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

  • What is an apostle? In Japanese, the word translates as 長官 (choukan) - "Secretary" (of State/the Interior etal), "Commissioner" (for the more British style of English). Just to make sure that the two language pass doesn't mess with the definition, it is a matter of considering the role of an apostle - and from deliberating on that, I consider the translation to be valid.
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • As I mentioned in a comment yesterday, I recently came across Matthew Ferguson's blog. He is a PhD student in the Classics and a counter-apologist. He is a very good writer with fascinating articles. I just finished reading one of his articles tonight regarding the Resurrection. As I was reading it I thought to myself, "Wow. This is just what I and my Christian 'friends' over on Theology Web have been discussing. Ferguson discusses particular propositions and generl propositions in relation to the claims that Christians, and in particular, Christian apologists, ask us to accept for their position. He also discusses (and refutes) why Christian apologists reject the skeptic claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

      Ferguson then goes on to discuss the faulty logic of appealing to Craig Keener's book Miracles as a means of making the Resurrection claim more plausible. Again, I thought to myself, "Wow. I've got to ask Nick if he has ever read this article!"

      After reading the article, I started reading the comments below the article and guess whose name popped up: Nick of "Deeper Waters"! What a coincidence! I'm not sure if Nick is aware of this article or that his name was discussed in relation to the article so I thought I would copy and paste the opening paragraphs and a link to the rest of the article if anyone is interested in reading it. I would be very interested in Nick and Stein's comments on the article, in particular.

      Article: Griffin Beak, Mermaid Fin, and Dragon Blood Soup

      Posted on October 11, 2013 by adversusapologetica


      [This article has been revised and published on the Secular Web, and can be accessed here:
      http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/gr...-stew-888.html

      Since this is an earlier version, please consult the published version first if you wish to provide any feedback about this article.]

      Occasionally apologists will ask me what I would consider to be sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus resurrected from the dead. Fair enough. Seeing as I deny that there is sufficient evidence to reasonably believe in the resurrection, what amount or type of evidence would I consider adequate to meet the onus probandi for establishing such an extraordinary claim? For a while I’ve been trying to think of a good analogy to describe the various problems surrounding the claim of Jesus’ resurrection, until recently when I read a comment written by fellow blogger DagoodS, which had a good example that I will now adapt and expand upon.

      Imagine if I walked into a restaurant, sat down, and started to read the menu. Most of the items seem pretty ordinary for what one would find at a given restaurant in Southern California, until I see an entry for the following: “Griffin Beak, Mermaid Fin, and Dragon Blood Soup.”

      Upon reading such an entry I would immediately be skeptical that such a dish actually exists. Why would I be suspicious?

      From previous experience I would know that that the initial likelihood of such a dish existing, given the fantastical nature of the ingredients, would be extraordinarily slim. I would also not consider a mere menu entry, by itself, to be very strong or sufficient evidence for establishing the existence of such an exotic dish. In addition, I would know that there are alternative explanations for what might have produced the evidence in the menu (e.g. practical joke, metaphorical meaning, bizarre lie, etc.).

      That is just my initial skepticism. Could someone possibly convince me that such a dish exists? Yes, but it would take a lot of unprecedented evidence. Meeting the onus probandi for establishing the existence of the soup in many ways captures a lot of the same problems for meeting the onus probandi of establishing Jesus’ supernatural and immortal resurrection.


      What is so improbable about the existence of griffin beak, mermaid fin, and dragon blood soup? To begin with, such a thing would entail both general and particular propositions that are extremely unlikely.

      Such a soup existing would entail the following general propositions:
      ◾Griffins exist.
      ◾Mermaids exist.
      ◾Dragons exist.

      The soup would also entail the following particular proposition:
      ◾Someone has gathered the various parts from the beings above to make a soup and serve it at a restaurant.

      Notice how the dish is an extraordinary claim not just because such a dish would be extremely rare. That would only entail an unlikely particular proposition. The dish is also an extraordinary claim because it rests upon extraordinarily unlikely general propositions, namely that such mythical creatures even exist.

      Apologists sometimes try to refute the claim “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” by retorting that one does not need extraordinary evidence to prove a lottery winner, just the ticket. However, a lottery winner only entails an unlikely particular proposition. It is not an unlikely general proposition that people win lotteries. Lottery wins happen all the time.

      In the case of the resurrection of Jesus, not only is the particular proposition unlikely, but it also entails multiple general propositions that are unlikely...

      Click on this link to read the rest of the article: https://adversusapologetica.wordpres...on-blood-soup/
      Last edited by Gary; 09-13-2015, 11:13 PM.

      Comment


      • There are a number of straw men set up throughout the post, but it's nearly 2:00 AM my time, and I don't really want to go through all of it.

        The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" statement has so many issues that it's really tough to know where to start with it. Carl Sagan was a very good physicist. He was clueless as to epistemology.

        An additional particularly glaring issue comes from his conflation of methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. Methodological naturalism does not entail metaphysical naturalism, which Ferguson seems to not understand.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by psstein View Post
          There are a number of straw men set up throughout the post, but it's nearly 2:00 AM my time, and I don't really want to go through all of it.

          The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" statement has so many issues that it's really tough to know where to start with it. Carl Sagan was a very good physicist. He was clueless as to epistemology.

          An additional particularly glaring issue comes from his conflation of methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. Methodological naturalism does not entail metaphysical naturalism, which Ferguson seems to not understand.
          Thank you for taking the time to read the article, Stein. I respect your opinion.

          If you get a chance, would you mind briefly explaining your last sentence in relation to Ferguson's article?

          Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and scientific materialism is a worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modelling. In contrast, methodological naturalism is an assumption of naturalism as a methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.

          If I understand your point, what you are saying is that Ferguson has restricted his worldview. He only accepts evidence that is consistent with metaphysical naturalism, whereas you would encourage him to expand his worldview to accept the possibility of the supernatural. Am I correct in that summary of your position?

          If this is correct, it seems to me that Ferguson did address this issue when he said this:


          Suppose next that the waiter asks me why I am so skeptical about the existence of the mythical stew. I would then respond that I do not believe that the stew exists, because I see no good evidence that griffins, mermaids, or dragons exist. Suppose next that the waiter accuses me of having a presupposition that such mythical creatures are not real. This, again, would be an absurd argument, as I would point out to the waiter that my skepticism is not based on an a priori assumption, but is reached a posteriori upon repeated and thorough investigation of a world that has no griffins, mermaids, or dragons.

          Just as in the case of the stew, [I]it is an absurd argument for apologists to claim that skeptics only doubt the resurrection because of "naturalist presuppositions." This is because the view of metaphysical naturalism is reached a posteriori upon investigating a world and universe that only has natural forces, entities, and causes.[/I]

          Once the waiter realizes that my skepticism is reached a posteriori, however, he points out that I should then be open to change in light of new evidence. I agree. Accordingly, he points out that hundreds of millions of exotic Chinese dishes are made every year with tons of ingredients that are foreign to me. I would point out, however, that my skepticism is not based on the premise that no bizarre dishes exist, but rather on the fact that there is no good evidence that the exact species needed for this dish--griffins, mermaids, and dragons--exist. Suppose next that the waiter argues that there are undiscovered species in the world and that new species of insects are discovered everyday. Once more, this would be an unpersuasive argument. I would point out that, while we have not detected every small species on the planet, large-scale species like griffins and dragons would not escape our notice very easily. Furthermore, just because we find other types of new species does not entail that we will find these new species.

          Apologists, when attempting to give evidence of miracles, often provide instances of remarkable events occurring (e.g., a young girl losing her pet parakeet but then having it fly into her yard the next day). However, the skeptic is not denying that remarkable events can sometimes occur, but is pointing out that these types of remarkable events--immortal resurrection, human flight, and speaking through lights from the sky--never occur. Apologists will then often provide Craig Keener's book Miracles (review here) as evidence for modern miracles. However, Keener does not record anything like people flying into the sky or gaining immortality. Rather, all the book provides are instances where people resuscitate from near death experiences (only to eventually die again), not an instance where someone was brain dead for three days and then resurrected into an immortal and imperishable body.[7] Keener's book is akin to the waiter claiming that the discovery of some new insect species should cause us to have less skepticism towards the existence of griffins, mermaids, and dragons. It would be like giving the height measurements of an NBA player as evidence to show that it is plausible for 100-foot giants to exist. It is simply a non sequitur.
          Last edited by Gary; 09-14-2015, 01:06 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gary
            Apologists sometimes try to refute the claim “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” by retorting that one does not need extraordinary evidence to prove a lottery winner
            Not being an apologist, I quite readily accept the proposition. But when extraordinary evidence is requested in support of the extraordinary claims by atheists, the atheist most likely declares immunity.

            The dates for the gospels are questioned as though that is somehow a meaningful objection to their veracity. Evidence advanced in support of the claim: nil. A whole swathe of "ifs" is promoted to the status of evidence.

            A whole range of claims is made about contradictions which don't bear scrutiny - and despite the fact that the claims have been thoroughly debunked, they continue to be advanced. The old "one contradicts the other on the matter of the feeding of the multitudes" - debunked. No contradiction, just a failure on the part of the critics to bother reading the readily available texts. Required time taken to debunk (using computer): roughly 3 minutes. Yet I've seen "apologists" advance "reconciliations" of this discrepancy that never existed in the first place.

            The conflict between the accounts of Judas' death might take a person with no more than a basic understanding of Koine Greek half an hour (again, using computer) to debunk: no conflict exists. Yet the number of apologists who reconcile this non-existent conflict is staggering, and there isn't even an agreement on what the proper reconciliation is supposed to be.

            Bible translators also are quick to add fuel to the flames - particularly when the translations are dumbed down to the extent that some of the "dynamic equivalent" translators manage.
            Last edited by tabibito; 09-14-2015, 01:19 AM.
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
              As I mentioned in a comment yesterday, I recently came across Matthew Ferguson's blog. He is a PhD student in the Classics and a counter-apologist. He is a very good writer with fascinating articles.
              There is nothing even remotely remarkable about Fergusons blog. You can find a number of them just like it across the web. the only reason you consider it wow and him brilliant is because he agrees with you.

              Comment


              • I know about his blog. THat's why we had that debate one time.

                Comment


                • Another issue I would like to raise (Again rather than just feeding the trolling) is that at no time at all does the NT ever claim that the resurrection outside the context of prophecy is the central evidence of Christianity. in fact Peter of all people rather than referring to it as the basis of faith states

                  2 Peter 2:16
                  16For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. 19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

                  Unfortunately many people believe Christ is the last name of Jesus rather than a reference to him being messiah which is a wholly prophetic term. As i've stated before the Gospel at least as far as The NT is concerned is NOT that Jesus died and was buried and rose again - a man appearing out of nowhere and claiming these things with no previous reference does not meet the requirements of messiah. The Gospel is that Jesus died according to the scripture (prophecy) and was buried and resurrected according to the scripture (prophecy).

                  With all due respect to those of you who hold to it - this is where replacement theology has hurt the church terribly along with teachings that butcher the idea of the Law "passing away". We have too many christians and even people who call themselves NT scholars that divorce the NT entirely from its OT prophetic roots and yet those roots are the very basis for why the early church believed in Jesus - not because he rose from the dead but that he came at a particular time and fulfilled a number of prophecies regarding the messiah

                  Julius Caesar raising from the dead in Rome would not make him the messiah.

                  Its time for Christian and skeptics to stop arguing about strawmen. The bible claims the basis of faith is fulfilled prophecy not mere eyewitness testimony of a resurrection as important as it might be WITHIN THE CONTEXT of said prophecies.

                  Comment


                  • Just as in the case of the stew, it is an absurd argument for apologists to claim that skeptics only doubt the resurrection because of "naturalist presuppositions." This is because the view of metaphysical naturalism is reached a posteriori upon investigating a world and universe that only has natural forces, entities, and causes.
                    And BOOM! down the drain goes Ferguson's argument. This world and universe having only natural cause is provably wrong because the best science now says the universe has a beginning and because its logically absurd. An investigation of the universe with logic leads to only two options

                    A) the universe is past infinite in causes which means there is NOT a natural cause to everything in it (infinite past demands no ultimate cause at all)

                    b) the universe has a cause outside of itself which by no stretch of the imagination can be called "natural" (that which is within our universe)

                    Lets face it - The "extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence" criteria is an implicit statement of a worldview. That worldview could and would stand if we lived in universe that had all natural causes but its clear Ferguson is utterly lost. Both science and logic tell us this universe does NOT explain its ultimate cause. He is daydreaming. A miracle is merely something that happens that has no natural (within our universe) cause or explanation. Our entire universe has no natural (within our universe) explanation so any worldview that rules out outside forces is begging bread.

                    Open your eyes skeptics!

                    Comment


                    • Introducing the New Testament, page 189 "The majority consensus places the date of Mark's composition between AD 60 and 70 or just a little later."

                      Marilyn Mellowes "While there is disagreement about where Mark wrote, there is a consensus about when he wrote: he probably composed his work in or about the year 70 CE"

                      Blue Letter Bible
                      Date of Composition

                      The majority of scholarship places Mark's Gospel as the first to be composed. [3] In order to properly date the Gospel it is important to consider the dating timeframe of all the Synoptics. If Luke is considered to be the latest of the Gospels, then it is important to date his Gospel first. The dating of Luke first depends on the dating of Acts which succeeds Luke (cf. Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1). Because the book of Acts has an abrupt ending with Paul waiting to go before Caesar, the best explanation is that Luke wrote it up to the events that had taken place. This would place the composition of Acts in the early Sixties. With this in mind, Luke could be placed in the late Fifties to early Sixties, Matthew in the mid to late Fifties, and Mark in the early to mid Fifties. These dates are debatable and have a certain degree of elasticity to them, but for the stated reasons they seem the most likely to the present author.
                      i accept this analysis as most the likely.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                        Another issue I would like to raise (Again rather than just feeding the trolling) is that at no time at all does the NT ever claim that the resurrection outside the context of prophecy is the central evidence of Christianity. in fact Peter of all people rather than referring to it as the basis of faith states

                        2 Peter 2:16
                        16For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. 19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

                        Unfortunately many people believe Christ is the last name of Jesus rather than a reference to him being messiah which is a wholly prophetic term. As i've stated before the Gospel at least as far as The NT is concerned is NOT that Jesus died and was buried and rose again - a man appearing out of nowhere and claiming these things with no previous reference does not meet the requirements of messiah. The Gospel is that Jesus died according to the scripture (prophecy) and was buried and resurrected according to the scripture (prophecy).

                        With all due respect to those of you who hold to it - this is where replacement theology has hurt the church terribly along with teachings that butcher the idea of the Law "passing away". We have too many christians and even people who call themselves NT scholars that divorce the NT entirely from its OT prophetic roots and yet those roots are the very basis for why the early church believed in Jesus - not because he rose from the dead but that he came at a particular time and fulfilled a number of prophecies regarding the messiah

                        Julius Caesar raising from the dead in Rome would not make him the messiah.

                        Its time for Christian and skeptics to stop arguing about strawmen. The bible claims the basis of faith is fulfilled prophecy not mere eyewitness testimony of a resurrection as important as it might be WITHIN THE CONTEXT of said prophecies.
                        Full agreement but for the last - though it may be that you are only addressing the issue relevant to the context of this discussion.

                        1 Corinthians 2:4-5
                        4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
                        Last edited by tabibito; 09-14-2015, 10:06 AM.
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                          Another issue I would like to raise (Again rather than just feeding the trolling) is that at no time at all does the NT ever claim that the resurrection outside the context of prophecy is the central evidence of Christianity. in fact Peter of all people rather than referring to it as the basis of faith states

                          2 Peter 2:16
                          16For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. 19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

                          Unfortunately many people believe Christ is the last name of Jesus rather than a reference to him being messiah which is a wholly prophetic term. As i've stated before the Gospel at least as far as The NT is concerned is NOT that Jesus died and was buried and rose again - a man appearing out of nowhere and claiming these things with no previous reference does not meet the requirements of messiah. The Gospel is that Jesus died according to the scripture (prophecy) and was buried and resurrected according to the scripture (prophecy).

                          With all due respect to those of you who hold to it - this is where replacement theology has hurt the church terribly along with teachings that butcher the idea of the Law "passing away". We have too many christians and even people who call themselves NT scholars that divorce the NT entirely from its OT prophetic roots and yet those roots are the very basis for why the early church believed in Jesus - not because he rose from the dead but that he came at a particular time and fulfilled a number of prophecies regarding the messiah

                          Julius Caesar raising from the dead in Rome would not make him the messiah.

                          Its time for Christian and skeptics to stop arguing about strawmen. The bible claims the basis of faith is fulfilled prophecy not mere eyewitness testimony of a resurrection as important as it might be WITHIN THE CONTEXT of said prophecies.
                          Every Jewish scholar on the planet says that Jesus did not fulfill any of the Messianic requirements and can show using the original Hebrew that texts in Isaiah and Daniel have been misconstrued by Christian scholar to "shoehorn" Jesus into these passages. Jesus was not the Messiah. Jesus was one in a long line of false messiahs. The fact that only a very small percentage of first century Jews believed his claim, most of them being uneducated peasants, is excellent proof that even in an Honor-Shame society the evidence was so poor for Jesus claims that very few Jews' believed him.

                          The idea that Jews are stubborn and hard-hearted as the reason for their unwillingness to believe is simply Christian spin. The idea that graduates of Christian seminaries in Lynchburg and Dallas understand the Hebrew Bible better than all the world's Jewish rabbis and scholars is preposterous and laughable.

                          Imagine if Muslims told Christians and the world that Muslim scholars understand the Christian New Testament better than all the world's Christian New Testament scholars. Imagine if Muslims claimed that when Jesus, the prophet, told his disciples that "the Comforter" was coming after he left, that he really was referring to the Prophet Mohammad, not the Holy Spirit. Well, guess what, Muslims do make this assertion!

                          So who should the world believe understands the Christian New Testament better: Christian scholars or Muslim scholars? I bet hands down every Christian on this site will say, "the Christians". So why then do you take the word of Christian scholars when they claim that they understand the Jewish/Hebrew Bible better than all the world's Jewish scholars???
                          Last edited by Gary; 09-14-2015, 10:37 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            Not being an apologist, I quite readily accept the proposition. But when extraordinary evidence is requested in support of the extraordinary claims by atheists, the atheist most likely declares immunity.

                            The dates for the gospels are questioned as though that is somehow a meaningful objection to their veracity. Evidence advanced in support of the claim: nil. A whole swathe of "ifs" is promoted to the status of evidence.

                            A whole range of claims is made about contradictions which don't bear scrutiny - and despite the fact that the claims have been thoroughly debunked, they continue to be advanced. The old "one contradicts the other on the matter of the feeding of the multitudes" - debunked. No contradiction, just a failure on the part of the critics to bother reading the readily available texts. Required time taken to debunk (using computer): roughly 3 minutes. Yet I've seen "apologists" advance "reconciliations" of this discrepancy that never existed in the first place.

                            The conflict between the accounts of Judas' death might take a person with no more than a basic understanding of Koine Greek half an hour (again, using computer) to debunk: no conflict exists. Yet the number of apologists who reconcile this non-existent conflict is staggering, and there isn't even an agreement on what the proper reconciliation is supposed to be.

                            Bible translators also are quick to add fuel to the flames - particularly when the translations are dumbed down to the extent that some of the "dynamic equivalent" translators manage.
                            So are you saying that scholars such as Bart Ehrman who say there are contradictions in the New Testament---many contradictions---don't understand Koine Greek as well as you do? How many years of Koine Greek have you studied, Tabby?
                            Last edited by Gary; 09-14-2015, 10:15 AM.

                            Comment


                            • I have been studying Koine Greek for some years now.

                              ETA

                              And don't try to put words in my mouth - I haven't said that there are no contradictions in the New Testament.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • Professor Bart D. Ehrman, Ph.D., M.Div.
                                James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
                                M.Div. and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary.

                                Doctor Ben Witherington III
                                Amos Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore
                                M.Div. degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. from the University of Durham in England.

                                Both M.Div and PhDs - and completely opposed on a large number of issues. The only avenue available is to investigate for oneself to determine the facts.

                                And it is because of this kind of thing that I started studying Koine Greek in the first place.
                                Last edited by tabibito; 09-14-2015, 10:54 AM.
                                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                                .
                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                                Scripture before Tradition:
                                but that won't prevent others from
                                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                                Comment

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