Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[tabibito]

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.

within his own tribe perhaps, and not by preaching alone. That is the first point of difference - Christianity had almost no impact in its homeland.

Yes, once he had convinced a large number of men to his new faith, Islam was spread by the sword.

It started with one tribe subjugating another, then another and so on. Again, nothing of early Christianity was a matter of subjugation of other people.

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.

It was considered widespread and fast spreading enough to be considered a threat long before Constantine and its adoption by Rome as the official State Religion. 300 years after inception - again not commensurate with Islamic use of the sword immediately upon inception.

Eventually all opposition to Christianity was persecuted and destroyed, even Christian sects were persecuted and destroyed. The conversion even in Africa did not happen by preaching

Wrong. Conversion in Africa was achieved by preaching - Conversion of pre-existing Christian groups within Africa to the Roman Church (post 300AD) was achieved by the sword,

The conversion of the Americas happened by brutal force by the conquering Europeans.

That's true enough - conversion by means prohibited in the New Testament.

Now - the red herring having been dealt with - there still remains the issue of
--------------------------------------------
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?

[Littlejoe]

Moderated By: Littlejoe

Everyone concerned, for future reference, we do not, and will not tolerate any more full copy/paste posts or Back to Back posts, (quoting yourself does not count). Copy and paste must be used sparingly and to back up actual points by the poster. Anymore violations from this point forward will result in points being assessed.

Thank You
TWEB Mod Staff

***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]

Begging the question.

I left this comment on James Bishop's blog regarding the miracle claims he posted from Keneer's book:

Hi James,

Are the snippets above your wording or did you copy them directly from Keneer's book? The reason I ask is the wording of this particular miracle claim:

"2) 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)."

The title says that a "man" was healed by a vision of Jesus, but the claim itself says that the person was healed of inoperable "uterine" cancer.

Men do not have a uterus. Only women do. If this is your error, its understandable as you are not a medical professional and you did not claim that you had personally investigated these claims, you were only reporting them. However, if Keneer said this in his book, it reflects very poorly on the quality of his research and his claim of having verified the claims. An author who claims to report verifiable miracles but includes a miracle of a man being cured of uterine cancer is a sorry excuse for a researcher, and in the eyes of any medical professional such as myself, makes all his work and claims highly suspect.

[tabibito]

I left this comment on James Bishop's blog regarding the miracle claims he posted from Keneer's book:

Hi James,

Are the snippets above your wording or did you copy them directly from Keneer's book? The reason I ask is the wording of this particular miracle claim:

"2) 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)."

The title says that a "man" was healed by a vision of Jesus, but the claim itself says that the person was healed of inoperable "uterine" cancer.

Men do not have a uterus. Only women do. If this is your error, its understandable as you are not a medical professional and you did not claim that you had personally investigated these claims, you were only reporting them. However, if Keneer said this in his book, it reflects very poorly on the quality of his research and his claim of having verified the claims. An author who claims to report verifiable miracles but includes a miracle of a man being cured of uterine cancer is a sorry excuse for a researcher, and in the eyes of any medical professional such as myself, makes all his work and claims highly suspect.

Red Herring Circling.gif

[Gary]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]8982[/ATTACH]

And how is it a red herring?

You guys seem to like to throw out general, vague criticisms, but aren't giving any specifics, such as claims that Dr. Johnson's argument begs the question. Let's all be specific, shall we?

[Adrift]

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.

Boy nearly dies from drowning, and a man healed by a vision of Jesus is not a subtitle used in Miracles. It's a mistake by the author of the webpage you linked, not Keener's. I have the volumes, but it took me less than 3 minutes to confirm without cracking them open.

How embarrassing for you. If this is an example of your research capabilities I feel sorry for your patients. If the best you can do to refute a thousand-plus page, 2 volume work, overflowing with footnotes, and that contains a massive appendix and bibliography is to desperately search Google for blog posts, then misattribute mistakes in the blog to Keener, then I'd want a second opinion.

[Adrift]

You posted the misattributed mistake on your blog too. You're something else.

[psstein]

Gary, I'm going to put it nicely: if you aren't going to actually read the book, you need to shut up about it. Buy the book, read it, and comment on it, or stop posting nonsense about how Keener is clearly wrong, deluded, etc. I haven't yet read Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus or Gerd Ludemann's book about the Resurrection. Accordingly, I don't comment on it and talk about how xyz argument refutes the book.

That's called being intellectually honest.

Nick, regarding your point on the appearance tradition and 1 Corinthians 15. It has recently become increasingly clear in the scholarly world that 1 Corinthians 15 refers to a bodily, not spiritual resurrection (I can send you some of the work on this if you want, PM me). The appearance tradition is, as you know, extremely early. The five hundred whom Paul refers to are possibly a reference to the apostles or a way to explain that many who saw the risen Jesus are still alive and able to be questioned. That is, there are still many eyewitnesses (see Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses for a longer explanation).

[Gary]

Boy nearly dies from drowning, and a man healed by a vision of Jesus is not a subtitle used in Miracles. It's a mistake by the author of the webpage you linked, not Keener's. I have the volumes, but it took me less than 3 minutes to confirm without cracking them open.

How embarrassing for you. If this is an example of your research capabilities I feel sorry for your patients. If the best you can do to refute a thousand-plus page, 2 volume work, overflowing with footnotes, and that contains a massive appendix and bibliography is to desperately search Google for blog posts, then misattribute mistakes in the blog to Keener, then I'd want a second opinion.

Nice try. I said "if" Keneer wrote this and I asked the blog owner to clarify this point. I never stated as fact that Keneer said this.

[Gary]

You posted the misattributed mistake on your blog too. You're something else.

If you notice the title of my blog post says, "Did Keneer claim a man was cured of uterine cancer?" not a statement of fact that he did.

Nice try.

[Gary]

Gary, I'm going to put it nicely: if you aren't going to actually read the book, you need to shut up about it. Buy the book, read it, and comment on it, or stop posting nonsense about how Keener is clearly wrong, deluded, etc. I haven't yet read Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus or Gerd Ludemann's book about the Resurrection. Accordingly, I don't comment on it and talk about how xyz argument refutes the book.

That's called being intellectually honest.

Nick, regarding your point on the appearance tradition and 1 Corinthians 15. It has recently become increasingly clear in the scholarly world that 1 Corinthians 15 refers to a bodily, not spiritual resurrection (I can send you some of the work on this if you want, PM me). The appearance tradition is, as you know, extremely early. The five hundred whom Paul refers to are possibly a reference to the apostles or a way to explain that many who saw the risen Jesus are still alive and able to be questioned. That is, there are still many eyewitnesses (see Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses for a longer explanation).

Tell you what, Stein, I will agree to shut up when you or any other Christian actually has the courage to post a miracle claim by Keneer, with the supporting documents, that cannot be explained by an alternative, non-miracle explanation. I dare you. Put up or shut up, dude.

[Gary]

Boy nearly dies from drowning, and a man healed by a vision of Jesus is not a subtitle used in Miracles. It's a mistake by the author of the webpage you linked, not Keener's. I have the volumes, but it took me less than 3 minutes to confirm without cracking them open.

How embarrassing for you. If this is an example of your research capabilities I feel sorry for your patients. If the best you can do to refute a thousand-plus page, 2 volume work, overflowing with footnotes, and that contains a massive appendix and bibliography is to desperately search Google for blog posts, then misattribute mistakes in the blog to Keener, then I'd want a second opinion.

Copy and paste the page from Keneer's book here on TW and I will put the correction on my blog.

Boy nearly dies from drowning, and a man healed by a vision of Jesus is not a subtitle used in Miracles. It's a mistake by the author of the webpage you linked, not Keener's. I have the volumes, but it took me less than 3 minutes to confirm without cracking them open.

How embarrassing for you. If this is an example of your research capabilities I feel sorry for your patients. If the best you can do to refute a thousand-plus page, 2 volume work, overflowing with footnotes, and that contains a massive appendix and bibliography is to desperately search Google for blog posts, then misattribute mistakes in the blog to Keener, then I'd want a second opinion.

