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 Apologiaphoenix View Post
    No. It's not. Do you think secular institutions that peer review this material are ran by evangelical Christians?

    Take off the tin-foil hat dude. You're becoming more and more of a train wreck.
    Ok, Nick. Let's see you put your money where your mouth is: I dare you to show me and the readers of this thread even ONE non-Christian (secular), peer-reviewed journal that believes that the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus is sufficient to include this event as an historical fact in all high school and college, general world history text books.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Irate Canadian View Post

      P.S. I see you complaining on blogs that you don't know how to formally debate. It literally takes a google search to figure out to do a formal debate. You don't need to be formally trained on the subject.
      You must mean like right here: http://danielbwallace.com/2014/03/24...#comment-44355

      Why? I do answer Nick’s questions, in a standard debate format. Why didn’t I do that in the “initial round”? Answer: I felt I had been deceived. Nick challenge me to debate him, somewhere other than here on Dr. Wallace’s blog. I thought that Dr. Wallace’s blog was a great forum, I didn’t see why we needed to move the discussion. But Nick insisted.

      I then offered to host the discussion on my blog, assuming that we would continue our informal discussion/debate. Nick wasn’t comfortable as he did not trust me in control. He suggested a “neutral venue”. He dared me to come and debate him on Theology Web promising that it was a neutral site. I finally agreed.

      After going through the hoops of signing up on Theology Web, I realized the following:

      1. Theology Web is a Christian website (so much for neutrality)
      2. Nick had set up a FORMAL debate. I have no training in formal debating nor do I know the rules.
      3. There was a moderator to the debate. I had assumed that neutral meant a free flowing give and take, without a referee.
      4. The moderator was a Christian. (He has a big “Jesus fish” symbol as his moniker.
      5. I advised Nick and the Christian moderator that I had no experience in formal debating and that if they were rules I requested access to them. I was given a link which gave me behavior rules for the website, but no instructions regarding formal debate procedure. One such rule was: “No excessive blasphemy.” What the HELL does that mean for a non-believer like me???”
      6. During the debate, our “neutral” Christian moderator, was busy making snarky comments about my lack of formal debate skills over on the comment thread while the debate was ongoing!!

      Wow! I’ve been set up!

      So I debated, but I debated going out of my way to break the “debate rules”. I used analogies to demonstrate that the Christian supernatural (Nick HATES that word) claims are just as unbelievable and nonsensical as the belief in the Tooth Fairy and leprechauns.

      But now that we are out of the “formal debate” arena, and back on a discussion format, not a formal debate protocol, I am refuting Nick’s claims, point by point, as he had wanted me to do initially.


      That was totally hysterical. Yep. The Christians on this site sure interfered. I mean, they only apologized when they made a mistake in the debate format. And Gary actually thinks he's refuting something point by point.

      Dunning-Kruger anyone?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by William View Post
        so you agree there are errors, but just not big ones? I'm not talking about spelling or translation either.
        In copies, yes I agree that there are errors.

        I dont really mean to get off on a tangent, but Matthew has jesus riding two donkey at the triumphal entry as if he misunderstood redundancy in text, he credited Jeremiah with something Zechariah said, he said that Isaiah said that a Virgin would conceive and that that referenced Jesus and Mary while Isaiah really said "young woman" and and young woman happened to give birth in Isaiah Ch 8.

        Matt and Lukes genealogies both say through Joseph but are horribly wrong - people usually say that Luke meant Mary, but this is really just wishful thinking. I mean, what discrepancy cant be "explained" in such a way?

        on the limited commission, were they to take their sandles or staffs or not?

        at jesus birth, each has a different story. which is right? if they're all right, how do you make it work with all the details?

        ezekiel's prophecy of Tyre... Tyre isnt desolate and was rebuilt and is populated today, contrary to what Ezekiel said.

        Jeremiah said that a levite will always be at the alter in Jerusalem and that a decedent of david would always be on the thrown. Jesus is the descendant of David, but he's from Judah, and priest after melcizedec not after Levi.

        I mean there's more. and I've heard the excuses, so since this is a tangent, I'll just acknowledge that you likely have "explanations" for them - but keep this in mind, all religions have explanations for their issues (Islam as well) and Like them, these excuses dont eliminate the issue, as the text says what it says not matter how much we plead for it to mean something else. You'll believe it regardless and I just do not.

        But saying that the Koran has textual issues but that the bible does not is not fair or accurate. you just make and believe excuses for the bible and dont want to hear or accept the excuses made and believed for the Koran.
        I may, or may not come back to this thread, for now I'll say this. The textual issues I was referring to in my response to Gary has to do specifically with manuscript evidence. Such things as when things were written, by whom, and other things. For the most part, we know what the NT said in it's original form. We have very early manuscript evidence, and we are finding more stuff all the time(more recently they found stuff on the inside of Egyptian masks IIRC).

        I know that all religions have their apologetics and explanations. I've researched those of Islam. I've spent years studying the claims made, and doing my best to look to the texts in their contexts.
        Because of the nature of the Quran, we don't have much context unless you involve the Hadith. Something that seems to be rejected by Muslims more and more*. Without that context, you have a rather hollow shell of Islam. With that context, and you get other problems.

        There was time when I tried asking a Muslim apologetics site how they reconcile certain things. You want to know what they did? They cut off the conversation(it was a live text chat). They hung up on me. Either the person could not answer, or was not knowledgeable enough to give an answer. Either of those reflects badly on said site. Especially since they didn't just admit they didn't have an answer, and try sending me to someone else.

        *Quran Onlyists seem to be on the rise. This is based on my personal experience with Muslims. Those that don't outright deny the Hadith, will pick and choose when to accept specific traditions. If it helps their current argument they will accept it, if it doesn't, they will deny it.

        Comment


        • He literally can PM every other atheist on the site, and find out no moderation is generally done.
          "It's evolution; every time you invent something fool-proof, the world invents a better fool."
          -Unknown

          "Preach the gospel, and if necessary use words." - Most likely St.Francis


          I find that evolution is the best proof of God.
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          I support the :
          sigpic

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
            You must mean like right here: http://danielbwallace.com/2014/03/24...#comment-44355

            Why? I do answer Nick’s questions, in a standard debate format. Why didn’t I do that in the “initial round”? Answer: I felt I had been deceived. Nick challenge me to debate him, somewhere other than here on Dr. Wallace’s blog. I thought that Dr. Wallace’s blog was a great forum, I didn’t see why we needed to move the discussion. But Nick insisted.

            I then offered to host the discussion on my blog, assuming that we would continue our informal discussion/debate. Nick wasn’t comfortable as he did not trust me in control. He suggested a “neutral venue”. He dared me to come and debate him on Theology Web promising that it was a neutral site. I finally agreed.

            After going through the hoops of signing up on Theology Web, I realized the following:

            1. Theology Web is a Christian website (so much for neutrality)
            2. Nick had set up a FORMAL debate. I have no training in formal debating nor do I know the rules.
            3. There was a moderator to the debate. I had assumed that neutral meant a free flowing give and take, without a referee.
            4. The moderator was a Christian. (He has a big “Jesus fish” symbol as his moniker.
            5. I advised Nick and the Christian moderator that I had no experience in formal debating and that if they were rules I requested access to them. I was given a link which gave me behavior rules for the website, but no instructions regarding formal debate procedure. One such rule was: “No excessive blasphemy.” What the HELL does that mean for a non-believer like me???”
            6. During the debate, our “neutral” Christian moderator, was busy making snarky comments about my lack of formal debate skills over on the comment thread while the debate was ongoing!!

            Wow! I’ve been set up!

            So I debated, but I debated going out of my way to break the “debate rules”. I used analogies to demonstrate that the Christian supernatural (Nick HATES that word) claims are just as unbelievable and nonsensical as the belief in the Tooth Fairy and leprechauns.

            But now that we are out of the “formal debate” arena, and back on a discussion format, not a formal debate protocol, I am refuting Nick’s claims, point by point, as he had wanted me to do initially.


            That was totally hysterical. Yep. The Christians on this site sure interfered. I mean, they only apologized when they made a mistake in the debate format. And Gary actually thinks he's refuting something point by point.

            Dunning-Kruger anyone?
            Care to take my textbook challenge, Nicky?

            Comment


            • Why don't you answer my question first?

              Was the ANE culture a honour/shame based culture?
              "It's evolution; every time you invent something fool-proof, the world invents a better fool."
              -Unknown

              "Preach the gospel, and if necessary use words." - Most likely St.Francis


              I find that evolution is the best proof of God.
              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              I support the :
              sigpic

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                Ok, Nick. Let's see you put your money where your mouth is: I dare you to show me and the readers of this thread even ONE non-Christian (secular), peer-reviewed journal that believes that the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus is sufficient to include this event as an historical fact in all high school and college, general world history text books.
                goalposts.jpg

                Sorry, but my claim isn't that this would be taught in world history text books which would try to remain neutral, but that this stuff passes peer review at secular universities.

                Case in point. Gary Habermas did his Ph.D. on the resurrection of Jesus. It passed peer-review at a secular institution.

                Mike Licona did the same thing.

                Peer-review doesn't mean that they agree. IT means that you've put forward the necessary research and you're capable of defending your position before a scholarly board of critics.

                Comment


                • Let's look at the University of Michigan.

                  http://www.msu.edu/about/

                  ANd their "Mission statement"

                  "The following statement was approved by the Board of Trustees on April 18, 2008.

                  Michigan State University, a member of the Association of American Universities and one of the top 100 research universities in the world, was founded in 1855. We are an inclusive, academic community known for our traditionally strong academic disciplines and professional programs, and our liberal arts foundation. Our cross- and interdisciplinary enterprises connect the sciences, humanities, and professions in practical, sustainable, and innovative ways to address society’s rapidly changing needs.

                  As a public, research-intensive, land-grant university funded in part by the state of Michigan, our mission is to advance knowledge and transform lives by:

                  providing outstanding undergraduate, graduate, and professional education to promising, qualified students in order to prepare them to contribute fully to society as globally engaged citizen leaders
                  conducting research of the highest caliber that seeks to answer questions and create solutions in order to expand human understanding and make a positive difference, both locally and globally
                  advancing outreach, engagement, and economic development activities that are innovative, research-driven, and lead to a better quality of life for individuals and communities, at home and around the world
                  - See more at: http://president.msu.edu/mission/#sthash.cgOyCGWT.dpuf


                  Clearly, this is a bastion of evangelicalism.

                  How about Pretoria?

                  Vision, Mission and Values

                  Vision
                  To be a leading research‐intensive university in Africa, recognised internationally for its quality, relevance and impact, as also for developing people, creating knowledge and making a difference locally and globally.

                  Mission
                  In pursuing recognition and excellence in its core functions of research, teaching and learning, and integrating engagement with society and communities into these, the University of Pretoria will use quality, relevance, diversity and sustainability as its navigational markers.

                  Values
                  The members of the University of Pretoria believe that:
                  our community of scholars must be founded on the pursuit of knowledge through research, teaching and learning, with membership acquired on the basis of intellectual merit, ability and the potential for excellence; and that
                  differing perspectives, arising from diverse backgrounds and histories that define our identities, deepen scholarly inquiry and enrich academic debate.
                  We cherish:
                  academic freedom, creative and innovative thought, ethical standards and integrity, accountability and social justice; and
                  our staff and students as the University’s core asset.
                  We foster:
                  an inquiry‐led and evidence‐based approach to creating knowledge; and
                  academic citizenship, whereby we commit ourselves to harnessing our intellectual abilities in the interest of our nation and humanity.
                  We recognise that:
                  in a resource‐constrained world where vast disparities remain, the University must endeavour to produce graduates who appreciate the importance of community service, entrepreneurial endeavours and innovative actions in generating employment and development in our local communities.


                  Obviously, the place is ran by maniacal fundies.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                    Okay. Let's ask a few questions. Does Mrs. Jones live in an honor-shame society where deviant beliefs are looked down on and shunned or does she live in an individualistic society where having an unusual belief can even be a badge of honor?

                    Is Mrs. Jones living in a community where her claims will be welcomed without serious question or is she living in a community where she will face shaming and persecution for her questions?

                    Does Mrs. Jones belief involve acknowledging someone who was just recently put to death by the ruling authorities and thus challenging them in her face?

                    Does the event involve skeptics of her worldview entirely coming to embrace her worldview?

                    If there are appearances of a being to a large number of people, how is this explained since it can't be a hallucination?
                    Sorry to jump in, but I'd like to add some thoughts. I enjoy these discussions if they can be civil and I want to outline another possible scenario. (Sorry in advance if I don't reply very frequently)

                    If we said hypothetically that the first person to see Jesus was Peter, then the first group of people he would have told would have been the other disciples, right? I don't think this would be a shameful confession, but rather he would have been viewed as a hero. A few days may pass and then another disciple may think that he's seen Jesus too. It's not long before most of the disciples have "seen" Jesus, perhaps in a dream or just vaguely seeing someone who looks like Jesus. Now the followers are getting excited and realizing that Jesus may have been the messiah after all and is coming back to usher in a new kingdom. Nick, do you have any evidence that the local authorities were challenged at this point? And do we know that Saul was a skeptic? Perhaps he was just following orders. I don't think large numbers of people can all hallucinate at the same time, but I do think they can all be mistaken at the same time by the power of suggestion. The Virgin Mary Apparition in Zeitoun, Egypt is one example.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                      No. It's not. Do you think secular institutions that peer review this material are ran by evangelical Christians?

