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
    The problems I see with your argument are these:

    1. Do you have any respected authority/scholar who makes the assertion that miracles are an established fact?
    No - I have only my own experience of such events.

    I realize that there are many very intelligent, very educated scholars who believe in miracles, but I don't know of any who assert miracles as "established" fact. There may exist an assertion of fact, but not established fact.
    I will take that as a reasonable assessment.

    2. Miracles confirm truthfulness??
    Miracles from the Christian God do, yes. Miracles won't be performed in the name of Christ when the message is false.

    Even the Bible says that Satan and his disciples can perform miracles.
    They can - but not in the name of Christ.

    Therefore even if a miracle can be proven to have occurred, we would still not know to whom we should credit the miracle's success.
    If the person claims to be a servant of Christ, we can be certain.

    Based on this logic, all the miracles performed by Jesus could have been due to a trick of Satan.
    That is what the Jews of the time alleged.

    Unless Yahweh is the only Being with the power of performing miracles, the existence of miracles is not proof of the divinity of Jesus only of the existence of one, two, or many supernatural power(s) with the ability to perform supernatural acts.
    True.

    Therefore the authors of the Gospels and Paul could well have been bald-face liars or completely mad and their ability to perform miracles would prove nothing other than the existence of miracles.
    As I pointed out - Paul referred the attention of the congregations to the fact that they themselves could perform miracles, and have prayer answered.

    You stated: "No - for all that it contains errors, and for all that it contains man-made content, it also contains God-inspired scripture."If you agree that the Bible contains errors, then how do you know which passages, or even which words of passages, are God inspired and which are errors of men?
    The most elementary test is: where else is it stated? If it doesn't have independent verification by another author, it doesn't have to be accepted as fact. There is a complicating factor though, in that a number of gospels were eliminated from being included in the Bible on the grounds that they did not make reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus.
    Last edited by tabibito; 09-14-2015, 01:54 PM.
    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
      I'll tell you about a debate I had with A rabbi many years ago. Daniel 9 gives them fits (no matter the interpretation of the remaining week it clearly indicates a moshiach before the second temple) but he proceeded to relate how he could prove that Christians tampered with the text and how the text proves it is not talking about Jesus. He pointed to an atnach (like a semi colon in ) Daniel 9:25 and how it therefore forbids adding the weeks together. He went as far as to claim it was deliberately subtracted from the text to mislead people

      He considered the omission a devastating point.

      There was only one problem - no punctuation points of the sort existed when it was written and was in fact not added to the text until many centuries after the canon was fixed. NO ancient hebrew scholar needs to abide by it because it is not part of the inspired text.
      A Rabbi didn't know that? Or did he simply expect that you wouldn't?
      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
        I'll tell you about a debate I had with A rabbi many years ago. Daniel 9 gives them fits (no matter the interpretation of the remaining week it clearly indicates a moshiach before the second temple) but he proceeded to relate how he could prove that Christians tampered with the text and how the text proves it is not talking about Jesus. He pointed to an atnach (like a semi colon in ) Daniel 9:25 and how it therefore forbids adding the weeks together. He went as far as to claim it was deliberately subtracted from the text to mislead people

        He considered the omission a devastating point.

        There was only one problem - no punctuation points of the sort existed when it was written and was in fact not added to the text until many centuries after the canon was fixed. NO ancient hebrew scholar needs to abide by it because it is not part of the inspired text.
        Mike: I challenge you to do this:

        Find any non-Christian/non-atheist and ask him or her who is more probably to be correct in interpreting the following holy books:

        The Christian New Testament: Christian scholars or Muslim scholars.

        The Muslim Koran: Muslim scholars or Hindu scholars.

        The Hindu Sacred Scriptures: Hindu scholars or Mormons.

        Now, I will bet that your neutral person will pick the scholars of the religion which wrote the holy book, and, I will bet that you will agree with him or her. Next, ask your neutral person this final question:

        Who is more probably to be correct in interpreting the Jewish/Hebrew Bible: Jewish scholars or Christian scholars.

        If you spend more time debating the answer to this question, than when you answered the above questions within a split second, that should tell you something about possible biases affecting your views on this issue.
        Last edited by Gary; 09-14-2015, 02:20 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
          So when do you believe that one can rightly disagree with the majority consensus of scholars on an issue and when should we accept the majority scholarly consensus, admitting that we do not have the expertise to question this expert opinion? Would you agree that if the overwhelming majority (>90%) of scholars agree on a subject that it would be foolish for a non-scholar such as you or me to disagree with that consensus?

          You don't seem to get it Gary. You are engaging in a known fallacious argument

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

          the proper use for authority is to have the authority relate data to you they are privy to not to appeal to their conclusions on the basis of their conclusions sans any data.. Consensus to me is even worse.its an admission that there are experts that see things differently than the majority but they must be dismissed regardless of data because they are in the minority (as if truth is determined like democracy).

          Since this has been stated before its obvious that you just don't want to deal with the reality - In this case and in almost all cases of ancient documents there is no one that is an expert on who put the pen to the paper on a given document. There simply is insufficient evidence every time to say such and such did not write the document.

          The best data would be to be present when it was written , then to have eye witness testimony, or a signature matching the known figure. There is none of that in ancient documents. So then the next step is to determine acceptance of authorship but when there is little by way of other writings at the time to even include mention of the author of the document (Say luke , mark or acts) that isn't a given either. So since all the primary sources of verification are often lacking to make the claim such and such did not write the document then OF COURSE the lay person has every right to say -

          "Okay its obvious you don't have the primary data to make the claim it was not written by Mark so what is you evidence?"

          Unfortunately so often in this field it comes down to making sweeping conclusions form stylistic points and running far with assumptions being blown up from the text itself. God forbid that you start writing Acts , put it down for a year in which you learn more words and later your word usage changes Guaranteed there will be a scholar a few hundred years later that will swear up and down you couldn't have been the writer of the second half.

          Its often like reading tea leaves so EVERY lay person has a right to question it.

          Comment


          • The Christian New Testament: Christian scholars or Muslim scholars.

            The Muslim Koran: Muslim scholars or Hindu scholars.

            The Hindu Sacred Scriptures: Hindu scholars or Mormons.

            Who is more probably to be correct in interpreting the Jewish/Hebrew Bible: Jewish scholars or Christian scholars.
            A neutral person would take into account that each has an axe to grind, and consider their ability to step back from presupposition. And a reasonably well informed neutral person would know that archaeological finds show that the Hebrew text of today isn't what it was prior to 150 AD - so he'd be interested in whether the Hebrew Scholar was working from current or ancient Hebrew texts.
            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 tabibito View Post
              A Rabbi didn't know that? Or did he simply expect that you wouldn't?
              He didn't expect me to know it BUT from his perspective the Jewish added punctuation has credibility that he feels should not be ignored.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                Mike: I challenge you to do this:

                Find any non-Christian/non-atheist and ask him or her who is more probably to be correct in interpreting the following holy books:
                Gary I challenge you to stop being a coward for once and engage in a debate with points brought to you. What you do each and every time is try to point away from the counter points or ignore them. I think I saw you claim to have been a Christian but all we ever see you do is say "this person says this" "here is a link to what they say". Any Christian that gave up his faith on say so rather than evidence was never any such thing. if I even were going to buy into your silly "lets ask the man on the street and see what he says as proof" claim I would state the facts as they are not your tainted wording.

                "If two people studied an ancient language and got A+s in all their work graduating with PHDs would you disregard one because he was a Christian and accept the other one just because he is Jewish?"

                I'd bet good money they will say of course not - Its the knowledge that counts not the race. Why? because they would see the stupidity of your claim that ethnicity trumps expertise. IF a Muslim has the credentials and knows his stuff he is open to debating me on any issue in the Greek or Hebrew and his being Muslim will not matter squat if he knows his stuff. In the example I just gave to TB it didn't matter squat that I was the gentile and the Rabbi was Jewish. Its just a fact that the original text does not have the punctuation being claimed by the Rabbi. His being Jewish did not magically change the facts nor make him right using a faulty (and at the time among anti missionaries consensus) argument.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  A neutral person would take into account that each has an axe to grind, and consider their ability to step back from presupposition. And a reasonably well informed neutral person would know that archaeological finds show that the Hebrew text of today isn't what it was prior to 150 AD - so he'd be interested in whether the Hebrew Scholar was working from current or ancient Hebrew texts.
                  If I remember correctly, your side is convinced of the truthfulness of the Gospel stories because in ancient times, in the Near East, people treated the oral tradition with great respect and even memorized it. Your side assured everyone that the oral tradition can be trusted.

                  So shouldn't this same logic apply to the Jews? The Jews have the written Torah and they have the oral Torah. They have the written Law and ancient teachings of Judaism and they have the oral Law and ancient teachings of Judaism. So to be consistent, your side should respect the accuracy of the Jewish teachings of the Old Testament era with the same respect as you do the Christians for their oral tradition in the New Testament era.

                  To say that Christians maintained an uncorrupted oral tradition but the Jews' oral tradition became riddled with errors and misinterpretations within just a couple hundred years, is the height of arrogance and hubris.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                    Gary I challenge you to stop being a coward for once and engage in a debate with points brought to you. What you do each and every time is try to point away from the counter points or ignore them. I think I saw you claim to have been a Christian but all we ever see you do is say "this person says this" "here is a link to what they say". Any Christian that gave up his faith on say so rather than evidence was never any such thing. if I even were going to buy into your silly "lets ask the man on the street and see what he says as proof" claim I would state the facts as they are not your tainted wording.

                    "If two people studied an ancient language and got A+s in all their work graduating with PHDs would you disregard one because he was a Christian and accept the other one just because he is Jewish?"

                    I'd bet good money they will say of course not - Its the knowledge that counts not the race. Why? because they would see the stupidity of your claim that ethnicity trumps expertise. IF a Muslim has the credentials and knows his stuff he is open to debating me on any issue in the Greek or Hebrew and his being Muslim will not matter squat if he knows his stuff. In the example I just gave to TB it didn't matter squat that I was the gentile and the Rabbi was Jewish. Its just a fact that the original text does not have the punctuation being claimed by the Rabbi. His being Jewish did not magically change the facts nor make him right using a faulty (and at the time among anti missionaries consensus) argument.
                    Mike,

                    The reason why I don't fully engage you is that you seem unable to pick yourself up out of the gutter and refrain from non-stop personal insults and name calling.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      No - I have only my own experience of such events.

                      I will take that as a reasonable assessment.

                      Miracles from the Christian God do, yes. Miracles won't be performed in the name of Christ when the message is false.



                      They can - but not in the name of Christ.



                      If the person claims to be a servant of Christ, we can be certain.



                      That is what the Jews of the time alleged.



                      True.



                      As I pointed out - Paul referred the attention of the congregations to the fact that they themselves could perform miracles, and have prayer answered.

                      The most elementary test is: where else is it stated? If it doesn't have independent verification by another author, it doesn't have to be accepted as fact. There is a complicating factor though, in that a number of gospels were eliminated from being included in the Bible on the grounds that they did not make reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus.
                      Isn't there a passage in Acts that says some guy was casting out demons in Jesus name but he was not a believer? If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if someone claims to be performing a miracle in Jesus name, no miracle will occur?? How do you account for the miracles performed in Jesus name by outright con artists and charlatans? Can you prove that their "miracles" do not occur any more than I can prove that Christian miracles in Keener's book do not really occur?

                      Comment


                      • incidentally Tabib - apparently the argument is still being used (though seems less nowadays)

                        http://australia.jewsforjudaism.org/...5-translation/


                        along with another point about the definite article (which actually works against them as well because moshiach standing by itself without any other identifier almost always refers to a king).

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          No - I have only my own experience of such events.

                          I will take that as a reasonable assessment.

                          Miracles from the Christian God do, yes. Miracles won't be performed in the name of Christ when the message is false.



                          They can - but not in the name of Christ.



                          If the person claims to be a servant of Christ, we can be certain.



                          That is what the Jews of the time alleged.



                          True.



                          As I pointed out - Paul referred the attention of the congregations to the fact that they themselves could perform miracles, and have prayer answered.

                          The most elementary test is: where else is it stated? If it doesn't have independent verification by another author, it doesn't have to be accepted as fact. There is a complicating factor though, in that a number of gospels were eliminated from being included in the Bible on the grounds that they did not make reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus.
                          Should it really be that hard, Tabby? If God really wanted us all to be saved, would he give us such a difficult-to-figure-out message??
                          Last edited by Gary; 09-14-2015, 03:07 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                            Mike,

                            The reason why I don't fully engage you is that you seem unable to pick yourself up out of the gutter and refrain from non-stop personal insults and name calling.
                            Your personal accusations means nothing to me Gary. the only one that waltzed onto a Christian site to tell people they were uninformed , blind, brainwashed and inferior intellectually was yourself. if you want to cry because you got back more facts than you handle thats will be on you. If youare being intellectual dishonest I will point it out.. - no apologies. I will treat you with no kid's gloves like you said - "until the mod's say otherwise".

                            Meanwhile you ARE lying. There has not been a person in this thread who has not been able to see you fail to deal with their counter points and not seen you just change the subject. further as evidenced for all to see over the last few pages you DO respond to me when you THINK you have a good argument to make. So step to the plate and stop trying to deflect when you strike out. its not name calling to say you are intellectual dishonest when you in fact are.
                            Last edited by Mikeenders; 09-14-2015, 02:55 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                              Your personal accusations means nothing to me Gary. the only one that waltzed onto a Christian site to tell people they were uninformed , blind, brainwashed and inferior intellectually was yourself. if you want to cry because you got back more facts than you handle thats will be on you. If youare being intellectual dishonest I will point it out.. - no apologies. I will treat you with no kid's gloves like you said - "until the mod's say otherwise".

                              Meanwhile you ARE lying. There has not been a person in this thread who has not been able to see you fail to deal with their counter points and not seen you just change the subject. further as evidenced for all to see over the last few pages you DO respond to me when you THINK you have a good argument to make. So step to the plate and stop trying to deflect when you strike out. its not name calling to say you are intellectual dishonest when you in fact are.
                              I have never ONCE said that Christians are "intellectually inferior", stupid, or otherwise. I believe that your ancient, middle-eastern, supernatural belief system is stupid and silly. Very intelligent, educated people can still believe stupid and silly things.

                              Comment


                              • Ahem. Let's look at what Gary said himself with the main parts in bold.

                                You don’t need a PhD to know the Bible is false.

                                “Instead of reading scholarly responses to (Bart) Ehrman as recommended, he (Gary) renounced faith. …The pastors at Gary’s former church were concerned as he sparred with capable disciples of Ehrman that he had not yet come to an understanding of Lutheranism. His formation as a Lutheran required time and inculturation. So, yes, in this sense I failed to form him as a disciple of Jesus and for that I am sorry.” —my former orthodox Lutheran pastor

                                My former pastor is not alone in his assessment that my lack of knowledge is the source of my problem. Many a Lutheran pastor and layperson has accused me of not fully understanding Lutheran doctrine and teachings as the cause of my loss of faith and deconversion from Christianity. What’s fascinating is that many an evangelical pastor and layperson has accused me of not understanding “true Christian” (evangelical) doctrine and teaching as the cause of my deconversion. Both groups have given me long lists of apologists (from their respective denominational flavor of Christianity only, of course) to educate me in the truths of Holy Scripture (as they read and understand it).

                                But here’s the thing: I don’t need to understand the nuances of the Doctrines of Baptismal Regeneration, the Real Presence, Predestination, or Justification by Faith Alone, to know that the Bible is a book of nonsense. All I need is a high school education and a functioning brain.

                                Here are the cornerstone beliefs of orthodox Christianity:

                                1. The first human was created by an ancient middle-eastern god blowing air into a pile of dirt.

                                2. Death, disease, and all the pain and suffering in the world are the result of the first humans eating an ancient middle-eastern god’s fruit.

                                3. This same ancient middle eastern god soon had pity on humans for inflicting horrific suffering and death upon them for eating his fruit, so he decided to send himself to earth, in the form of a human being, to sacrifice himself, to appease the righteous anger of…himself.

                                4. This ancient middle-eastern god sent himself to earth in the form of a human being by having his ghost impregnate a young Jewish virgin, giving birth to…himself….as a divine god/man.

                                5. This divine god/man grew up to then preach the news of eternal redemption and forgiveness for ancestral forbidden-fruit-eating; “good news” meant for all the people of earth…by going to one desolate, sparsely populated, backwater corner of the globe where he taught in riddles that not even his closest followers could understand.

                                6. Even upon his death his closest followers had no clue what he was talking about. This god/man left no written instructions regarding what he required of mankind, only his confusing, often contradictory oral riddles. However, he allegedly left the job of written instructions to four anonymous writers, three of whom plagiarized the first, and, one bipolar, vision-prone, Jewish rabbi, who concocted contradictory wild tales of resurrections and ascensions into outer space.

                                Dear friend: You do NOT need to read the books of Christian apologists, theologians, and pastors to determine if these assertions of ancient, middle eastern facts are true. No. All you have to do is use your brain. And what does your brain tell you: It is all superstitious nonsense.

                                NO ONE in the 21st century with a high school education should believe these ancient tall tales.


                                http://danielbwallace.com/2014/03/24...#comment-43939

                                Comment

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