Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Gary View Post"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?
Go ahead. Give the scholars and their reasons.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostSure. What's the subject of your doctorate and what's the field? (I'm guessing science)
Comment
-
[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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostMy 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.
Comment
-
[QUOTE=Gary;222390]Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostYOu 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostHere 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."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostNope. 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.
In Aune, David E. The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament.
"The majority of scholars believe that Matthew was written between 80-90 AD."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostAnd 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 (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.
Comment
-
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment