Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by William View Post
    you're saying that people in first century Palestine didn't feel guilt, love, sympathy or anger over unfairness? Sure they felt shame too, but devoid of all other emotions. I dont think everyone is like me, I just think the people are generally the same. Can you cite where scholars believe that first century people in palestine had no feelings of guilt and could not comprehend love, admiration, sympathy, anger over unfairness and injustice? I mean, the bible seems to illustrate these in both the old and new testaments, yet you seem to being saying that they just weren't there... where do you get this?
    No. The Bible doesn't illustrate both of these. When it talks about guilt, it means legal guilt and the same with innocence. If you want to see how people thought back then, read scholars like Malina's "The New Testament World." I'm not saying people didn't feel, but the feeling were more externalized than anything else.

    and I didnt say they were identical, but that they had similarities and werent that different. we can read the history together all you like. christianty was spread by the sword on occasion, gather followers with the potential for glory, and got others in my the threat of death or torture - and islam doesnt only spread that way. That was my point, and it's not historically inaccurate.
    How did Christianity even get to Constantine? That's the point. Islam meanwhile spread like that even in the lifetime of Muhammad.

    Muhammad should have lost several battles they were engaged in, being out numbed. And islam certainly had and has it's oppositions yet it not only exists, but thrives. that's the point. christians want to take unlikely longevity and make into a sign of divine origin, but many religions can do that. when looking at the history of both religions, it's wonder either continued, Judaism too
    But Muhammad didn't. He was a military mastermind. Had he lost those battles regularly, Islam would have died out as well.

    Islam gave you perks for joining.

    Christianity gave you suffering.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by William View Post
      "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." This passage came to mind when reading your response. If hearing wasnt enough for Paul, and Paul (Saul) should have investigated the religion thoroughly before discounting it, then should we thoroughly investigate all religions before we discount them, if we end up doing so?

      and if we study other religions, do we do it as we did the bible, with the mind that it's true and we're trying to get all we can out of it, ro do we only treat the bible that way while we search other religions with a far more skeptical eye?
      By all means, study them all the same way. Apply the same standard to the Bible you would to any other ancient history document.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        I'm not sure what you're asking here. No one believes that Jesus had a tomb (at least, not in Jerusalem). He was either buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, or a common criminal tomb.



        Burial implied a tomb. This is backed by both the archaeological evidence, and later Jewish writings on the subject. So we see this from the Babylonian Talmud,

        Source: Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin

        MISHNAH. HOW IS HE HANGED?27 — THE POST IS SUNK INTO THE GROUND WITH A [CROSS-] PIECE BRANCHING OFF [AT THE TOP]. AND HE BRINGS HIS HANDS TOGETHER ONE OVER THE OTHER AND HANGS HIM UP [THEREBY]. R. JOSE SAID: THE POST IS LEANED AGAINST THE WALL, AND HE HANGS HIM UP AFTER THE FASHION OF BUTCHERS. HE IS IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS LET DOWN. IF HE IS LEFT [HANGING] OVER NIGHT, A NEGATIVE COMMAND IS THEREBY TRANSGRESSED, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, HIS BODY SHALL NOT REMAIN ALL NIGHT UPON THE TREE, BUT THOU SHALT SURELY BURY HIM THE SAME DAY FOR HE IS HANGED [BECAUSE OF] A CURSE AGAINST GOD, — AS IF TO SAY WHY WAS HE HANGED? — BECAUSE HE CURSED THE NAME [OF GOD]; AND SO THE NAME OF HEAVEN [GOD] IS PROFANED.

        R. MEIR SAID: WHEN MAN SUFFERS, WHAT EXPRESSION DOES THE SHECHINAH USE? — MY HEAD IS TOO HEAVY FOR ME, MY ARM IS TOO HEAVY FOR ME. AND IF GOD IS SO GRIEVED OVER THE BLOOD OF THE WICKED THAT IS SHED, HOW MUCH MORE SO OVER THE BLOOD OF THE RIGHTEOUS!

        AND NOT ONLY OF THIS ONE [A CRIMINAL,] DID THEY [SC. THE SAGES] SAY IT, BUT WHOSOEVER LETS HIS DEAD LIE OVER NIGHT TRANSGRESSES A NEGATIVE COMMAND. IF HE KEPT HIM OVERNIGHT FOR THE SAKE OF HIS HONOUR, TO PROCURE FOR HIM A COFFIN OR A SHROUD, HE DOES NOT TRANSGRESS THEREBY.

