou jackass. I'm throwing you a life jacket to keep from drowning and you're going "screw you! I can save myself!". You've got this thing were you go on and on with no real point (much less insight) and whining that anybody that disagrees with you is stupid. People have pointed out where you are not arguing well (including some of atheists on this board) and you just keep pushing in. Do you really think anybody takes you seriously? Dude, nobody really does. I keep in touch with most of the atheists on this board, and all of them that have mentioned you think you're a complete dumbass; some of them wonder if you're a parody.
Fact is, you failed miserably to disable Nicks arguments during your debate with him and people started out thinking you were just inexperienced. But instead of just turning around and taking the defeat like a man, you've babbled on about nothing, and you've managed to embarrassed yourself in a way I've only seen an atheist do once in my time on this site. That's a real accomplishment buddy, because I've seen em' all.
I was on Infidels for years, on AF after that, and then I moved to this site. I've argued with these guys off and on for fifteen years - committing blasphemy many times along the way. I was doing this long before it was cool, amigo. So maybe just go and pick on someone you're own size that's dumb enough to spend more time on you.
Keep on going though. You're hot $$$$ right?
You have never once challenged my arguments with arguments, only personal attacks. I have presented what I believe to be a devastating argument against Nick's position by posting Dr. David Johnson's argument. If my position, which is Dr. Johnson's argument (a PhD professor of Philosophy) is as stupid as you say, then refute it instead of trying to trash me personally.
Last edited by rogue06; 08-22-2015, 01:54 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostAsks for an example of amputated body parts growing back. Says that'll get his attention. Finds one. Still couldn't have been a miracle.
Skeptics constantly ask why God doesn't do some sort of special magic to prove that he exists just for them (having already ignored the most obvious miracle that is this universe). If only God came down and walked on water, calmed storms, healed people at a touch, then they would believe. No they wouldn't. Some people will always find a reason not to believe. Anything is possible, but God.
Once again...we skeptics are not trying to prove that miracles do not and cannot happen! How many times must I repeat that??????
We are trying to prove Dr. Johnson's position: It is impossible to prove as absolute fact that any miracle has happened as there are always more probable, more naturalistic alternative explanations. Theists are free to believe in miracles, but we skeptics are free to point out that the event in question most likely can be explained with a natural explanation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostYou have never once challenged my arguments with arguments, only personal attacks. I have presented what I believe to be a devastating argument against Nick's position by posting Dr. David Johnson's argument. If my position, which is Dr. Johnson's argument (a PhD professor of Philosophy) is as stupid as you say, then refute it
instead of trying to trash me personally.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Postchecking google .... ah - delusions of adequacy.
--------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary Claims demand Extraordinary Evidence.
I'll buy that.
Extraordinary Evidence: after 2000 years, kind of difficult to come by - even so, there is enough to warrant a suspension of disbelief sufficient to take seriously the possibility of the claims being fact.
People in large numbers switching from perfectly adequate prior held faiths to embrace the faith being promoted by Hebrews (of all possible races and religions) - basing that faith on claims of the resurrection of some unheard of itinerant preacher from a backwater block of a backwater province of the empire? Someone who was all but unknown even to the incumbent procurator of Judea of his own time? Who would believe such extraordinary claims if they weren't documented?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostOnce again...we skeptics are not trying to prove that miracles do not and cannot happen! How many times must I repeat that??????
We are trying to prove Dr. Johnson's position: It is impossible to prove as absolute fact that any miracle has happened as there are always more probable, more naturalistic alternative explanations. Theists are free to believe in miracles, but we skeptics are free to point out that the event in question most likely can be explained with a natural explanation.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostAnd as ever, the demand for proof absolute is nonsensical - using that criterion for ANY fact would make it impossible to demonstrate. Proof absolute doesn't even exist for the fact that the world didn't spring into existence last Thursday.
I ask no more proof for a miracle claim than I would ask for any other extraordinary claim. If someone told you that they had just spent two days on a Martian spaceship would you simply take their word for it?? I don't think so. It is an extraordinary claim and I am sure you would demand considerable evidence before you are willing to believe it.
Comment
-
Ok. Since Nick and Stein won't present any of Keneer's miracles, I will find them and present them. Here is a Christian blog author, James Bishop, who discusses some of Keneer's miracles. Let's take a look at some of them:
Introduction:
What I have done below is extracted some magnificent and miraculous healing stories from Craig Keener’s book ‘Miracles’ (Chapter 8 & 9). This is but a sampling, a mere taster of what his book has to offer, and so I implore any interested reader to get a copy of Keener’s book. I assure you that one’s presuppositions will be challenged. Below I touch on a few miracle stories from Australasia (Fiji, Solomon Islands, PNG), Asia (China, Indonesia, South Korea) and countries in Africa – I have still yet to reach the miracle testimonies from Europe, and North/South America – I look forward to those greatly, and I will definitely post a follow up of those in part 2. Keener has certainly done a thorough job on this subject, he has spent years travelling to some of the places he records in his book, he has spent time interviewing hundreds of miracle eyewitnesses, and he has done a convincing job at deconstructing Hume’s anti-supernatural bias that has infiltrated western academia. A two volume set of 1200 odd pages of reports and analyses is a lengthy read, but I must be honest that every page has seemed valuable to me. So, for that reason I document 40 miracle testimonies for you that I have randomly picked out of Craig Keener’s book. Also, at the bottom I have included notable quotes by those who have investigated the subject of miracles. Also, bear in mind that the collection of miracle narratives in chapters 8 & 9 are not the best Keener has to offer. In fact, the most probable, and widely attested miracle claims are saved for later chapters, I very much look forward to those.
https://jamesbishopblog.wordpress.co...es-and-quotes/
Miracle claim: Boy nearly dies from drowning, and a man healed by a vision of Jesus:
In one report the recovery of a boy nearly dead from drowning, after more than twenty-four hours of prayer, led to the spread of Christianity in an area (Oblau, “Christianity in China,” 414; idem, “Healing,” 324). In 1989, Zhao Guifang, nearly bedridden, was healed of a chronic illness (diagnosed as inoperable uterine cancer and appendicitis) during a vision; as a result, Christianity spread and a church grew to five hundred (Zhaoming, “Chinese Denominations,” 450–51).
