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 Sea of red View Post
    I would recommend you try your hand at Mathematical Methods For Physics and Engineering by Riley, Hobson, and Bence. It covers everything from Algebra 3 to Tensor Analysis and includes lots of practice questions with examples. Then move on to Classical Mechanics by Kibble and you should be good to go.
    Thanks, I'll give them a look.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      Yeah. I realize that. So what? I want to know why the majority think that and I found the arguments unconvincing. Should I say "Well the arguments are unconvincing, but if that's what the majority of scholars say, even if I think the data points elsewhere I'll just go along with it?"

      By the way, it's interesting that in the debate when I cited scholars, you dismissed them because they were biased.

      Did they all suddenly lose their bias when you wanted to use them?



      It's pathetic? Why is that? Peter would have seen firsthand several events Matthew didn't. Why wouldn't Matthew use that? Oh. I know why!

      Gary says otherwise!



      Keep up your evangelism dude. You make yourself look more ridiculous regularly. Let me know when you plan to escape fundamentalism entirely.
      Nick,

      You asked me to back up my assertion that the majority of NT scholars believe that Matthew was written 80-90 AD and that this gospel was not written by the apostle of the same name. I did, and you then want to argue with the majority scholarly finding, just as I argued with the majority NT scholar position on the historicity of an empty tomb. We both are being inconsistent.

      I have a suggestion: I will accept the empty tomb as historical fact if you will accept the dating and authorship of the four gospels, as believed by the majority of NT scholars. Agreed?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
        Nick,

        You asked me to back up my assertion that the majority of NT scholars believe that Matthew was written 80-90 AD and that this gospel was not written by the apostle of the same name. I did, and you then want to argue with the majority scholarly finding, just as I argued with the majority NT scholar position on the historicity of an empty tomb. We both are being inconsistent.
        No. We're not. You argued against it on grounds of bias. I argued against the majority by showing why I do not believe them and gave an opposite reason.

        I have a suggestion: I will accept the empty tomb as historical fact if you will accept the dating and authorship of the four gospels, as believed by the majority of NT scholars. Agreed?
        Even if I did that, that would not change my argument for the resurrection at all. But again, you miss the point. I told you why I think these scholars are wrong on these grounds beyond just "bias."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          No. We're not. You argued against it on grounds of bias. I argued against the majority by showing why I do not believe them and gave an opposite reason.



          Even if I did that, that would not change my argument for the resurrection at all. But again, you miss the point. I told you why I think these scholars are wrong on these grounds beyond just "bias."
          So bottom line, you accept majority opinion when it agrees with your position, and reject it when it doesn't.

          Even if I put aside my belief that most Christian NT scholars have a bias in favor of the empty tomb, there is good reason to reject the position of these scholars on this point: There is no evidence for an empty tomb other than conjecture. However, an empty tomb inflicts no serious damage to my position, whereas for you to admit that the four gospels were all written after 70 AD and all written by non-eyewitnesses, as the majority of NT scholars believe, would devastate your position, wouldn't it?

          Again, I will accept the majority scholarly opinion on the empty tomb, will you accept their position on the dating and authorship of the gospels.
          Last edited by Gary; 07-27-2015, 01:34 PM.

          Comment


          • 22
            Last edited by William; 07-27-2015, 01:51 PM.

            Comment


            • Let's look at the evidence for three major world religions: Islam, Mormonism, and (orthodox/conservative) Christianity. And let's remember that all three of these religions are exclusivist. If you reject Allah and the Koran, you will burn in the Muslim hell. If you reject Jesus and the Bible, you will burn (or at least suffer) in the Christian hell. Mormonism attempts to be a little more universalist, but if you are a Mormon and you decide to reject the Mormon god and the Book of Mormon, you will be "cast out into outer darkness". Better than being burned alive, but still not a pleasant way to spend eternity. So at least two (and maybe all three?) of these belief systems are false. How do we determine which ones. Let's look at the evidence for each one:

              1. Islam

              Islam claims that God sent his angel Gabriel to Mohammad with his Word, the Koran. Pretty simple. There is no question that Mohammad was a real historical figure. There is also no question that the teachings in the Koran came from Mohammad. The question left is: Do we believe the testimony of this one man?

              2. Mormonism

              Joseph Smith claims that he too received a new message from God delivered by an angel, Moroni. There is no question that Joseph Smith was a real historical figure. There is no question that the teachings in the Book of Mormon came from Joseph Smith. AND, Mormons have thirteen signed affadavits, from thirteen known, historical men, who swore that they saw the Golden Plates, and, three of them swore they saw the angel!

              That's pretty darn good evidence to present in a court of law!

              3. Christianity

              Christians claim that the Creator of the Universe gave his message of salvation to the world by sending a man/god named Jesus to earth. A man/god whom most people believe is historical, but there are a few who doubt he existed. But this man/god did not write down anything himself. He went back to heaven and left this job to four anonymous authors, writing decades after the event, and, the testimony of one vision-prone Jewish Pharisee who saw a talking bright light on a lonely desert highway.

              Now, if your eternal destiny, which includes the possibility of burning forever in a pit, or sitting in outer darkness, is contingent upon the historicity of one of these claims, which claim has the best evidence?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                Let's look at the evidence for three major world religions: Islam, Mormonism, and (orthodox/conservative) Christianity. And let's remember that all three of these religions are exclusivist. If you reject Allah and the Koran, you will burn in the Muslim hell. If you reject Jesus and the Bible, you will burn (or at least suffer) in the Christian hell. Mormonism attempts to be a little more universalist, but if you are a Mormon and you decide to reject the Mormon god and the Book of Mormon, you will be "cast out into outer darkness". Better than being burned alive, but still not a pleasant way to spend eternity. So at least two (and maybe all three?) of these belief systems are false. How do we determine which ones. Let's look at the evidence for each one:

                1. Islam

                Islam claims that God sent his angel Gabriel to Mohammad with his Word, the Koran. Pretty simple. There is no question that Mohammad was a real historical figure.
                Why not? What evidence do you have outside of Islam that Mohammed existed?
                There is also no question that the teachings in the Koran came from Mohammad.
                Sure there is. To borrow your own shoddy argument, we don't have Randy's Koran, we have BOB's version of Randy's Koran.
                2. Mormonism

                Joseph Smith claims that he too received a new message from God delivered by an angel, Moroni. There is no question that Joseph Smith was a real historical figure. There is no question that the teachings in the Book of Mormon came from Joseph Smith.
                Sure there is. They might have come from Solomon Spalding.
                AND, Mormons have thirteen signed affadavits, from thirteen known, historical men, who swore that they saw the Golden Plates, and, three of them swore they saw the angel!
                It's 11, not 13 - and it's an open question whether any of them physically saw the plates (see link).
                3. Christianity

                Christians claim that the Creator of the Universe gave his message of salvation to the world by sending a man/god named Jesus to earth.
                You know better than that, don't you?
                A man/god whom most people believe is historical, but there are a few who doubt he existed.
                Those few are on the fringe of fringe scholarship.
                But this man/god did not write down anything himself. He went back to heaven and left this job to four anonymous authors, writing decades after the event, and, the testimony of one vision-prone Jewish Pharisee who saw a talking bright light on a lonely desert highway.
                Your hostility to Christianity is duly noted. Your skepticism is a bit dated, however. The more speculative skeptics talk of communities, not individual writers, who see redactions in every nuance of verb tense.
                Now, if your eternal destiny, which includes the possibility of burning forever in a pit, or sitting in outer darkness, is contingent upon the historicity of one of these claims, which claim has the best evidence?
                We surely won't know from your highly selective presentation.
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  Yeah, I can see that approach is really working out for you so far. And what makes you think you're not the emperor?
                  It is certainly possible that I am wrong about the theoretical possibilities of invisible thread...but I do know a naked tallywacker when I see one.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    Why not? What evidence do you have outside of Islam that Mohammed existed?

                    Sure there is. To borrow your own shoddy argument, we don't have Randy's Koran, we have BOB's version of Randy's Koran.