        AND THEY DID NOT BURY HIM [THE EXECUTED PERSON] IN HIS ANCESTRAL TOMB, BUT TWO BURIAL PLACES WERE PREPARED BY THE BETH DIN, ONE FOR THOSE WHO WERE DECAPITATED OR STRANGLED, AND THE OTHER FOR THOSE WHO WERE STONED OR BURNED.

        WHEN THE FLESH WAS COMPLETELY DECOMPOSED, THE BONES WERE GATHERED AND BURIED IN THEIR PROPER PLACE. THE RELATIVES THEN CAME AND GREETED THE JUDGES AND WITNESSES, AS IF TO SAY, WE HAVE NO [ILL FEELINGS] AGAINST YOU IN OUR HEARTS, FOR YE GAVE A TRUE JUDGMENT.

        © Copyright Original Source





        Again, one needs to take into account presuppositions and the cumulative case. If apologists are just looking at the empty tomb, and saying that that is proof that Jesus rose from the dead, then you would have a point. But that's not what most apologists do. Most apologists build a cumulative case, and the empty tomb is only one part of that cumulative case. I think I've repeated this about a dozen times now, but apparently it's not getting through.

        Second of all, presuppositions have a lot to do with what you or I are willing to accept. I believe that their exists a divine being that has the power and ability to do things like raise men and women from the dead. So I'm starting from a presupposition that you're lacking. Now, I also happen to think that there's good reason to believe that a powerful divine being exists, and that this divine being not only has the power and ability to raise Jesus from the dead, but that he also had a desire to do so. But that's a whole nother topic from "do we have evidence that Jesus rose from the dead?" Also, unlike you, because I accept the possibility of divine non-material entities, I'm far more willing to accept the claims of other religions. I may not agree with the source of those divine claims, or the exact details of those divine claims, but neither would I reject their claims outright. Again, that's a major difference between you and I.

        Finally, it's not the case that it takes young age indoctrination or influence to come to one's views about the resurrection. If that were the case then there would never be any converts from any religion or non-theistic belief system to Christianity, and that's certainly not the case.


        sorry, I'm not good with the quotes here...

        Let me say that I'm not atheist. I consider myself agnostic. I think there very could be a creator or many creators in various degrees of moral composition. I was once a very devout and practicing christian.

        But those people who do convert still had influence, yes? Even if they grew up atheist, they still had had surrounding influences who believed in miracles, in God and likely in Jesus. But i suppose that's nearly impossible to do without so perhaps my point there was moot.

        my question about jesus tomb was in reference to the tomb jesus was allegedly buried in. if that wasn't clear. do the scholars know if he was buried in Joseph's tomb or a criminals tomb? do they know which tomb it was? do they know that he wasnt buried in one, and still there, but said to have been buried in the other decades later when the gospels were written?

        m,y point is that the scholars, while well read, only have so many sources. These sources are the essentially the gospels. the gospels are not without controversy among the scholars, and we all written well after the event.

        it doesnt really matter if an empty tomb isnt all, because the rest of it comes from 1) there were believers - but if this really counted, all religions would be verified, 2) witnesses claimed in the gospels... which arent without controversy among the scholars and were written well after the fact, and 3) martyrs, which are really just believers.

        there isnt much know about jesus or his death. The scholars agree on some points based on what is there, but it's still not much. 1)jesus was likely real 2) jesus had a following, 3) jesus was likely crucified by the romans, 4) jesus followers believed his body came back to life, left its tomb and flew into heaven.

        i mean, that's really it. anything more isnt "majority of scholars" anymore.

        i am noyt an expert. I could be wrong, and am willing to consider sources that show otherwise.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          By all means, study them all the same way. Apply the same standard to the Bible you would to any other ancient history document.
          that's how i see it as well.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            Well first of all, you don't have to be a non-Christian to be considered a critical scholar. Some of academia's most critical scholars call themselves Christian. But anyways, Gary Habermas wrote a peer reviewed paper on this subject in 2005 called "Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?". I don't think anyone has successfully challenged his claim that the majority of biblical scholars do accept the tomb was empty. Again, major disagreement tends towards why it was empty.
            The majority of Biblical scholars are believers in the Christian supernatural tales. This is what is called appealing to a biased authority.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              I could be wrong, but I think Nick's point is that, because of the shame and curse associated with crucifixion within Judaism, it was actually easier for a Gentile to accept the claims about the risen Jewish Messiah than it was a 1st century Jew. A crucified criminal would have been the very last person a Jew in that time and place would have expected to be the Messiah. But yeah, I'm just guessing that's Nick's point.
              Exactly! It was much easier for a Gentile who was ignorant of the Hebrew Bible to believe the supernatural claims of Christians than would an educated Jew, like Saul, who was well-versed in the Hebrew Scriptures.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                This is a preposterous assertion. Please list the scholars that believe that the Synoptics were definitely written before 70 AD. I will bet that the handful that assert this are graduates from evangelical universities in Virginia and Texas.
                so what you are saying is that you would only accept what non-theological scholars said, only those who are not Christian? Your bias is showing again.

                I don't feel it is even worth my time to try to prove anything to you (or william) - both of you obviously have never actually studied the evidence, the history, the documentary evidence, nor do either of you have the slightest clue about first century society.

                Come back when you have done your own homework and don't expect others to spoon feed you, while you handwave away what experts and those who have studied the issues say, with your lame excuses.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by William View Post
                  i doubt that crucifixion was akin to pedophilia by any stretch. this is just a statement that is invented to make this point seem credible than it is.

                  "oh, he was unjustly executed because they didnt like his message of love and peace, that's awful, tell me more." "... oh. he was crucified. ew, never mind, that's just as nasty as raping children, never mind..."

                  thieves were crucified. rebels were crucified. it may have been embarrassing to be crucified, but it just makes no sense to suggest that the people viewed being crucified the same way we view being a pedophile. that's almost as absurd as suggesting dead people can come back to life and fly away.

                  look, making statements that like, or about the female witnesses, and then saying, "so see, a man couldnt not have just made that up," doesnt help support the claim. If the dead coming back to life and flying into heaven, through the sky, is possible, then people plugging female witnesses and crucifixions into a contrived or embellished story certainly is. saying "impossible" to a perfectly possible and natural event is just ridiculous when you're simultaneously trying to claim that the impossible event of dead people coming back to life and flying away is not only "possible," but "the most likely" is close to insanity.
                  Amen!!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                    No. The Bible doesn't illustrate both of these. When it talks about guilt, it means legal guilt and the same with innocence. If you want to see how people thought back then, read scholars like Malina's "The New Testament World." I'm not saying people didn't feel, but the feeling were more externalized than anything else.



                    How did Christianity even get to Constantine? That's the point. Islam meanwhile spread like that even in the lifetime of Muhammad.



                    But Muhammad didn't. He was a military mastermind. Had he lost those battles regularly, Islam would have died out as well.

                    Islam gave you perks for joining.

                    Christianity gave you suffering.
                    perks on one hand, hassles on the other - both religions did that and do it still. place and time period change the way it went for some for both religions. They're not mirror images.

                    But even so, uniqueness doesn't equal divine origins or truth.

                    the unlikely success of an underdog isn't unique.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      so what you are saying is that you would only accept what non-theological scholars said, only those who are not Christian? Your bias is showing again.

                      I don't feel it is even worth my time to try to prove anything to you (or william) - both of you obviously have never actually studied the evidence, the history, the documentary evidence, nor do either of you have the slightest clue about first century society.

                      Come back when you have done your own homework and don't expect others to spoon feed you, while you handwave away what experts and those who have studied the issues say, with your lame excuses.
                      I have given my understanding of what the experts have said. I may not be as educated as you, that's very possible. Do you refuse to speak with everyone who disagrees with you and requests you to back up your assertions?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                        Then you think wrongly. Crucifixion was not talked at around the dinner table. People would avoid using the word even.



                        Yeah. Keep in mind this was a culture where Pederasty was acceptable. Women were often seen as mere objects. If someone was crucified, they were not unjustly executed. They obviously deserved it. Society had spoken. (Also, Jesus's message was not love and peace. That would not have got Him crucified.)



                        No. No it's not.



