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 Gary View Post
    Anything is possible, Abigail. But since we are evaluating ancient history to which none of us were witnesses, and there are no video tapes, we must deal in probabilities. So which is more probable?

    1. The Creator and Lord of the Universe, the God who abhors the worship of other gods, uses a pagan, Greek mythological expression, when speaking in Hebrew, to appear to the thirteenth Apostle, to announce salvation to the pagan Gentiles.
    2. The story in Acts is not historical. It is an embellished legend that devout Christians came to believe as fact.
    3. Jesus who spent 33 years living as a human being among the Jews and Gentiles would speak using the common tongue of the day, and using the common vernacular phrases of the day that were used by everyone, greeks, jews, etc.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post


      More handwaving away of anything you don't want to consider.
      This again is false. I believe the following about the Christian claims:

      1. I believe that Jesus was a real historical figure who was crucified by the Romans.
      2. I believe that early Christians soon came to believe that Jesus was resurrected.
      3. I believe that there is a considerable amount of accurate historical data in the Bible.
      4. I believe that Saul/Paul was a real person and that seven of his alleged epistles are truly authentic.
      5. I do not believe that the early Christians were liars. I believe that they sincerely believed the supernatural claim of a resurrection of Jesus.

      If I simply wanted to hand-wave away Christianity, I would call the entire Bible nonsense; of no value for any evaluation of first century Palestine.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by William View Post
        I'll have to go back through that. it's not quite my recollection. As I recall, there were some who used essentially the books that are now the Holy Bible, but it wasn't all, and there were still other books not in the canon that were circulating and used and referenced. This was one of the reasons Constantine wanted a canon, so that everyone would finally be on the same page.

        But I am no expert. I will try to re-review it.
        The canon of Biblical texts was not discussed at Nicaea, at all. Nicaea was primarily focused on discussing whether the Son was subordinate to the Father, or if they were co-equal.
        "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
        --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by William View Post
          I'll have to go back through that. it's not quite my recollection. As I recall, there were some who used essentially the books that are now the Holy Bible, but it wasn't all, and there were still other books not in the canon that were circulating and used and referenced. This was one of the reasons Constantine wanted a canon, so that everyone would finally be on the same page.

          But I am no expert. I will try to re-review it.
          Think about this: all of the witnesses to the crucifixion and the alleged Resurrection would be dead by the early second century. And, during the first half of the second century we have evidence that numerous Church Fathers believed that several non-canonical books were Scripture and should be included in the canon, in particular the Shepherd of Hermes, and these same Fathers outright rejected other books such as the Book of Revelation, II Peter, Hebrews, and others. Therefore, there is NO WAY that anyone can say with any degree of certainty that all 27 books of the NT have apostolic approval for their inclusion in the modern Bible. The fact of the matter is that the modern New Testament canon is based on one authority, and one authority alone: Catholic tradition.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            It was a common proverb/saying of the day. It woudln't be like Jesus was QUOTING Greek Mythology. It was a phrase that meant basically you can't fight the spurs. We have all sorts of saying we use today as shortcuts too. Some are from the bible. Like "it's as plain as the writing on the wall" - does that mean when an atheist or buddhist uses that phrase he is quoting the bible? No, he is just using common vernacular.
            Jesus was allegedly speaking in Hebrew. Asking anyone who speaks a foreign language (I do), it would be very odd to use a foreign expression like this in your native language.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abigail View Post
              I think Sparko addressed this point

              It tells Gary to calm down and not be so hasty to bin the Bible at every opportunity.



              Well they do say if there is enough evidence to believe if you want to and enough not to believe if you don't want to, the choice you make reveals your heart.
              "The choice you make reveals your heart."

              Thank you, Abigail! You have just stated what I believe is behind the entire Christian argument regarding the evidence for the Resurrection: It is not believable unless your "heart" is prepared to believe it.

              In other words, you must set aside your skepticism; you must push aside your doubts about the probability of supernatural events; you must abandon all modern standards of evidence, reason, science, and medicine...and accept, by a leap of faith, a belief that defies everything your brain tells you is true about reality.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                Personally, I'm of the opinion that the influence came in the reverse.
                Good point.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  3. Jesus who spent 33 years living as a human being among the Jews and Gentiles would speak using the common tongue of the day, and using the common vernacular phrases of the day that were used by everyone, greeks, jews, etc.
                  Yes it is very possible that the resurrected Jesus included Greek mythology in his speech. I am not denying that. I am again discussing probabilities, not assertion of 100% certitude: Which is more probable: the author of Acts invented this scene, or the Creator really said it.

                  There is no correct answer. If you believe that the latter is more probable, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I have no way to prove you wrong.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                    The canon of Biblical texts was not discussed at Nicaea, at all. Nicaea was primarily focused on discussing whether the Son was subordinate to the Father, or if they were co-equal.
                    Does everyone realize that Christendom as a whole has still not agreed entirely on a canon? Check it out. Several of the Eastern Churches, along with the Church of Ethiopia, have different canons. The canon has only been settled for the Western Church, and this canon was decided by consensus by men who were not witnesses to the events nor acquainted with the apostles. The modern (western) NT is a Catholic document. There is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus, the Eleven, or Paul authorized any canon.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      It was a common proverb/saying of the day. It woudln't be like Jesus was QUOTING Greek Mythology. It was a phrase that meant basically you can't fight the spurs. We have all sorts of saying we use today as shortcuts too. Some are from the bible. Like "it's as plain as the writing on the wall" - does that mean when an atheist or buddhist uses that phrase he is quoting the bible? No, he is just using common vernacular.
                      it is a possibility.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                        Jesus was allegedly speaking in Hebrew. Asking anyone who speaks a foreign language (I do), it would be very odd to use a foreign expression like this in your native language.
                        He was probably speaking Aramaic, and I do speak a foreign language (German) and I know that a lot of expressions that we use are also used in German, or their equivalent. Jesus was basically telling Saul, "you can't fight the tide" - Now when Acts was written it was written in Greek which means he would have either used the same expression (the jews used the same expression too) or he wrote down an equivalent one in Greek. It is a non-issue. That you seem to harp on it (another expression) shows me that you are looking for ANY excuse to dismiss the events as fictitious. Despite you claiming to be open minded about it.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abigail View Post
                          I think Sparko addressed this point

                          It tells Gary to calm down and not be so hasty to bin the Bible at every opportunity.



                          Well they do say if there is enough evidence to believe if you want to and enough not to believe if you don't want to, the choice you make reveals your heart.

                          lol, oh, the Emperor's New Clothes...

                          You mave have had to choose to believe the Bible was from God. I once believed it was, but di no longer. My personal feelings and desires didnt do it, but it was simply the eventuality of how the evidenced convicted me.

                          The color of the sky, the shape of the earth, my feelings on what I beliueve about them dont count either, it is simply cause and effect.

                          And I dont want to believe the bible, nor do I want to not believe the bible, I want to know the truth, whatever that is, whether I like it or not.

                          You?

                          Comment


                          • I would like to get back to the topic of the thread: the evidence for the Resurrection.

                            As I mentioned above, Paul/Saul EXPERIENCED the evidence. Paul was in Jerusalem when all this happened. It wasn't as if he just showed up from Tarsus for the stoning of Stephen. He had been in Jerusalem studying under the Jewish sage, Gamaliel. Saul/Paul was persecuting and killing we-wouldn't-die-for-a-lie Christians within weeks of Pentecost, which occurred within two months of the crucifixion. He would know that Christians were using an empty tomb, guarded 24/7 by Roman guards, as evidence as he was interrogating them by torture. He would know they were using women as the first eyewitnesses, an odd claim if they were making all this up. He would know that some of these people were claiming to have been present during appearances of Jesus and these people were willing to die before recanting this claim. Paul EXPERIENCED this first hand evidence, but did not believe.

                            The evidence was not good enough, folks.

                            I believe that Abigail has hit the nail on the head: The Resurrection evidence was not good enough, unless, you WANTED to believe, or, you were uneducated and not familiar with the Hebrew Bible.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                              The canon of Biblical texts was not discussed at Nicaea, at all. Nicaea was primarily focused on discussing whether the Son was subordinate to the Father, or if they were co-equal.
                              you are likely correct. i know nicea was in 324, but you are aware there was a counsel set by constantine to canonize scripture, no? i may be mistaken as to the specific counsel, but it is well known it was still canonized in one of constatine's counsels. i do not find the particular date or name to be important for our discussion, as i am certain we're all aware of this. however, if it's needed, i'm sure google can help us out.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                He was probably speaking Aramaic, and I do speak a foreign language (German) and I know that a lot of expressions that we use are also used in German, or their equivalent. Jesus was basically telling Saul, "you can't fight the tide" - Now when Acts was written it was written in Greek which means he would have either used the same expression (the jews used the same expression too) or he wrote down an equivalent one in Greek. It is a non-issue. That you seem to harp on it (another expression) shows me that you are looking for ANY excuse to dismiss the events as fictitious. Despite you claiming to be open minded about it.

                                ...and could it be said that there are those who look for any excuse to lend credit to the claims, despite claiming to be fair and open minded about it?
                                Last edited by William; 07-24-2015, 01:19 PM.

                                Comment

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