                    Sure there is. They might have come from Solomon Spalding.

                    It's 11, not 13 - and it's an open question whether any of them physically saw the plates (see link).

                    You know better than that, don't you?

                    Those few are on the fringe of fringe scholarship.
                    Your hostility to Christianity is duly noted. Your skepticism is a bit dated, however. The more speculative skeptics talk of communities, not individual writers, who see redactions in every nuance of verb tense.

                    We surely won't know from your highly selective presentation.


                    I get your response. I am unsure, however, what you really think.

                    Is there just as much historical support, and more so, for these other religious men of note, than there is for Jesus or do you think there is less?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by William View Post
                      I get your response. I am unsure, however, what you really think.

                      Is there just as much historical support, and more so, for these other religious men of note, than there is for Jesus or do you think there is less?
                      Given his faith designation says Christian, he definitely believes there is more evidence for Jesus. I may not know much about Mormonism, but I spent quite a bit of time studying Islam. All self taught, but I learned a lot over the years. Gary hasn't a clue how Islam started, and the evidence involved in it. Many of the criticisms he's hurled at Christianity apply more so to Islam. Especially textual integrity.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                        No. We're not. You argued against it on grounds of bias. I argued against the majority by showing why I do not believe them and gave an opposite reason.



                        Even if I did that, that would not change my argument for the resurrection at all. But again, you miss the point. I told you why I think these scholars are wrong on these grounds beyond just "bias."
                        I am willing to discuss the claim of the Resurrection based on accepting the positions of the majority of NT scholars, but for some reason, now Nick is not so sure of himself. If we accept the positions of the majority of NT scholars, this is what Nick and I would be forced to agree upon:

                        1. Jesus was a real person in first century Palestine, crucified by the Romans.
                        2. Shortly after his death, his tomb was found empty.
                        3. Very soon after his crucifixion, Christians believed in a bodily resurrection of Jesus.
                        4. Very soon after his crucifixion, Christians claimed that the resurrected Jesus had appeared to multiple people.
                        5. Early Christians were willing to die for their belief in a Resurrection.
                        6. Paul, a Jewish Pharisee, converted to Christianity due to a heavenly vision on the Damascus Road.
                        7. Paul wrote at least seven, maybe thirteen, epistles after his conversion. Most scholars believe these epistles were written in the 50's and possibly early 60's.
                        8. The first of the four Gospels, Mark, was written in the period 65-75 AD, most probably not by an eyewitness, nor an associate of any eyewitness.
                        9. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written approximately 70-90 AD, and both borrow heavily from the Gospel of Mark. Most scholars do not believe that these gospels were written by eyewitnesses either (Luke says he wasn't.)
                        10. The last gospel, John, was written in the last decades of the first century or the first few decades of the second, and most scholars do not believe that this gospel was written by an eyewitness.

                        Nick: Can we agree to assume the above as the accepted evidence and move forward in our discussion? If not, why not? You said that even if the above is true, it wouldn't hurt your case and I said that the inclusion of the empty tomb would not hurt my case. So shall we proceed?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                          Given his faith designation says Christian, he definitely believes there is more evidence for Jesus. I may not know much about Mormonism, but I spent quite a bit of time studying Islam. All self taught, but I learned a lot over the years. Gary hasn't a clue how Islam started, and the evidence involved in it. Many of the criticisms he's hurled at Christianity apply more so to Islam. Especially textual integrity.
                          "According to the traditional Islamic view, the Qur'an (Koran) began with revelations to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel in 610. The history of the Qur'an began when its verses were revealed to the Muhammad. The rise of Islam began around the time Muslims took flight in the Hijra, moving to Medina."

                          Please explain where I contradicted these accepted historical facts about Islam.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by William View Post
                            I get your response. I am unsure, however, what you really think.