                        If you were making up a story, you might include bizarre things and things that would not normally happen, but if you were trying to convince someone, you would not include shameful things. The Gospels are Greco-Roman bioi so the authors did at least think they were writing history.
                        Then why didn't Saul of Tarsus believe these Christian claims if your evidence is as strong as you claim, Nick?? You continue to make the assertion that it is impossible that ANY first century Jew would convert to such a shameful belief system; a belief system in which its leader had been crucified. So therefore, if there were Jews converting to this new shameful belief system, there must be some truth to it. However, Saul was torturing and executing Jews on a daily basis who believed this claim, and Saul did NOT come to the conclusion that you are making, that no first century Jew would believe this shameful claim unless it was most probably true!! What explanation do you have for this? Are you implying that your evidence is only good enough for uneducated, Galilean, Jewish peasants, and, Hebrew-Bible-ignorant Gentiles??
                        Last edited by Gary; 07-23-2015, 11:55 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by William View Post
                          people don't talk about executions around dinner tables these days.

                          it is absurd.

                          If you were telling someone a story about a guy they should devote their lives to, I can see why you'd deliver it in package that created sympathy for him. when they're conveying a story about his crucifixion, they dont end with "he was crucified" they wrap in neatly, for affect, and say, "through no fault of his own, and even though he was sinless, he loved you so much that he allowed himself to be sacrificed, even to the lowly and painful death of crucifixion, to save you, because he loved you.." it adds sympathy, and guilt and a sense of unfairness that people usually sympathize with. This isn't hard.

                          But i dont think the crucifixion was fabricated anyways. I think truth is mixed in with legend and mythology. this isnt hard or unheard of either - it happens all the time. but putting a bit of truth into a story doesnt mean that the whole story is true nor does it lend any credit to supernatural claims, like the one who was crucified came back to life.

                          you're just parroting baseless claims people make about jews who lived 2000 years ago and how they thought. since no 2020 years old jews are around to question, I guess anything can be made up without it being "disproven," and it just results in "nuh-uh," "uh-huh" even if it were unlikely, it's not impossible. and an unlikely natural explanation is far better than an unlikely, one of a kind, supernatural explanation.

                          I mean, I guess Muhammad marrying his 9 year old niece was embarrassing, so Muhammad must be God's prophet, especially considering the unlikely spread of islam... I mean, we can make stuff up all day about anything and say stuff like, "it would be impossible for a man to admit that an illiterate man, like Muhammad, was the god's prophet, therefore, since it's impossible, we can know that Muhammad was God's prophet.

                          It's just inventing some rule and then pretending it's a real rule. and it's made in the same breath as another claimed rule that something impossible is actually possible and also the most likely scenario, so we should trust it.

                          if someone wants to devote their lives to a book written by men who claim to have special insights into god's will, and if they find that believable, then that's okay with me - i just dont find it compelling and I cant get myself to believe these invented rules people are trying to pawn off.
                          You are exactly right, William. We should all believe the supernatural claims of Islam because it includes shameful elements. Once again Christians are using the false dichotomy that the Bible is all true or all false. This is ridiculous. Saul of Tarsus believed that Jesus had been crucified but he did not believe the claims of a resurrection because he obviously thought the evidence was weak. He continued to torture and execute Jews who did believe this story because he believed them to be a cult and a bunch of nut jobs.

                          Nick: Your evidence was not convincing to educated Jews who knew the Hebrew Bible. Only a "heavenly vision" was going to convince an educated Jew to believe these preposterous, unheard of claims of a dead Jewish messiah being resurrected.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by William View Post
                            my question about jesus tomb was in reference to the tomb jesus was allegedly buried in. if that wasn't clear.
                            Yeah, I caught on later, and edited my reply accordingly.

                            do the scholars know if he was buried in Joseph's tomb or a criminals tomb? do they know which tomb it was? do they know that he wasnt buried in one, and still there, but said to have been buried in the other decades later when the gospels were written?
                            Scholars have all sorts ideas about whether or not Jesus was buried or where he was buried. Generally scholars seem to agree that he was either buried in Arimathea's tomb, or a common criminal grave in keeping with 1st century Jewish custom.

                            m,y point is that the scholars, while well read, only have so many sources. These sources are the essentially the gospels. the gospels are not without controversy among the scholars, and we all written well after the event.
                            The sources are the Gospels and Paul's writings, and are precisely the sort of sources a historian would expect to have about Jesus' death and burial. There are no other sources a historian would expect to have about an itinerant Rabbi from Galilee with a relatively small cult following in 1st century Israel. The fact that these sources even exist, and exist until modern times is astounding. Most literary sources for ancient persons that have made it to present times come long after anyone who knew the person was dead and buried.

                            it doesnt really matter if an empty tomb isnt all, because the rest of it comes from 1) there were believers - but if this really counted, all religions would be verified, 2) witnesses claimed in the gospels... which arent without controversy among the scholars and were written well after the fact, and 3) martyrs, which are really just believers.

                            there isnt much know about jesus or his death. The scholars agree on some points based on what is there, but it's still not much. 1)jesus was likely real 2) jesus had a following, 3) jesus was likely crucified by the romans, 4) jesus followers believed his body came back to life, left its tomb and flew into heaven.

                            i mean, that's really it. anything more isnt "majority of scholars" anymore.

                            i am noyt an expert. I could be wrong, and am willing to consider sources that show otherwise.
                            Here are the 12 historical facts that Habermas has pointed out that most critical scholars accept:

                            1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
                            2. He was buried.
                            3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
                            4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
                            5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
                            6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
                            7. The resurrection was the central message.
                            8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
                            9. The Church was born and grew.
                            10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
                            11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
                            12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

                            Furthermore, most critical scholars accept that Jesus taught in parables, that he preached the Kingdom of God, that he was somehow affiliated with John the Baptist, that he was baptized by John, that he taught on the Son of Man, that he caused a ruckus at the temple, that he instituted the eucharist, that he had brothers, that he was from Galilee, and a number of other things besides.

                            All this aside, I just want to make it clear to you William that I'm not posting here to convince you to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I'm primarily posting to inform you what scholars accept as historical (and occasionally what apologists sometimes argue). I find the evidence for Christ's resurrection convincing. If you do not, then that's fine with me. Well, it's not fine with me. I'd rather you come to a reasonable faith, but I'm not at all interested in convincing someone to convert when it's clear they've more or less already made their mind up.
                            Last edited by Adrift; 07-23-2015, 12:06 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                              The majority of Biblical scholars are believers in the Christian supernatural tales. This is what is called appealing to a biased authority.
                              If you read the paper, Habermas actually deals with the difference between critical and conservative scholars. But that said, rejecting a scholar, regardless of how critical he may be, because he claims to be a Christians is what we call a genetic fallacy. Some of the most critical NT scholars (scholars that make Ehrman and Casey look like conservatives) claim to be Christian.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                Well, first of all, that isn't the claim. The claim is that the majority of critical scholars accept that the tomb was empty. So not only do you need to provide a source for your claim that the majority of Koran scholars believe that Mohammed flew to heaven on a steed, they specifically need to be critical scholars.

                                Second of all, the historical observation about the empty tomb is not a supernatural claim. Historians don't typically defend supernatural or personal theological claims in their academic work. A good historian uses the historical method to examine the historical record and lay out their findings as objectively as possible. So, most critical scholars who accept that the tomb was empty offer natural reasons for why it was empty, or offer no explanation for why it was empty leaving it a mystery. So the parallel you're attempting to make here isn't going to work.
                                Let's just assume that the empty tomb is historical fact. However, does the reanimation of a dead corpse best explain this fact? Again, I believe we should not rule out any possibility, but we should look at PROBABILITIES. For instance, we cannot rule out that Martians beamed up the body of Jesus, leaving an empty tomb. But I'm sure you would agree that the PROBABILITY of Martians being the cause of the empty tomb is very remote.

                                This is my question for Christians regarding the empty tomb claim: Are there any more probable causes for an empty tomb? Are there any more probable explanations for a grave to be open than that an invisible ancient god reanimated and removed the body? I say, absolutely. And here is why: Even if the Roman guard story in the Gospels is true, if you read the Gospels closely you will see that there was a period of time when the body of Jesus was in the tomb, without Roman guards, and without the stone being sealed...in the darkness. Even if there was just a half hour gap, that is plenty of time for a group of man to roll back the unsealed stone, take the body, and roll the stone back...all under the cover of darkness.
                                Last edited by Gary; 07-23-2015, 12:41 PM.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X