Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[One Bad Pig]

There is a difference between feeling God is with you, and claiming that He tells you/leads you/moves you to do this or to do that.

Sure - and one must be careful when examining what one is led to do to ensure it is from God and not from some other source.

When I was nine years old, I asked Jesus to come into my heart, forgive me of all my sins, and to be my Lord and Savior. I felt really good at the time. But that feeling faded by the time I was in my teens so I once again prayed to Jesus to save my soul, to be my Lord and Savior, and to give me his presence in my heart to know for sure that I was saved. I felt peace and comfort...for a while. But it would bother me when other evangelical Christians would give their testimonies and state that God would talk to them in their heart, or move them, or lead them to do such and such. I never heard Jesus speak to me or move me or lead me. I sometimes felt a presence, or something, but nothing more than that.

It really bothered me. I begged God to please let me feel the intensity of his presence as he seemed to do for so many other evangelical Christians. But I never felt him speaking or moving me so I eventually gave up and left the church in my mid twenties. There was either something wrong with me; a hidden sin that I was not aware of; or God just didn't want me. I was tired of the struggle to FEEL God.

You were probably going about it the wrong way; it shouldn't be a struggle to feel God. I grew up as an evangelical. When I felt the lack of God's presence, it was invariably due to some unrepentant sin; when I asked God to show me what it was, he would, and repentance of it would bring his presence back.

I didn't come back to my Faith until I became a Lutheran in my thirties. One thing I really liked about Lutheranism is that one's spiritual status with God is not based on you "feeling" God. Lutherans, at least LCMS Lutherans, do not believe that God speaks to individuals today. God only speaks in one manner today: his Word, the Bible. My sense of security in my salvation no longer depended on my feeling saved; feeling that I had truly repented and sincerely prayed to be saved; I learned that the security of my salvation is based on God's promise of salvation and forgiveness which he gives freely in Holy Baptism and in the Holy Sacrament. Not only does God give you salvation and forgiveness, but he gifts you the faith to repent and to receive his gifts of salvation and forgiveness. Wow! God does everything! My salvation is based on objective acts of God, not my own subjective feelings or the sincerity of my act of "accepting him". Now anytime that I doubt my salvation I can look back to my baptism and say, GOD placed his stamp of ownership upon me in my baptism. There is no way for me to lose my salvation unless I outright reject Jesus as my Savior or by living in ongoing, willful sin.

I felt so at peace. It was great. I loved Lutheran Christianity.

I never connected feeling God with my salvation. I was taught once I'd said the "sinner's prayer," I was in good shape salvation-wise; salvation couldn't be lost. IMO LCMS misses the mark in its sole dependence on scripture; it seems to minimize the work of the Holy Spirit today.

[Apologiaphoenix]

nick, i know you are very proud of your status as a "budding apologist" but you have presented nothing new here other than your honor-shame argument which is nothing more than a generalization. Generalizations do not apply to everyone in a culture, only to the majority. The fact that a few uneducated peasants fall for a shameful belief...especially after their leader had been preaching the shameful belief for three years prior to his death...is not surprising to anyone who looks at the evidence with an unbiased review. You are desperately searching for evidence to support your superstition instead of simply looking at the evidence.

q.e.d.

[tabibito]

q.e.d.

And when all else fails - parade your intellectual superiority to the ignorant primitives who need enlightenment.

[Apologiaphoenix]

J.P. Moreland is no idiot. He's no fool. He's not a liar. If he's not a liar and he's not a fool then the idea of him telling the genuine truth and not being mistaken as this is not the kind of thing people are mistaken about jumps up highly.

Of course, this won't matter if you have a precommitment to naturalism.



Which basically means you accept your argument based on personal experience alone but want to discount everyone else's personal experiences. Sorry, but I don't think I experience the totality of reality in my personal experiences.

There are several eyewitness testimonies for the golden plates and even the angel related to Mormonism.
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_Witnesses

so you believe this, or do you think they were all lying or delusional?

Perhaps you might want to realize that some of us have studied Mormonism.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-c...ues/V07N04.pdf

Page 83. Start with the witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

Also, Joseph Smith had a reputation that was well known around town as being a con man. That means testimony should be viewed with suspicion as well as the fact that there is zero archaeological evidence for anything in the Book of Mormon whatsoever.









I am, and you're also proving my point. Your disbelief in miracles is because of a dogma against them. I'm fine with taking each claim and looking at the evidence instead.

Interesting theory.

I recommend picking up Feser's Aquinas or The Last Superstition.




Hume's argument....

Yes. People will lie and be mistaken, but that every single case is of someone lying or being mistaken increases the odds of that not being so. Again, see McGrew's article as he's someone who understands probability far more than you or I do. When you look at a claim, you don't just look at the prior probability, but the probability after the evidence.

You know, this is really incredible. If there were no eyewitness testimony, we'd be hearing that no one ever sees these things. As soon as we say people see them, eyewitness testimony is not valid any more.

See above.





Years and years of reading the most educated minds that I can find on the issue and studying it academically.


I'm not talking about physics. You are. I'm talking about metaphysics. I also never said an item's nature is to fall. I said an item will fall because of the nature that it possesses. To say that its nature is to fall really does not understand nature. Have you had any university level metaphysics classes?



Interesting that nothing here is testable, but oh well. His metaphysics however is getting at the nature of being which gets to the arguments he had for God's existence picked up well by Aquinas later on and worked on. This would in fact include a doctrine of existence itself, something outside of the area of physics.



I'm not talking about Scripture but I'm talking about Aristotle and even still I'm just talking about metaphysics at the start and not a miracle.

No, but I also don't typically disbelieve everything I hear just because it disagrees with my worldview.




In an oral society, the 500 would have been known people. One just had to ask around and they could be found easily enough. Even still, there are other group appearances listed like to the twelve and to all the disciples.



Yes there are many who deny the claim. I find their counter-explanations if they bother giving any to be extremely weak. But we've seen enough of this idea that the ancients then were so superstitious. Do you have any evidence of this?




How? Because everyone was. Everyone thought in terms of honor and shame. We have no record of anyone thinking otherwise. We also know people were swayed based on reading Hebrews. People were tempted to apostasize but there had been no bloodshed yet. It was shaming that was problematic for them. For anyone to claim publicly belief in Jesus, especially in Jerusalem, would be a way to kill their honor level immediately. My thinking has also relied on the fact that several high honor people and people with the most to lose came to accept this claim, enough to financially back the church well.

And I find to disbelieve in Christianity you have to ignore evidence and scholarship and think in extreme fundamentalist terms.


Yes it was expensive, but yes, it was also a conversation. Go read the letters of Seneca that he would have with a friend back and forth. Sorry, but this was an age where you couldn't pick up a phone or email and contact someone and people often had exchanges of letters. Of course, these were the wealthy people who could afford such. Paul can't go running off to every church, so he sends Timothy or someone to find out what's going on and then writes a letter so that they can see in writing his personal recommendation of what to do with the situations.




And why were they already sold? That is the question. Still, at the start, you say Paul had a reputation as a liar. Then you say he had a reputation as someone trustworthy. I saw no basis for the change. Paul meanwhile is stating something already accepted and in fact, Paul said this knowing some from Corinth were going with him soon to Jerusalem as he describes in the very next chapter. Note also Paul is passing along something he received. This tradition predates the letter greatly. Someone like James Dunn even thinks it was made a few months after the event.


Feel free to show them.





If they were real, then we investigate further. Is it the Christian God doing a favor or is it a demon doing something. From my perspective, if it leads people away from Christianity, I do not see it as being of God. It does not mean I do not see it as real.

And again, if so say their only central to Christianity, then I still think it makes miracles of other religions even more problematic for Christianity. When the bible said that God was the one true God, did it mean he was the only one, or just the only one he wanted everyone to pay attention to?
Or is that you think the miracles witnessed from other religions were all reports of lies or delusion?

I've lost track of how many times in this thread we've said we have no problem with miracles in other religions. In fact, your statement just above shows I have no problem with it whatsoever. Note also that even monotheists believe there are other spiritual powers. Islam is radically monotheistic but they believe in Djin.



Um. No. Again, scholars know this as I have said by also studying other such cultures today. If you want to see how this is done, pick up a book on oral transmission which is still used in many places in the world today. It looks like your argument isn't going with scholarship but just saying "That's stupid."

That's not an argument.

People made mistakes back then. People memorize things today. Young men and women in the military today are forced to memorize and recite several creeds, and even passages of the regulations and field manuals. I have memories from the age of 2.

Yes. People memorize things, but they do so less and less. Why should we? We have our phones and computers to store up everything in memory for us.

No I'm not. If you think I am, then feel free to go and read them yourself.




And that was how serious they took memory. They rehearsed these matters over and over. We have ancient statements on memory and the value of memorization and how to teach it and we have modern societies that share similar values. Even today in the Middle East you can find blind Muslims who have the Koran memorized.

[Apologiaphoenix]

No stories of Alexander are miraculous? Are you serious?! His earliest biographies we have talk about his miraculous birth right at the start! Here's Plutarch:

It is agreed on by all hands, that on the father's side, Alexander descended from Hercules by Caranus, and from Aeacus by Neoptolemus on the mother's side. His father Philip, being in Samothrace, when he was quite young, fell in love there with Olympias, in company with whom he was initiated in the religious ceremonies of the country, and her father and mother being both dead, soon after, with the consent of her brother, Arymbas, he married her. The night before the consummation of their marriage, she dreamed that a thunderbolt fell upon her body, which kindled a great fire, whose divided flames dispersed themselves all about, and then were extinguished. And Philip, some time after he was married, dreamt that he sealed up his wife's body with a seal, whose impression, as be fancied, was the figure of a lion. Some of the diviners interpreted this as a warning to Philip to look narrowly to his wife; but Aristander of Telmessus, considering how unusual it was to seal up anything that was empty, assured him the meaning of his dream was that the queen was with child of a boy, who would one day prove as stout and courageous as a lion. Once, moreover, a serpent was found lying by Olympias as she slept, which more than anything else, it is said, abated Philip's passion for her; and whether he feared her as an enchantress, or thought she had commerce with some god, and so looked on himself as excluded, he was ever after less fond of her conversation. Others say, that the women of this country having always been extremely addicted to the enthusiastic Orphic rites, and the wild worship of Bacchus (upon which account they were called Clodones, and Mimallones), imitated in many things the practices of the Edonian and Thracian women about Mount Haemus, from whom the word threskeuein seems to have been derived, as a special term for superfluous and over-curious forms of adoration; and that Olympias, zealously, affecting these fanatical and enthusiastic inspirations, to perform them with more barbaric dread, was wont in the dances proper to these ceremonies to have great tame serpents about her, which sometimes creeping out of the ivy in the mystic fans, sometimes winding themselves about the sacred spears, and the women's chaplets, made a spectacle which men could not look upon without terror.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/alexandr.html

No. I do not. How long will we go with this straw man? But at the same time, if it was a friend I knew who had a reputation for telling the truth and not being mistaken about such things, I would be willing to change my mind and look at the evidence.




Plutarch did.

This battle presently made a great change of affairs to Alexander's advantage. For Sardis itself, the chief seat of the barbarian's power in the maritime provinces, and many other considerable places, were surrendered to him; only Halicarnassus and Miletus stood out, which he took by force, together with the territory about them. After which he was a little unsettled in his opinion how to proceed. Sometimes he thought it best to find out Darius as soon as he could, and put all to the hazard of a battle; another while he looked upon it as a more prudent course to make an entire reduction of the sea-coast, and not to seek the enemy till he had first exercised his power here and made himself secure of the resources of these provinces. While he was thus deliberating what to do, it happened that a spring of water near the city of Xanthus in Lycia, of its own accord, swelled over its banks, and threw up a copper plate, upon the margin of which was engraven in ancient characters, that the time would come when the Persian empire should be destroyed by the Grecians. Encouraged by this accident, he proceeded to reduce the maritime parts of Cilicia and Phoenicia, and passed his army along the sea-coasts of Pamphylia with such expedition that many historians have described and extolled it with that height of admiration, as if it were no less than a miracle, and an extraordinary effect of divine favour, that the waves which usually come rolling in violently from the main, and hardly ever leave so much as a narrow beach under the steep, broken cliffs at any time uncovered, should on a sudden retire to afford him passage. Menander, in one of his comedies, alludes to this marvel when he says-

For the ancients, having a military ruler succeed so mightily was a sign of favour of the gods. Jesus would have the opposite. He would be seen as cursed by God.

I actually think God was behind the success of Alexander. Alexander got the world to all speak one language and share a common culture. That made the spread of the Gospel much easier. Also, I would expect we would have more evidence for a military king who conquered the world and received world acclaim and was successful in battle than we would a Jewish sage who lived only in the area of Palestine, was a teacher, and got crucified on a cross, though he had a reputation of being a huckster since He was said to have worked miracles.

I just argued that if you reject the biographies of Jesus because they're late, you should do the same with Alexander.

But it looks like those goalposts got moved.

movingthegoalpost.jpg




So you're going to ignore what the experts and authorities in Greek say because you want to go with what an ancient document means to a modern person in another culture, place, time, and with a different language and who cares what the experts in the language say?

Yeah. Really open to evidence there.


Tell exactly what happened on Easter morning that explains all the data I've presented. Why would mass people claim someone was alive again? Why would people with high honor suddenly believe a claim that went against everything they believed? Why would Jews change their age-old traditions for a crucified Messiah? What happened to the body of Jesus? Etc.










Hannibal crossing the Alps.

Sure it was for good reason. The gospels present more questions than they do anything else.

No. It's because the Pauline creed is earlier and the claims in it are accepted by even critical scholars. Earlier is normally better.



No. I never dismissed them. I only explained with one and that is the milk and I said that one because I know someone who did that personally in her own home.

In this case, it has been demonstrated to happen. When a spoon is put underneath a surface like that, the surface naturally licks up some of the milk there.

And I said that I thought you had a good point and that I am doing the same with the miraculous claims of your religion too.

Sure. Then show how it happened.


So you can't think of anything they had to gain, but it had to be something. I'm supposed to believe a motive I have no evidence for and then disregard what I do have evidence for?


Nope.





No. Our earliest accounts all agree. Bodily resurrection.

So jesus and the boy were both resurrected in their fleshy, physical bodies, according to the bible.

One never to die again. One to die again.

When it can explained by a anural cause of any type, then yes, much like you did with the miracle claims of the other religions we discussed earlier.

Neural causes might work with individuals, but not with groups. It's hard if not impossible to find material on group hallucinations out there. As for miracle claims in other religions, I explained one and even still said I have no problems with them being a reality.

And whatever problems that arise from any natural explanation, they are far smaller the problems with supernatural explanation.

No. Once one accepts theism, and there are good reasons to do so, many of those problems just aren't really there as much. I find natural explanations of the resurrection extremely problematic.




Yes. They are flimsy and note also I did not point to a religious experience as the key point of my argument and where they did take place, they were not in isolation. As for only through Jesus, that would not make it flimsy. Saying only one person came back from the dead does not make it flimsy because other religions cannot claim the same.

But then, show that they did. Where's the other religion based on someone coming back from the dead?

No, you said others said that he flew into heaven, so we can be sure of it since they said that they were telling the truth. Paul said 500 saw it so it must be true.

No. I said nothing about this tired straw man of "Flew into Heaven." I spoke about just seeing Jesus alive after He had been crucified.

Same to you.

I've backed my case by pointing to the works of critical scholars in the field. Have you?

Ancients knew that just as much as you and I do.

But you do think all those people were delusional or lying?

Here's the difference.

Those people who see dead loved ones know that they're delusional at the time and it's a hallucination, although I would be open to a loved one appearing at times. Now if they go to the tomb certain the person is alive, that's a different matter.

You would think so.

And they did so. Look at Acts 12. The church is praying for Peter who is essentially on death row and with the wonderful faith of the early church, Peter knocks at their door having been freed by an angel. What does the church say when a little girl tells the people praying that Peter is at the door? "Well it must be his angel." Meaning: Peter has been killed and his angel is here to see us.

I guess for the same reasons people in the US leave Christianity for other religions like Islam. Do you need a scholarly source that happens or are you already aware that does in fact take place?

The U.S. is a modern individualistic society that is not honor-shame based and believes in tolerance for differing opinions (supposedly) and has a live and let live attitude.




The latter is not a reputation to read the synoptics, as much as I encourage that.

http://www.amazon.com/Synoptic-Gospe...=Robert+McIver


YOu don't see it celebrated much in our society. That's why you have works speaking about how we're witnessing the Dumbest Generation.


I see the misunderstanding here. They saw dead people in the sense that they saw people who were at the time dead. Seeing a corpse was common. They did not see dead people in the sense of thinking dead people were alive around them every day.

That does not equate to PTSD or visonary experiences.

First off, if you served, my thanks to you. Second, in the ancient world, survival was something all people were concerned with. Death would be shown because it was a powerful motivator the Romans had.





Science and miracles can exist together just fine. No problem.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Scholars and experts are mistaken in their field if they are the 99% of scientists who endorse the Theory of Evolution, but if they are Christian scholars of an ancient middle-eastern holy book, promoting the reanimation of first century dead human flesh, their majority opinion should not be questioned.

Has anyone here argued against evolution? Anyone.

If I woke up tomorrow and saw a headline that said "Southern Baptist Convention all agrees that macroevolution is true" and I could verify this, I would think that was interesting and move on.

If I saw instead "National Academy of Sciences abandons macroevolution" and I could verify it, I would think the same thing.

I have no problem with evolution and I do not think for a moment that experts in their field are to be ignored.

I've also in my debate consistently pointed to what non-Christian scholars said. That made it so hilarious when you spoke about my scholars being biased. They sure are. They're biased against Christianity.

[Gary]

Has anyone here argued against evolution? Anyone.

If I woke up tomorrow and saw a headline that said "Southern Baptist Convention all agrees that macroevolution is true" and I could verify this, I would think that was interesting and move on.

If I saw instead "National Academy of Sciences abandons macroevolution" and I could verify it, I would think the same thing.

I have no problem with evolution and I do not think for a moment that experts in their field are to be ignored.

I've also in my debate consistently pointed to what non-Christian scholars said. That made it so hilarious when you spoke about my scholars being biased. They sure are. They're biased against Christianity.

The only scholars in the world who believe in the central miracle claim of Christianity, the reanimation of the dead body of a first century Jewish prophet, are Christians. Muslim scholars, Jewish scholars, and agnostic/atheist scholars do not believe this event happened (with the one exception of Lapide). So what if "most" scholars believe there was an empty tomb? The empty tomb proves nothing as even you have agreed. Neither do Jewish, Muslim, or agnostic/atheist scholars find your "Honor-Shame" argument sufficient to believe in Christianity's central miracle claim. No one buys that this supernatural event happened 2,000 years ago other than Christian scholars who are already believers in the entire belief system. So your "Scholar" argument also falls flat. Believe this event happened if you want to, but you have no more evidence for it than Muslims have for Mohammad flying on a winged horse to Heaven.

[Apologiaphoenix]

The only scholars in the world who believe in the central miracle claim of Christianity, the reanimation of the dead body of a first century Jewish prophet, are Christians.

First off, if this was true, wouldn't you expect that? Wouldn't you expect people who believe He was the resurrected Lord to be willing to call themselves Christians? Why is this a shock? Lapide we recognize as an anomaly. Even still it's a bizarre position. Why would you think Jesus really rose from the dead? This is like saying "The only people who believe in the existence of God are theists." Of course they are.

Muslim scholars, Jewish scholars, and agnostic/atheist scholars do not believe this event happened (with the one exception of Lapide). So what if "most" scholars believe there was an empty tomb? The empty tomb proves nothing as even you have agreed.

Look up necessary but not sufficient conditions.

Neither do Jewish, Muslim, or agnostic/atheist scholars find your "Honor-Shame" argument sufficient to believe in Christianity's central miracle claim.

Sure. Let them give a better explanation of the data. Most scholars don't really bother to explain it.

No one buys that this supernatural event happened 2,000 years ago other than Christian scholars who are already believers in the entire belief system.

False. People come from the outside to believe in it after investigating the claims.

So your "Scholar" argument also falls flat. Believe this event happened if you want to, but you have no more evidence for it than Muslims have for Mohammad flying on a winged horse to Heaven.

Yeah. Get your head out of the sand. Okay? This "no evidence" mantra is embarrassing for you. If I had no evidence, it's a shame you couldn't even deal with me in a debate. You have a hard time answering people who have no evidence? This especially from a guy who has a consistent dread of reading books.

btw, you never addressed the point either. No one here is contesting evolution. That's a straw man you put up.

And you actually think you're a threat to someone. Personally, if you keep writing, that's fine with me. You'll just embarrass skepticism all the more.

[tabibito]

I would argue that he is no skeptic who ignores all information save that which supports his own presuppositions. He is less a skeptic than an ideologue.

[Christianbookworm]

Gary is as much of a threat to us as a bb gun bullets is a threat to the fictional character Clark Kent.

[Gary]

First off, if this was true, wouldn't you expect that? Wouldn't you expect people who believe He was the resurrected Lord to be willing to call themselves Christians? Why is this a shock? Lapide we recognize as an anomaly. Even still it's a bizarre position. Why would you think Jesus really rose from the dead? This is like saying "The only people who believe in the existence of God are theists." Of course they are.



Look up necessary but not sufficient conditions.



Sure. Let them give a better explanation of the data. Most scholars don't really bother to explain it.



False. People come from the outside to believe in it after investigating the claims.



Yeah. Get your head out of the sand. Okay? This "no evidence" mantra is embarrassing for you. If I had no evidence, it's a shame you couldn't even deal with me in a debate. You have a hard time answering people who have no evidence? This especially from a guy who has a consistent dread of reading books.

btw, you never addressed the point either. No one here is contesting evolution. That's a straw man you put up.

And you actually think you're a threat to someone. Personally, if you keep writing, that's fine with me. You'll just embarrass skepticism all the more.

I never said you have "no evidence", Nick. What I said was that you have "no MORE evidence" than Muslims for their supernatural claim. You have assumptions, hearsay, and the conversion of people to a new belief system, many centuries ago in far away lands.

[Gary]

I would argue that he is no skeptic who ignores all information save that which supports his own presuppositions. He is less a skeptic than an ideologue.

I would be an ideaologue if I said that my belief system is the only true belief system and that all others are false. I have not said this. I believe that my belief system is the BEST but not the only true belief system. And there is no punishment in my belief system for those who do not agree with me. Those of you who believe in Hell and eternal punishment cannot say the same.

[Christianbookworm]

I would be an ideaologue if I said that my belief system is the only true belief system and that all others are false. I have not said this. I believe that my belief system is the BEST but not the only true belief system. And there is no punishment in my belief system for those who do not agree with me. Those of you who believe in Hell and eternal punishment cannot say the same.

There's no future period in your worldview. After death, there's what? No justice for wrongs committed? No meaning? Five billion years from now, why would anything of human origin matter? Will there be anyone a trillion years from now that would even care about whether you were right or not?

[Gary]

There's no future period in your worldview. After death, there's what? No justice for wrongs committed? No meaning? Five billion years from now, why would anything of human origin matter? Will there be anyone a trillion years from now that would even care about whether you were right or not?

But if that is reality, what point in there to complain about it? A child may not be happy to find out that Christmas is an adult construct; that there is no Santa Claus or reindeer; but his intense desire for those things to be real doesn't change the fact that they are not.

[Gary]

Nick,

I have a suggestion for you. Make a copy of your "Honor-Shame" argument and send it to twenty Jewish scholars of ancient Judaism. What do you think their response will be? If your argument is strong, shouldn't you be able to get at least a few of these 20 Jewish scholars to admit that the bodily resurrection of Jesus most probably did happen in first century Judaism?