Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

Wow. Conjecture upon conjecture, especially since the Gospel of Peter never got wide appeal and especially since Papias says this prior to the late second century. Also, this still doesn't explain why they'd choose a sissy boy like Mark?

Color me thoroughly unconvinced.

I don't need to convince you, Nick. I just need to show that my naturalistic explanations are POSSIBLE.

[Apologiaphoenix]

"You assume Matthew was written then, but you give no evidence of that."

You are the NT scholar. If the majority of NT scholars (50.1 percent or greater) do not believe that Matthew was not written circa 80 AD, please advise me. Maybe I should widen my time period and say, 70 AD-90 AD. That would not hurt my argument any. Would you agree with that?

Nope. Not a NT scholar. I just asked you to back your claim. Still waiting for you to back yours.

Go ahead. Give the scholars and their reasons.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I don't need to convince you, Nick. I just need to show that my naturalistic explanations are POSSIBLE.

Sure. And meanwhile you just ignore every time those explanations are shown to be implausible.

[Apologiaphoenix]

goalposts.jpg

[Gary]

So you're not certain the holocaust took place?

Due to the overwhelming evidence that supports the claim of the Holocaust, I believe it. I do not have to have proof of 100% certitude to believe something is true.

[Sea of red]

Sure. What's the subject of your doctorate and what's the field? (I'm guessing science)

My university gave the option to double in physics and astronomy which I took for my MS, and reverted to pure astronomy/astrophysics for my doctorate. My research is in galactic astrophysics and I was into radio astronomy for awhile.

[Gary]

[QUOTE=Apologiaphoenix;222371]YOu would investigate the claim? You would?

You said here you wouldn't.

What's the title of that post? Oh yeah!

Why don't skeptics need to investigate the Evidence for the Christian Claim of a Resurrected, Dead, First Century, Jewish Prophet?

Here is a copy and paste from the article on my blog which you linked in your comment:


" Dear Christians, I am not trying to be mean, but many, many educated people today are coming to the same conclusion about your reanimated dead Jewish prophet story: It just isn't believable. There is no need to research the "evidence". There is no need to research the evidence because the claim itself is nonsensical and silly."

I would say this exact same statement to Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc. etc. about their supernatural claims. We cannot spend our entire lives investigating all these claims. However, if an individual of one of these belief systems ASKED me to look at his evidence, I would, at least briefly. If it was compelling, I would spend more time looking at it.

[Apologiaphoenix]

My university gave the option to double in physics and astronomy which I took for my MS, and reverted to pure astronomy/astrophysics for my doctorate. My research is in galactic astrophysics and I was into radio astronomy for awhile.

Nice. I can say I can get caught up sometimes if I see an interesting article on something in space. Totally mindblowing. Got something in mind yet for the doctorate?

[Apologiaphoenix]

[QUOTE=Gary;222390]

YOu would investigate the claim? You would?

You said here you wouldn't.

What's the title of that post? Oh yeah!

Why don't skeptics need to investigate the Evidence for the Christian Claim of a Resurrected, Dead, First Century, Jewish Prophet?

Here is a copy and paste from the article on my blog which you linked in your comment:


Dear Christians, I am not trying to be mean, but many, many educated people today are coming to the same conclusion about your reanimated dead Jewish prophet story: It just isn't believable. There is no need to research the "evidence". There is no need to research the evidence because the claim itself is nonsensical and silly.

I would say this exact same statement to Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc. etc. about their supernatural claims. However, if an individual of one of these belief systems ASKED me to look at the evidence, I would.

Except you wrote this after your debate with me so you're saying you would not investigate the claims.

Looks like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth and you're still assuming the claims are stupid without giving any reason why.

I refer to it as presuppositional atheism.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Alright. That's enough for now. Too much time wasted here. Be back on Monday so you guys have fun with Gary until then.

[Adrift]

Here is a copy and paste from the article on my blog which you linked in your comment:


" Dear Christians, I am not trying to be mean, but many, many educated people today are coming to the same conclusion about your reanimated dead Jewish prophet story: It just isn't believable. There is no need to research the "evidence". There is no need to research the evidence because the claim itself is nonsensical and silly."

Next time try to be more condescending and contemptuous and maybe you'll win more converts to your way of thinking.

[Gary]

Nope. Not a NT scholar. I just asked you to back your claim. Still waiting for you to back yours.

Go ahead. Give the scholars and their reasons.

Duling, Dennis C. (2010). "The Gospel of Matthew".
In Aune, David E. The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament.

"The majority of scholars believe that Matthew was written between 80-90 AD."

[Gary]

Why should we realistically believe this would be enough for you and that the goalposts would not simply shift were this the case?

You'd have to take my word for it. :)

[Gary]

And it's silly on what grounds? You compared it to the tooth fairy so it should be analogous. If the tooth fairy is stupid, it would follow the other claim is stupid.

But you gave no reason why that should be the case.

There is zero good evidence to believe that the Tooth Fairy literally exists, and no one (that I know) has claimed that she/he/it is does exist. This is a stupid claim.

There is zero good evidence (in my opinion and that of most skeptics) to believe in the reanimation of the dead flesh of a first century prophet, but some first century people did believe it to have happened. Therefore, in my opinion, this claim is not stupid, but it is still silly.

[Gary]

Sure. And meanwhile you just ignore every time those explanations are shown to be implausible.

There is a very big difference between what is implausible (to you), and what is impossible.