                            Is there just as much historical support, and more so, for these other religious men of note, than there is for Jesus or do you think there is less?
                            and keep in mind that Gary doesn't believe in Islam or Mormonism either. SO while your reply was giving him a taste of his own medicine, you were doing that on a post where was trying to do that to you. Gary doesn't think you should convert or that Islam or the Mormons have truth you should accept, he's showing that the type of historical significance you hold as evidence is also held by competing religions, with more first hand accounts. SO if it's good evidence, then it's good evidence across the board, but if that evidence doesn't work for them, then why does it work for you?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                              "According to the traditional Islamic view, the Qur'an (Koran) began with revelations to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel in 610. The history of the Qur'an began when its verses were revealed to the Muhammad. The rise of Islam began around the time Muslims took flight in the Hijra, moving to Medina."

                              Please explain where I contradicted these accepted historical facts about Islam.
                              From the Holy Koran:

                              "It is the same whether or not you forwarn them [the unbelievers], they will have no faith" (2:6).

                              "God will mock them and keep them long in sin, blundering blindly along" (2:15).

                              A fire "whose fuel is men and stones" awaits them (2:24).

                              They will be "rewarded with disgrace in this world and with grievous punishment on the Day of Resurrection" (2:85).

                              "God's curse be upon the infidels!" (2:89).

                              "They have incurred God's most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits [them]" (2:90).

                              "God is the enemy of the unbelievers" (2:98).

                              "The unbelievers among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], and the pagans, resent that any blessing should have been sent down to you from your Lord" (2:105).

                              "They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter" (2:114).

                              "Those to whom We [God] have given the Book, and who read it as it ought to be read, truly believe in it; those that deny it shall assuredly be lost" (2:122).

                              "[We] shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate" (2:126).

                              "The East and the West are God's. He guides whom He will to a straight path" (2:142).

                              "Do not say that those slain in the cause of God are dead. They are alive, but you are not aware of them" (2:154).

                              "But the infidels who die unbelievers shall incur the curse of God, the angels, and all men. Under it they shall remain for ever; their punishment shall not be lightened, nor shall they be reprieved" (2:162).

                              "They shall sigh with remorse, but shall never come out of the Fire" (2:168).

                              "The unbelievers are like beasts which, call out to them as one may, can hear nothing but a shout and a cry. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they understand nothing" (2:172).

                              "Theirs shall be a woeful punishment" (2:175).

                              "How steadfastly they seek the Fire! That is because God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about it are in extreme schism" (2:176).

                              "Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . [I]f they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers"(2:190–93).

                              "Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not" (2:216).

                              "They will not cease to fight against you until they force you to renounce your faith—if they are able. But whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing in this world and in the world to come. Such men shall be the tenants of Hell, wherein they shall abide forever. Those that have embraced the Faith, and those that have fled their land and fought for the cause of God, may hope for God's mercy" (2:217–18).

                              "God does not guide the evil-doers" (2:258).

                              "God does not guide the unbelievers" (2:264).

                              "The evil-doers shall have none to help them" (2:270).

                              "God gives guidance to whom He will" (2:272).

                              "Those that deny God's revelations shall be sternly punished; God is mighty and capable of revenge" (3:5).

                              "As for the unbelievers, neither their riches nor their children will in the least save them from God's judgment. They shall become fuel for the Fire" (3:10).

                              "Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell—an evil resting place!'" (3:12).

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                                So bottom line, you accept majority opinion when it agrees with your position, and reject it when it doesn't.
                                I know you're still trapped in fundyland, but let's look at what I originally said.

                                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.


                                Notice that last part. What are their reasons. If they come to the text and say "Well we know predictive prophecy can't take place so this was written late, that's not convincing. The only reason being given is not a historical one but a metaphysical one. I in fact showed that if Matthew was written afterward, he would not say anything about burning the city since the city was not burnt. Matthew also includes information that makes no sense after the temple is destroyed, such as Jesus's handling of the temple tax. The writing is treated as if the temple was still standing.

                                Even if I put aside my belief that most Christian NT scholars have a bias in favor of the empty tomb,
                                Good thing I don't rely on Christian scholars. I relied on non-Christian scholars to make my case. If any of them are Christians, I am unaware of it because frankly, I don't care.

                                there is good reason to reject the position of these scholars on this point: There is no evidence for an empty tomb other than conjecture.
                                Yeah there is. Multiple attestation, criteria of embarrassment, and the simple fact that Jews buried their dead.

