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 Christianbookworm View Post
    Faith is loyalty and trust based on evidence. Like how a faithful dog is a loyal dog.
    faith is also non exact at times. Hebrews defines it as, "the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen."

    It can mean trust and loyalty. It can be belief.

    But how can one belong to God without being loyal to him or trusting in him or hoping in him?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by William View Post
      i tried "it" but i suppose the bible does use, "He" so using bible terms in bible ways is probably the best route when discussing the bible.
      Yeah, and you could really get into the weeds with all the Greek and Hebrew pronouns, but... yeah, "He" is, for the most part, the preferred pronoun when referencing the Holy Spirit.

      And I appreciate your spirit in this, William --- some people (atheists and agnostics) purposely use pronouns or descriptions or references that they know are hostile or unacceptable or antagonistic to Christianity.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Not just "thinking about it", but having seen the way God works in the 40 years I've been an adult Christian.



        When Jesus says that nobody comes except the Father draw them, we know that the "work of the Holy Spirit" is to do the Father's will, and was "given" to us by Jesus praying for "another comforter". The persons of the Trinity (and, no, that's not mentioned by that name in the Bible) work together and for the same purpose.



        And part of the work of the Holy Spirit is to lead us to truth and understanding, so, yeah, I can see why you're having difficulty with this.



        I think many times people "get religion", but aren't necessarily "saved". I know a lot of people who have been "religious" (and considered themselves "Christians") only to have a "salvation experience" later in life.

        what do you mean by "salvation experience?"

        and i didnt mean any disrespect with my "thinking about it" comment. Not at all. I am certain you see your faith and God working in your life. I have spent some time in the Middle East have met many Arab Muslims who think Allah works in theirs too. When I was a devout believer, I also thought God worked in mine... Since leaving the faith, my life hasn't changed. Either God is still working in my life, or he never way - either way, good and bad happen to everyone.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          Yeah, and you could really get into the weeds with all the Greek and Hebrew pronouns, but... yeah, "He" is, for the most part, the preferred pronoun when referencing the Holy Spirit.

          And I appreciate your spirit in this, William --- some people (atheists and agnostics) purposely use pronouns or descriptions or references that they know are hostile or unacceptable or antagonistic to Christianity.
          I have no desire to be inflammatory. If anything say is offensive, let me know and I'll rephrase the best I can. I enjoy these discussions, but view them only as discussions, and exercises for reaching understanding. I have no reason or use for points, so this inst a competition to me.

          that said, I may get riled up on occasion and can get sarcastic. I try to avoid it, but it seems to happen to the best of us. if i do, just call me on it.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by William View Post
            what do you mean by "salvation experience?"
            I believe there's a time in one's life when they acknowledge that Christ is Lord, and begin their journey of serving Him. I don't think a person "is a Christian" because they were "born in a Church" or "have been a Christian all my life".

            and i didnt mean any disrespect with my "thinking about it" comment. Not at all.
            Didn't take it that way - you seem to be being perfectly reasonable and we're just talking.

            I am certain you see your faith and God working in your life. I have spent some time in the Middle East have met many Arab Muslims who think Allah works in theirs too. When I was a devout believer, I also thought God worked in mine... Since leaving the faith, my life hasn't changed. Either God is still working in my life, or he never way - either way, good and bad happen to everyone.
            I want to respond to this, but I have to go pick up some BBQ for tonight's Church fellowship meal.

            Good talking with you!
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • But, if you became a Christian before your teen years, one could say they've been a Christian almost their whole life...
              I was 8!
              If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                First, I'm curious as to why you only rate #7 a 7. I haven't run into too many people who deny Jesus existed as a person - just to the extent to which He was anything beyond that.
                Since I gave a 7, I believe that Jesus probably existed. I am not a mythicist. However, I don't think the evidence for the historicity of Jesus is as strong as it is for Julius Caesar or Mohammad.

                Bottom line: I DO believe that Jesus existed, lived in first century Palestine, and was crucified by the Romans.