Gary: How many children are rescued from drowning each year? Many. So just because someone was praying for this one particular child is not proof that prayer rescued this child.
And here we have a cancer cure. Google "natural cancer cures" on the internet and you will find all kinds of "miracle treatments" for cancer that will list many, many similar anecdotal claims of cure. How do we know the woman had "inoperable uterine cancer"? How do we know that it was cured? How do we know that maybe she is just feeling better temporarily but the cancer is still there. As a doctor, I have seen this many times. Feeling better for a period of time doesn't mean the cancer is gone.
We would need to see all the medical records, CT scans, lab reports and interview the woman, her doctors and all witnesses to establish the veracity of these claims.
Do you notice something odd in this scenario? The title says that a "man" was healed by a vision of Jesus. Last time I checked my anatomy books, a man does not have a UTERUS.
This is really sad folks. If that is the level of Keneer's scrutiny and professionalism the quality of his book is pathetically poor. Can you imagine him presenting this case to a group of doctors and telling them that a MAN had been cured of UTERINE cancer!!! How embarrassing.Last edited by Gary; 08-22-2015, 01:22 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostMuslims use the very same arguments for the development and spread of their faith.
As I have previously pointed out, the very people who constitute the Honor Shame society that Nick goes on and on about not believing a shameful new belief unless it were true---overwhelming rejected this new shameful belief.
The overwhelming majority of Jews then and now reject this belief. Only a few Galilean peasants and mostly poor, uneducated Gentiles bought this tall tale.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Second hand quotes related to issues that are not under review in this thread don't cut it: it is begging the question.
----------------------
You have dreamt up a scenario that satisfies you - but look again: where are the parallels? The father in the story I gave you died of pneumonia - and on the weekend that his son visited, he showed no symptoms of pneumonia. You have also failed to address the issue of why the atheist paid any attention to what he was told. Moreover, while your scenario might serve to satisfy some, it certainly would not satisfy the Christian - who knows that nothing of the sort happened.
The task here is to convince that Christian that nothing miraculous was involved. What can you dream up to support your contention that there can have been no miracle and that there are no gods?
-------------------------
Right now you in a similar class to those "apologists" who look at an atheist's claim of discrepancies in the Biblical record and seize on some lame rationalisation to hand wave part of the claim away: ignore the bulk of the claim: then declare themselves the victors in the debate.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Miracle Claim: Handicapped man able to walk after brother’s prayer:
A foreign interviewer reports various accounts in China. One interviewee claims, “In 1992 . . . I could hardly walk, and I was in terrible pain. . . . My younger brother is a Christian. He just prayed for me once, and the leg didn’t hurt any more. . . . Soon afterwards, I could get up and walk again.” (Währisch-Oblau, “Healthy,” 89)
Gary: Could this man have been healed by prayer? There is no way to know. This account doesn't say that the man had a hip xray that showed severe osteoarthritis and that a subsequent xray showed a normal joint. That would get my attention. But based on the details given, people get better from leg pain spontaneously all the time.
Miracle claim: Singer Chen Guifang healed:
Chen Guifang was “bed-ridden for eight years,” fed through a tube because she was “unable to eat”; the day after her conversion, she asked for food for the first time in years, and “after a month she recovered completely,” leading to the starting of a new church. Likewise, the researcher claims that Chen Heying “had throat cancer for three years and no doctor dared operate on her”; after having been healed, she now sings daily. (Lambert, Millions, 114–15. He also notes that one healing of broken bones (over the course of three weeks) led many to Christ (115–16))
Gary: Now if these claims were true, this would be truly remarkable. However, we would need to examine the medical records, view the imaging studies, and interview the patient, doctors, and witnesses to verify this remarkable story. Throat cancer (esophageal cancer) has a very bad prognosis. If this woman truly had end stage esophageal cancer, was unable to eat without a feeding tube, and within days/weeks was completely cured---I would be a believer. Just this one case would be enough for me to believe. But before believing, I would need to carefully examine the evidence. I would not just accept these claims as fact because very respectable people are repeating the story.
So see, I am willing to believe in miracles, I just need good evidence to do so.
I will let the readers click on the link and look at the other claims. Again, we must ask in each case: How thoroughly was the case investigated and was the case investigated by someone who had no vested interest in confirming a miracle?Last edited by Gary; 08-22-2015, 01:35 PM.
Comment
-
Begging the question.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostBy contrast with early Muslim spread by force, early Christianity was embraced willingly - without coercion. So no, I'm not buying the idea that there is a commensurate underlying reason for the spread of the two religions.
Indeed they did: so you now have the task of explaining why a sect that was so overwhelmingly rejected in its homeland should have received such a ready reception in other nations - and by numbers sufficient for Rome to perceive that sect as a threat.
Along with foreigners in sufficient number for Rome to perceive the spread of the religion as a threat.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment