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 Mikeenders View Post
    are you always this dull or is it just something you work on for us? lol....we already can produce pregnancies without sperm through cloning. Nothing forbids us from growing babies in uteru that way. nothing impossible about it just not expedient because the natural way works rather effectively




    Good because despite your illiteracy there is nothing about sperm in the gospels
    So how was Mary impregnated and with what? Magic, invisible, artificial ghost sperm?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by psstein View Post
      Wright gets things wrong, believe it or not. There was a journal article some years ago about how he conflated Jewish and Greek beliefs about the afterlife and how some Jewish beliefs aren't that different from Greek beliefs. There are a few other issues with how he reaches his conclusion, which are beyond the scope of this discussion. Also, I don't have the book with me.

      If you accept what 90% of NT scholars accept, you accept the burial by Joseph of Arimathea. With the exception of Crossan and Ehrman, almost everyone accepts it, even Ludemann and Casey, and that's saying something! Before Carrier went nuts, even he accepted the burial. Don't give me that tripe about "miracles are unlikely." You repeatedly defended a question-begging argument that said miracle claims are unjustified. You've refused to read Keener, choosing instead to "refute" him with silly blog articles.

      You'd have to stop being a fundy atheist. Your biggest argument seems to be "there are inconsistencies, so it can't be true." Plus a ton of garbage about immorality/evil/etc., which have no ontological foundation on your worldview.
      Do you agree that 30% of NT scholars do not believe in an empty tomb? If you do, then how do you explain your claim that "90% of NT scholars" believe that Jesus was buried in Arimathea's tomb? If 90% of NT scholars believe that Jesus was buried in a tomb (specifically that of J. Arimathea) but yet 30% don't believe there was an empty tomb, then are you saying that at least 20% of NT scholars believe that Arimathea's tomb still had a body in it on the first Easter morning???

      Wow. The strength of your evidence is going down hill fast.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        Your capacity to exercise basic logic = zero.
        Pretty much this. Since he is incapable of engaging any counterpoint I don't even read his longer posts any longer . They are mostly just diatribes and rhetoric which when dissected and dismantled by any of us is only met with the equivalent of a blank vacant stare, silence and a few minutes later a repetition of the destroyed point as if were not previously rebutted. He's this forum's black knight

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
          So how was Mary impregnated and with what? Magic, invisible, artificial ghost sperm?
          Given your biblical illiteracy you probably think Genesis states Adam and Eve were created with sperm

          Comment


          • Wow, you're more than totally lost.

            90% of scholars accept the burial. 70% will openly accept the empty tomb. The remaining 30% will propose alternatives such as 1) Jesus was never buried (which is roughly 10%) and 2) the body was still in the tomb. We're talking scholarship, not belief. Some of these scholars will state (incorrectly, in all likelihood), that the Resurrection was believed to be a spiritual one (Crossan and many of Bultmann's disciples, for example). Others are agnostic to it (Dale Allison, for example).

            My point about intellectual honesty was reading things that disagree with your views. You missed the point and asked a series of rather pointless questions. Your plugging of Sam Harris as an "ally of reason" was perfect evidence of why you need to read the other side. Harris' work is largely a disaster.
            Last edited by psstein; 09-08-2015, 04:48 PM.

            Comment


            • Per slavery, what about Bathilda, the wife of Clovis II? She ended it around the start of the Middle Ages. It was Islam and the Enlightenment thinking that started it again.

              I'd recommend Mark Noll's The Civil War As A Theological Crisis, but since it challenges you you'll never read it.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                Wow, you're more than totally lost.

                90% of scholars accept the burial. 70% will openly accept the empty tomb. The remaining 30% will propose alternatives such as 1) Jesus was never buried (which is roughly 10%) and 2) the body was still in the tomb. We're talking scholarship, not belief. Some of these scholars will state (incorrectly, in all likelihood), that the Resurrection was believed to be a spiritual one (Crossan and many of Bultmann's disciples, for example).
                So then we are agreed: 30% of scholars find insufficient evidence for an empty tomb. And just for the sake of making this discussion easier, I will accept the burial of Jesus in Arimathea's tomb. It makes no difference to my conclusion. Because even IF there was an empty tomb, regardless of the ownership of the tomb, an empty tomb has many more probable explanations, based on collective human experience, than that a god reanimated and whisked away the body.

                So what topic regarding the Resurrection do I still need to read about, Stein? Which scholarly books do I need to read, and for which specific topics do I need to read them regarding issues about which I am currently uninformed?

                What position do I hold, now that I have accepted the Arimathea story, that is contrary to the overwhelming majority opinion of NT scholars?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                  Wow, you're more than totally lost.

                  90% of scholars accept the burial. 70% will openly accept the empty tomb. The remaining 30% will propose alternatives such as 1) Jesus was never buried (which is roughly 10%) and 2) the body was still in the tomb. We're talking scholarship, not belief. Some of these scholars will state (incorrectly, in all likelihood), that the Resurrection was believed to be a spiritual one (Crossan and many of Bultmann's disciples, for example). Others are agnostic to it (Dale Allison, for example).

                  My point about intellectual honesty was reading things that disagree with your views. You missed the point and asked a series of rather pointless questions. Your plugging of Sam Harris as an "ally of reason" was perfect evidence of why you need to read the other side. Harris' work is largely a disaster.
                  Who says that Harris' work is a disaster? Neutral critics or only Christians?

                  Comment


                  • Read slowly, because literacy is tough:

                    RESURRECTION IS NOT REANIMATION; THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS!

                    Anybody even vaguely familiar with what resurrection is would know the difference. The other explanations for the empty tomb do not work. They assume things we have no evidence for. Dale Allison, a skeptical scholar who identifies as a deist, has said "we could suppose a necromancer stole Jesus' body, but we have no evidence for that conclusion."

                    Neutral critics consider Harris' work a disaster. His book on free will was taken apart by Alfred Mele's work, and his attempt to ground moral values in science was roundly panned. Massimo Pigliucci indicated how problematic The Moral Landscape's approach was in his review.
                    Last edited by psstein; 09-08-2015, 05:03 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Let's just say a person with a glorified body would have super powers compared to one's present mortal body.
                      If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                        It is quite possible that a god created the universe. I do not deny that. But which god? I honor whoever or whatever it is that created the universe, but I'm not going to pray to any man-made god unless there is very good evidence that he/she/it is the Creator. The Jewish and Christian evidence that Yahweh is the Creator is pathetically poor, in my opinion.
                        In my experience skeptics don't even know what the evidence is and when they do they misunderstand it. Even non-biblical sources like the Talmud, Josephus and Celsus all admit that Jesus performed miracles. The fact that Celsus can't deny it and has to hand wave it away as "magic learned from Egypt" says a lot.
                        “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                          Who says that Harris' work is a disaster? Neutral critics or only Christians?
                          Here's a link of Michael Ruse critiquing Sam Harris's book.

                          Showing once again we know the discussions in Academia.
                          http://religiondispatches.org/little...w-harris-book/

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                            Let's just say a person with a glorified body would have super powers compared to one's present mortal body.
                            Yeah, that's not a bad way to put it to people who can't understand anything outside of black and white thinking.

                            Do you think my statement was large enough?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                              Here's a link of Michael Ruse critiquing Sam Harris's book.

                              Showing once again we know the discussions in Academia.
                              http://religiondispatches.org/little...w-harris-book/
                              But Michael Ruse is one of those EVUL accomodationists. Everyone KNOWS science and religion are in deep, irreconcilable conflict!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                                Who says that Harris' work is a disaster? Neutral critics Invisible Pink Unicorns or only Christians?
                                Same level of existence for the "neutral critics", and what I put in place of it.

                                Comment

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