                Would you put your numbers in the list I provided, CP?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  I believe there's a time in one's life when they acknowledge that Christ is Lord, and begin their journey of serving Him. I don't think a person "is a Christian" because they were "born in a Church" or "have been a Christian all my life".

                  very true. I was devout. Active. Read, prayed, tried to grow and help others. I was around 30 though when I just couldn't buy it anymore. for a very brief summary of that you can read here if interested: https://gonewilliam.wordpress.com/about/

                  I am not a blogger but put that up after someone suggested it. they encountered me on a blog and thought a little background would be helpful for those you're in a discussion with. anyhow, dont feel obligated, I dont monitor it.



                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Didn't take it that way - you seem to be being perfectly reasonable and we're just talking.



                  I want to respond to this, but I have to go pick up some BBQ for tonight's Church fellowship meal.

                  Good talking with you!
                  the same. take care.

                  Comment


                  • I'm off to the race track for the rest of the afternoon, but I hope that during my absence, Nick, CP, and maybe others will fill out the Historicity Rating Questionaire I posted. I think we will all find this information very interesting and hopefully explain why we seem to see the evidence so differently.

                    Have a great afternoon everyone!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                      I understand that CP, but Nick and I were discussing the evidence for claiming that the Resurrection of Jesus was an historical event. I am just curious how Nick would rate the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus compared to other historical claims, such as Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. Let me give you an example of how I would rate several historical claims, to show you what I mean:

                      On a scale of 0-10, with 0 being completely unbelievable and 10 being almost certainly an historical fact, how would you rate the following historical claims:

                      1, Hitler invaded Poland to start WWII: 10
                      2. Martin Luther was a theologian and priest in Wittenberg in the sixteenth century: 10
                      3. Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River/creek to seize control of Rome: 9
                      4. Hannibal attempted to cross the Alps with elephants: 5
                      5. Mohammad was a real, historical person: 9
                      6. Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse: 0
                      7. Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person: 7
                      8. The dead body of Jesus of Nazareth was reanimated by the Hebrew god, Yahweh, and bodily appeared to numerous of his followers after his death: 0
                      I'm wondering, why the difference between 3 and 4?

                      I'm also wondering, why do you feel the need to cast 8 in language which no Christian would use?
                      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


                      • Jesus wasn't merely brought back to life! He was resurrected in a glorified, imperishable body!
                        If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                        Comment


                        • Okay. A lot to respond here. I'm only taking a few minutes as I would much rather be reading my book, but anyway.

                          First off, with regard to the Holy Spirit, I do not argue that I believe in Christianity because of the conviction of the Holy Spirit or the assurance of the Spirit. I don't think that's the role of the Spirit and I don't see anything in Scripture indicating that. I think Scripture is to convict us on sin when we know the wrong that we have done, but I do not see much of what I see today in Scripture and I have to agree with the experience of William. I think it's dangerous to younger Christians especially when they start to interpret every experience and event in their life as if God is trying to give them some kind of message. (This is really popular in our American society especially. See Mark Noll's The Civil War As A Theological Crisis. I have written on this here.

                          I am also greatly saddened by William's story, but at the same time, I see something similar to it that I see in what's going on with Gary and what I see in even people like Bart Ehrman. It's a flight from a rigid fundamentalism. Unfortunately, many people think that when they change what they thought, they are changing their mindset. They're not. Bart Ehrman is still in many ways a fundamentalist. Gary is definitely one. When I want to see if someone is a fundamentalist, I look to see what they say especially about doctrines like Inerrancy or young-earth creationism. People marry too much to their Christianity. For instance, I have no problem with The Big Bang Theory (And I think it's a hilarious TV show as well) and I do not study evolution, but if I found definite proof of evolution, it would not change my theism at all.

                          For the resurrection, I think I could go with a 9. I say a 9 because I think the argument for the resurrection is incredibly powerful, but it of course would not beat being able to be one of the people living at the time and see the evidence for one's self. I wonder why the belief in a historical Jesus is at a 7. When I meet someone who denies a historical Jesus, I just roll my eyes and realize I'm dealing with someone not really worth taking seriously. But I mainly want to focus on what William said.

                          It's not unheard of or unreasonable and certainly not impossible for a bunch of confused, scared, grieving, and superstitious cult (or gang or group or club or whatever you want to call it)
                          Frankly, this is well poisoning right at the start. To label them as superstitious is to imply that they were uneducated and would believe in anything. Well no, no they wouldn't. They might not have been Ph.D.s, but you don't have to have a great education to know that dead people stay dead.

                          followers to slowly and surely begin to construct a narritive, based on truth, and fortified with conjecture, intellectual leaps, misinformation and what have you, as they try to tell themselves that they werent crazy for believing in Jesus and that they didnt waste the past 3 years of their lives, and that they weren't now fools in the eyes of everyone they had been proclaiming Jesus to, and end up with a story that tied to the OT if you looked at it just right and that matched some recent events... and if the memories were tweaked just a little here and there, maybe embellished in other ways.
                          This is the cognitive dissonance route. It doesn't work. CD involves groups that try to reason away something but the groups do not expand past the original group normally and die away quickly. Neither of which happened in the case of Christianity. Even the best case study example of CD which was Festinger's When Prophecy Fails did not follow protocol as the people who were meant to be observers of the group often ended up being leaders. Had the early church wanted to say something about being right, they would have said Jesus had been divinely vindicated in the heavenlies and not gone all the way and said he was resurrected, which is the earliest claim that we have and one that never changed. In their honor-shame society, to retain their honor, it would be best to denounce Jesus altogether. The shame would be in still persisting in the belief.

                          This isnt uncommon.
                          It would be in the society of Jesus.

                          What is unique is that it lasted and is what it is today. But then we have other religions and movements that, while they may not be identical, have similarly persisted despite the odds.
                          Precisely, but the differences are what make the difference. I have argued why Islam and Mormonism survived and this has not been answered.

                          But religions of hope and eternal life can be very compelling for people who have nothing, and endure mistreatment and hardships and poverty in life with no real chance at improving their plight. When we really look at it, for every reason it had to fail, there were other reasons for it to succeed. And people believe all sorts of nonsense, so having believers just isn't good evidence of accuracy or truth.
                          Except many of the people who came were people who were high on the honor chain and had the most to lose. Furthermore, those with very little honor would be doing all they could to maintain what honor that they had and the prospect of eternal life would not be to them what it is to us today.

                          and I still cant get around the fact that if a natural explanation is unlikely, then then the supernatural explanation would have to be even more unlikely by definition - unless we start off with the assumption that the God of the Bible must be Real and that he needed to save mankind from the Hell he made for us, by killing his own son, who had to look like a human man.
                          And then we get to the straw man position at the end. Once again, people keep using this word "supernatural" but no one really explains it. Also, let's suppose I don't start off with the God of the Bible, but rather start off with a theism based on theistic arguments that is consistent with the God of the Bible as well as that of Judaism, Islam, perhaps Deism, or just Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.

                          I go with the explanation given because that is the explanation I find best suits the facts. I find too many others say "Anything but that explanation."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                            Okay. A lot to respond here. I'm only taking a few minutes as I would much rather be reading my book, but anyway.

                            First off, with regard to the Holy Spirit, I do not argue that I believe in Christianity because of the conviction of the Holy Spirit or the assurance of the Spirit. I don't think that's the role of the Spirit and I don't see anything in Scripture indicating that. I think Scripture is to convict us on sin when we know the wrong that we have done, but I do not see much of what I see today in Scripture and I have to agree with the experience of William. I think it's dangerous to younger Christians especially when they start to interpret every experience and event in their life as if God is trying to give them some kind of message. (This is really popular in our American society especially. See Mark Noll's The Civil War As A Theological Crisis. I have written on this here.

                            I am also greatly saddened by William's story, but at the same time, I see something similar to it that I see in what's going on with Gary and what I see in even people like Bart Ehrman. It's a flight from a rigid fundamentalism. Unfortunately, many people think that when they change what they thought, they are changing their mindset. They're not. Bart Ehrman is still in many ways a fundamentalist. Gary is definitely one. When I want to see if someone is a fundamentalist, I look to see what they say especially about doctrines like Inerrancy or young-earth creationism. People marry too much to their Christianity. For instance, I have no problem with The Big Bang Theory (And I think it's a hilarious TV show as well) and I do not study evolution, but if I found definite proof of evolution, it would not change my theism at all.

                            For the resurrection, I think I could go with a 9. I say a 9 because I think the argument for the resurrection is incredibly powerful, but it of course would not beat being able to be one of the people living at the time and see the evidence for one's self. I wonder why the belief in a historical Jesus is at a 7. When I meet someone who denies a historical Jesus, I just roll my eyes and realize I'm dealing with someone not really worth taking seriously. But I mainly want to focus on what William said.



                            Frankly, this is well poisoning right at the start. To label them as superstitious is to imply that they were uneducated and would believe in anything. Well no, no they wouldn't. They might not have been Ph.D.s, but you don't have to have a great education to know that dead people stay dead.



                            This is the cognitive dissonance route. It doesn't work. CD involves groups that try to reason away something but the groups do not expand past the original group normally and die away quickly. Neither of which happened in the case of Christianity. Even the best case study example of CD which was Festinger's When Prophecy Fails did not follow protocol as the people who were meant to be observers of the group often ended up being leaders. Had the early church wanted to say something about being right, they would have said Jesus had been divinely vindicated in the heavenlies and not gone all the way and said he was resurrected, which is the earliest claim that we have and one that never changed. In their honor-shame society, to retain their honor, it would be best to denounce Jesus altogether. The shame would be in still persisting in the belief.



                            It would be in the society of Jesus.



                            Precisely, but the differences are what make the difference. I have argued why Islam and Mormonism survived and this has not been answered.



                            Except many of the people who came were people who were high on the honor chain and had the most to lose. Furthermore, those with very little honor would be doing all they could to maintain what honor that they had and the prospect of eternal life would not be to them what it is to us today.



                            And then we get to the straw man position at the end. Once again, people keep using this word "supernatural" but no one really explains it. Also, let's suppose I don't start off with the God of the Bible, but rather start off with a theism based on theistic arguments that is consistent with the God of the Bible as well as that of Judaism, Islam, perhaps Deism, or just Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.

                            I go with the explanation given because that is the explanation I find best suits the facts. I find too many others say "Anything but that explanation."

                            Ok, great. Nick gave us a rating. Nick believes that the strength of the historical evidence (not including the influence of the Holy Spirit) for the claim of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, as a literal historical fact, is a NINE out of ten. That means that Nick believes the evidence is overwhelming, almost to the point of certainty. (Certainty would be 10 or 10+). So how is it possible that I came up with a ZERO for this claim??

                            Is it because I haven't studied enough scholarly literature on the subject? Is it because I have "hardened my heart" against God and the truth? Or is it because I'm just an idiot? I'm sure there are some of you saying: "All three!"

                            But here's the thing: If the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus is a NINE out of a scale of 10, which means it is very, very probably a fact, why is it that not one public university in the United States lists the Resurrection of Jesus as an historical fact in their World History textbooks? And remember, proving that something happened even 1,000 years ago with 100% certainty is very, very hard to do, so very few "facts" about the ancient world would be rated as "absolutely certain" to have happened (10) by any good historian. "Facts" in ancient history are based on probabilities.
                            Last edited by Gary; 07-29-2015, 07:37 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Because it's a religious claim so they try to remain neutral.

                              Comment


                              • It's not as obvious as if Jesus showed up to everyone individually and proved He was Wisdom incarnate(somehow). And that would likely cause more harm than good.
                                If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                                Comment

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