                      Take off the tin-foil hat dude. You're becoming more and more of a train wreck.
                      Which secular university has peer reviewed the claim of first century dead tissue reanimation??

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Irate Canadian View Post
                        So you don't think ANE culture was a honour/shame based culture?

                        If so, then you're not worth the time. You can't even be bothered researching basic facts.

                        P.S. I see you complaining on blogs that you don't know how to formally debate. It literally takes a google search to figure out to do a formal debate. You don't need to be formally trained on the subject.
                        I never had any intention to do a formal debate. I wanted to continue the informal debate that Nick and I were having on Dr. Wallace's blog. Nick did not tell me it would be formal, have moderators, or that the moderators were Christian until after I had already gone through the registration procedures for Theology Web. It's ok, though. It gave me a larger audience with whom to share the truth: Superstitions are not reality.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                          I never had any intention to do a formal debate. I wanted to continue the informal debate that Nick and I were having on Dr. Wallace's blog. Nick did not tell me it would be formal, have moderators, or that the moderators were Christian until after I had already gone through the registration procedures for Theology Web. It's ok, though. It gave me a larger audience with whom to share the truth: Superstitions are not reality.
                          1. The moderators being Christians, and interacting in the comment thread, in no way influenced your posts. You keep making it sound as if the mods were going to delete your content.
                          2. Formal Debates are not hard, and make sure the debate is structured. For someone who claims to be "rational", I expect a lot better logic then most.
                          3. Where the hell have you been on the internet that didn't have moderators? Almost every site has them, even if they are not pronounced.
                          4. You still haven't answered my question: Was the ANE culture a honour/shame based culture?
                          "It's evolution; every time you invent something fool-proof, the world invents a better fool."
                          -Unknown

                          "Preach the gospel, and if necessary use words." - Most likely St.Francis


                          I find that evolution is the best proof of God.
                          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          I support the :
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]8287[/ATTACH]

                            Sorry, but my claim isn't that this would be taught in world history text books which would try to remain neutral, but that this stuff passes peer review at secular universities.

                            Case in point. Gary Habermas did his Ph.D. on the resurrection of Jesus. It passed peer-review at a secular institution.

                            Mike Licona did the same thing.

                            Peer-review doesn't mean that they agree. IT means that you've put forward the necessary research and you're capable of defending your position before a scholarly board of critics.
                            So what! Someone could do a peer reviewed article on the human-sacrifice practices of the ancient Mayans! That doesn't mean that members of the peer review board believe that human sacrifices really appease Mayan gods.


                            Just admit it Nick. The "evidence" for your supernatural, first century Edited by a Moderator story is pathetic. It isn't even good enough to make it into a high school history textbook.
                            Last edited by Cow Poke; 07-28-2015, 05:44 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                              So what! Someone could do a peer reviewed article on the human-sacrifice practices of the ancient Mayans! That doesn't mean that members of the peer review board believe that human sacrifices really appease Mayan gods.


                              Just admit it Nick. The "evidence" for your supernatural, first century Edited by a Moderator story is pathetic. It isn't even good enough to make it into a high school history book.
                              1. Yes, someone could do a report on the Mayans. And yes, it doesn't mean that the human sacrifices appease the gods. But that wouldn't be the thesis of the article, would it? It would be a report extrapolating data from Mayan records to find historical events that occurred.
                              2.Name calling much?

                              ETA: Still dodging the question.
                              Last edited by Cow Poke; 07-28-2015, 05:43 PM.
                              "It's evolution; every time you invent something fool-proof, the world invents a better fool."
                              -Unknown

                              "Preach the gospel, and if necessary use words." - Most likely St.Francis


                              I find that evolution is the best proof of God.
                              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              I support the :
                              sigpic

                              Comment


                              • Moderated By: CP

                                Attention Gary....

                                Tweb is a very lightly moderated site. That being said, it is, indeed, a Christian run site, and we really don't need the blasphemy you have been using. (See prior posts) You are a guest here, just as I am. Please tone down the offensive language, and take some time to familiarize yourself with the rules of this forum.

                                Thanks,

                                CP

                                Oh, and please pay particular attention to the message below.....

                                ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                                Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

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