                                However, an empty tomb inflicts no serious damage to my position, whereas for you to admit that the four gospels were all written after 70 AD and all written by non-eyewitnesses, as the majority of NT scholars believe, would devastate your position, wouldn't it?
                                Nope. Not a bit. Go back to the debate. I relied on the 1 Cor. 15 claim and the honor-shame perspective. Remove the Gospels and my case still stands. Maybe you should have been paying attention to my argument.

                                Again, I will accept the majority scholarly opinion on the empty tomb, will you accept their position on the dating and authorship of the gospels.
                                I will accept what I see the data showing. You know the data better when you read books instead of just reading things online.

                                Let's look at the evidence for three major world religions: Islam, Mormonism, and (orthodox/conservative) Christianity. And let's remember that all three of these religions are exclusivist. If you reject Allah and the Koran, you will burn in the Muslim hell. If you reject Jesus and the Bible, you will burn (or at least suffer) in the Christian hell. Mormonism attempts to be a little more universalist, but if you are a Mormon and you decide to reject the Mormon god and the Book of Mormon, you will be "cast out into outer darkness". Better than being burned alive, but still not a pleasant way to spend eternity. So at least two (and maybe all three?) of these belief systems are false. How do we determine which ones. Let's look at the evidence for each one:
                                Love the constant reference to burning. You're still a fundamentalist.

                                1. Islam

                                Islam claims that God sent his angel Gabriel to Mohammad with his Word, the Koran. Pretty simple. There is no question that Mohammad was a real historical figure. There is also no question that the teachings in the Koran came from Mohammad. The question left is: Do we believe the testimony of this one man?
                                Okay. Give the evidence for Muhammad outside of the Koran since there's no question. I think there was such a man, but since you're so sure, let's see you do it.

                                2. Mormonism

                                Joseph Smith claims that he too received a new message from God delivered by an angel, Moroni. There is no question that Joseph Smith was a real historical figure. There is no question that the teachings in the Book of Mormon came from Joseph Smith. AND, Mormons have thirteen signed affadavits, from thirteen known, historical men, who swore that they saw the Golden Plates, and, three of them swore they saw the angel!

                                That's pretty darn good evidence to present in a court of law!
                                No it isn't. Along with what OBP said, Smith also plagiarized from such works as "A View of the Hebrews." He was a copycat of ideas of his time who changed his story regularly. Also, he had a reputation as a con man in the area he lived as did his Dad. Finally, there is zero archaeological evidence that backs the BOM and DNA evidence shows the Native Americans over here are not of Hebrew descent.

                                3. Christianity

                                Christians claim that the Creator of the Universe gave his message of salvation to the world by sending a man/god named Jesus to earth. A man/god whom most people believe is historical, but there are a few who doubt he existed.
                                The fringe of the fringe as OBP said. You won't find them teaching at accredited universities.

                                But this man/god did not write down anything himself.
                                Most great teachers didn't. They didn't want their teaching to be misunderstood apart from what they said. If you think otherwise, then please find the rabbis who wrote down their teachings. What do we have from Hillel or Gamaliel or Shammai? What do we have from Socrates?

                                He went back to heaven and left this job to four anonymous authors, writing decades after the event, and, the testimony of one vision-prone Jewish Pharisee who saw a talking bright light on a lonely desert highway.
                                Nothing like some nice straw manning. How many times do I have to kick to the curb this argument that decades after is something powerful before you realize it isn't? The crossing of the Rubicon is written well over a century afterwards and you have no problem with it.

                                Now, if your eternal destiny, which includes the possibility of burning forever in a pit, or sitting in outer darkness, is contingent upon the historicity of one of these claims, which claim has the best evidence?
                                The one that you came here to debate and in the middle of the debate never made any historical arguments but argued metaphysics.

                                Seriously. Go read some books. I have more respect for someone like Sea of Red because he knows this isn't his area so he doesn't speak about it like you do and is willing to ask what books are the best ones to read on this topic.

                                Comment

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