Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

Why not? People aren't mistaken about that kind of thing. I would have no problem and in fact have believed similar claims from a Muslim. You just don't go with it because it goes against your faith that miracles don't happen.



Wow. Seriously? You think someone like Moreland is stupid enough to think something like this? If he says he saw a new ear, that means he saw a new ear



I challenge you to read his book because I already provided the list of miracles from the book that was worthy of looking at.

Wrong. Moreland did NOT say that he saw a new ear. He said he saw what he thought was an "ear bud". I challenge you to prove to me that Moreland has ever previously seen an "ear bud" and therefore would be qualified to say that the bump on the guy's head was a sprouting ear and not a hematoma.

[Gary]

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.

I have repeatedly asked you to present just ONE miracle case from Keneer's book so that we can all evaluate it to determine if a miracle is the only explanation for the evidence. Why are you avoiding doing this? I believe you are avoiding doing this because you know you're argument is weak.

[tabibito]

I see we have a sufferer of Dunning/kruegar syndrome

checking 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?

[Gary]

You 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?

Dear pompous • Edited by a Moderator •,

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.

Moderated By: rogue06

Please watch the language. Thanks

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Gary]

Asks 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.

[tabibito]

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

there's a certain validity to this complaint.

instead of trying to trash me personally.

but he recovered from the slip by calling the kettle black-tail.

[Gary]

checking 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?

Muslims use the very same arguments for the development and spread of their faith. You and other Christians don't buy their argument as adequate, just as Muslims and Jews don't buy the Christian argument as adequate. 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.

[tabibito]

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.

And 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.

[Gary]

And 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.

Tabby: That is NOT what I am saying!

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.

[Gary]

https://jamesbishopblog.wordpress.co...es-and-quotes/

[tabibito]

Muslims use the very same arguments for the development and spread of their faith.

By 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.

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.

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.

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.

Along with foreigners in sufficient number for Rome to perceive the spread of the religion as a threat.

[tabibito]

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.

[Gary]

[tabibito]

Begging the question.

[Gary]

By 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.

Not true. Islam started as a religion of one. Mohammad had to convince his community of Bedouin Arabs to give up womanizing, drinking, and other moral debauchery and live by his new moral standards. He had to do this by the power of preaching, not by a sword. Yes, once he had convinced a large number of men to his new faith, Islam was spread by the sword. But the same is true for Christianity. Initially it spread by preaching, but Christianity did not become the prominent religion in the Roman Empire or the world by preaching. Eventually all opposition to Christianity was persecuted and destroyed, even Christian sects were persecuted and destroyed. The conversion of the Americas and even in Africa did not happen by preaching, it happened by brutal force by the conquering Europeans.