Here is an exact copy of my question to James Bishop, author of the Christian blog, where this miracle claim is posted:

"Men do not have a uterus. Only women do. If this is your error, its understandable as you are not a medical professional and you did not claim that you had personally investigated these claims, you were only reporting them. However, if Keneer said this in his book, it reflects very poorly on the quality of his research and his claim of having verified the claims. An author who claims to report verifiable miracles but includes a miracle of a man being cured of uterine cancer is a sorry excuse for a researcher, and in the eyes of any medical professional such as myself, makes all his work and claims highly suspect."

[Adrift]

Copy and paste the page from Keneer's book here on TW and I will put the correction on my blog.

I don't care about your dumb blog. You're the one who looks ridiculous for having jumped to wrong conclusions.

For anyone who may be interested, the reference is on page 298 of Volume 1 under Part 3: Miracle Accounts beyond Antiquity, section 8. Examples From Asia, title heading Healings and China, subtitle heading Examples.

[Gary]

I don't care about your dumb blog. You're the one who looks ridiculous for having jumped to wrong conclusions.

For anyone who may be interested, the reference is on page 298 of Volume 1 under Part 3: Miracle Accounts beyond Antiquity, section 8. Examples From Asia, title heading Healings and China, subtitle heading Examples.

To be fair to Mr. Keneer, I'm going to hide my blog post until either James Bishop or you post the exact wording.

If anyone would like to take a peek into Keneer's book, you may do so at Amazon.com. Here is the link:

http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credi...der_0801039525

I was able to read most of the forward for Keneer's book and came upon this statement by Keneer, which I believes fully supports what I and William have been saying along: There are always alternative, more naturalistic explanations for every miracle claim. Here is the quote from Keneer:

"Supernatural causation is not the only possible explanation behind all the accounts, but it is a more compelling hypothesis in some cases than in others."

Kudos to Mr. Keneer!

He then goes on to admit in the last part of the forward section of the book that it was hard for him to remain neutral investigating the claims. Again, I admire his honesty, but scientists will frown on this type of "research"; research in which the researcher is hoping for and actively seeking a specific cause for the event in question.

What is needed is an independent team of scientists and medical professionals to examine each and every claim, and then allow each individual reader to decide for him or herself the probability that the event was due to a supernatural cause or a more probable, naturalist alternative explanation.

[tabibito]

And how is it a red herring?

You guys seem to like to throw out general, vague criticisms, but aren't giving any specifics, such as claims that Dr. Johnson's argument begs the question. Let's all be specific, shall we?

You keep raising issues arising from a book that you have not read whilst ignoring issues arising from matters that have been raised in the thread.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the story about the Atheist and the Christian that I brought up, you came up with an "analogy" that doesn't match the particulars of the story. The "analogy" is of course easily countered - but in no way addresses the original story so it can't be used to explain any part of the events described in that story. Nor can it be used to address any of the issues arising. Instead of making any real attempt to deal with those, you bring up irrelevant matters concerning a book itself that you haven't read, flawed potted history, ad hominems, strawmen - anything that might serve to divert attention from weaknesses in your own philosophy.

I can't address anything in the miracles book that you keep bringing up because I haven't read it - and there would be no point in discussing any issues you raise concerning the book even if I had, because you haven't read it either.

So far, the sum of your contribution on this thread has been little more than second hand criticisms and second hand opinions.

As for your post #1668 - an ad hominem attack attempting to discredit the author - despite the veil of wording it as a query.

But I do thank you for bringing up the book - in the first place, the relevant section doesn't explicitly refer to the gender of the person who is said to have had uterine cancer.
In the second, and more importantly, the point that I was working on - that it is very difficult to overcome the conclusions based on personal experience with philosophy - is quite thoroughly underscored by the surrounding context.

Why post your question on the thread instead of pasting "THIS link" (click) from your quote directly into Google? The answer would have been immediately available and you would not have subjected yourself to unnecessary embarrasment.
That section of Keener's Book should considered be a must read - it demonstrates why people steeped in "superstition" would abandon their long held traditional religions in favour of an upstart competing religion, without any reference to honour societies. And it further demonstrates what is possible when people take their theology directly from the Bible and apply its actual teachings without being thrown into doubt by exposure to contaminated doctrines.
I'm not taking the reports outlined in that section of the text as necessarily true or without exaggeration, but, from close perusal of the Biblical record itself, those reports do tend to match what is to be expected.