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
    Because it's a religious claim so they try to remain neutral.
    But a religious claim would be something like the SIGNIFICANCE of the resurrection of Jesus, such as whether or not it proved he was the Messiah and/or the Creator.

    Whether or not a man was seen by multiple witnesses after his death is not a religious claim, it is an historical claim. Regardless of its religious significance, people are claiming that a real, visible/walking/talking body spoke with and interacted with over five hundred people. This is no different than if a group of people today claimed to have seen Elvis alive. We look at the evidence they offer for this historical claim and determine its strength or weakness.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gary View Post
      But a religious claim would be something like the SIGNIFICANCE of the resurrection of Jesus, such as whether or not it proved he was the Messiah and/or the Creator.

      Whether or not a man was seen by multiple witnesses after his death is not a religious claim, it is an historical claim. Regardless of its religious significance, people are claiming that a real, visible/walking/talking body spoke with and interacted with over five hundred people. This is no different than if a group of people today claimed to have seen Elvis alive. We look at the evidence they offer for this historical claim and determine its strength or weakness.
      No Gary. It's both a historical and religious claim. If the historical claim is true, it has religious implications.

      If you want to evaluate the claim, you look at the claim and evaluate it.

      You remind me right now of Lucy telling Schroeder "If Beethoven was so great, wouldn't they have put him on bubble gum cards?"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
        No Gary. It's both a historical and religious claim. If the historical claim is true, it has religious implications.

        If you want to evaluate the claim, you look at the claim and evaluate it.

        You remind me right now of Lucy telling Schroeder "If Beethoven was so great, wouldn't they have put him on bubble gum cards?"
        Mind explaining for the peanut gallery why it would be counterproductive for Jesus to appear to everyone?
        If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
          Mind explaining for the peanut gallery why it would be counterproductive for Jesus to appear to everyone?
          That could produce people who agree. It will not likely produce disciples.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
            I do not doubt that Jesus referred to Himself as the king of the Jews. I think Wright makes an excellent point that no one would have thought Jesus was raised and then said "Oh my! He's risen! He must be the Messiah!" As he points out, if one of the thieves next to him had risen the Jews would say "God is doing strange things." They would not say He was the Messiah. The only reason they said it afterwards was because Jesus had to be saying such things beforehand.

            I think part of the deal that sealed it for them was what Jesus did in the Temple. You could say Jesus signed his death certificate when He did that one. I also think Bart Ehrman could be right when he says one of the things Judas might have done is gone to the leadership and said that when Jesus is with His followers, He talks about being the Messiah.
            We are in agreement here.

            What would make more sense is to not even mention it at all, but the accounts do mention it and they agree on a great number of points.
            If no one knew where Jesus was actually buried, but all of the followers believed Jesus was alive again (using my hypothetical scenario) then it is just a matter of time before someone feels the need to fill in the blanks and put in a burial story along with a discovery. All it takes is one creative person to add some details and a story like this can spread. That they agree on points could have been the result of using Mark as a source.

            Most notably is that the family is not allowed to bury Jesus and there is no record of any of them mourning for him.
            I don't really see that omission as a big deal. It may have not mattered to someone if they were writing in a distant city, four decades removed from the event. Or it may have not even crossed the authors mind. I don't say with any certainty that it was four decades. I realize a lot of things in this topic are speculation.

            I do not know if it has happened, but I know the Greer-Heard forum at NOBTS was hosting a debate between Michael Bird and Bart Ehrman on this topic. Greg Monette has written on this as well and he'll be on my show talking about the topic on August 22nd.

            I do not doubt that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. He was saying the Kingdom of God was going to come. Unfortunately, like today, too many understand that to mean that He meant He would return in the lifetime of the disciples. You can see that idea in my critique of Bart Ehrman's work on the topic here: http://deeperwaters.ddns.net/?p=7077
            Thanks, I will check those out.

            If they wanted to be considered important, affirming Jesus was not the way to do it. Paul had everything going for him. What did he get in return? Read about his sufferings in 2 Corinthians 11. You're really still thinking about this from a Western Mindset. The Eastern mindset sees deviancy from the group as a shameful thing. We see it as marching to the beat of your own drummer.
            I was not thinking of being considered important by the community at large. I was just thinking about being considered important by everyone else in the group of like-minded followers. I do think Paul sincerely believed he was speaking for God and doing his will. Enduring hardships could have been mentally rewarding to someone in this mindset.

            Sorry, I am cutting my reply short due to time constraints. Thanks for all of your well-researched responses Nick.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
              I have no problem with The Big Bang Theory (And I think it's a hilarious TV show as well)
              Just...no.

              Comment


              • Sad to see that Nick has become ensnared in the cult of Chuck Lorre. May God open his eyes to show him the error of his ways.
                Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                  No Gary. It's both a historical and religious claim. If the historical claim is true, it has religious implications.

                  If you want to evaluate the claim, you look at the claim and evaluate it.

                  You remind me right now of Lucy telling Schroeder "If Beethoven was so great, wouldn't they have put him on bubble gum cards?"
                  I'm not understanding. Let me rephrase it:

                  Let's say that today, July 29, 2015, a reporter writes an article for a highly respected newspaper or journal, and in that article he says that he has interviewed 550 people who say that they saw Elvis Presley alive within one week of his death and his witnessed burial, on multiple occasions, to multiple people at the same time, and once to 500 all at the same time and in the same location. The reporter reports that these 550 people sincerely believe that Elvis has come back from the grave, and that his purpose for coming back from the dead is to take them to a special spiritual Paradise in another dimension.

                  People, including historians are going to want to investigate this claim. What historians would investigate is the evidence for these people's claim that Elvis has returned from the dead and has truly appeared to almost 550 people, not the "why" he came back or any religious significance, in the minds of some people, for his return.

                  There is a religious context, but historians don't investigate that type of context. It isn't their field of expertise. That would be the responsibility of theologians and clergy. The only thing that would interest historians are the facts: Did Elvis really appear, in the flesh, to 550 people, after his death and burial?

                  And the same is true for the Resurrection of Jesus. Yes, there is a religious context and a historical context, but historians don't involve themselves in the religious context such as the MEANING of Jesus resurrection, only the facts to support the claim that he really did, and, that he appeared to more than 500 people in a resurrected body.

                  So, Nick, do you still claim that majority of PhD historians teaching at United States public universities would not want to make a "historical fact or non-fact" judgment about the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus due to their desire "to remain neutral" because of this claim's religious association? And if you do believe this, do you have evidence to support your position, or is this simply your opinion?
                  Last edited by Gary; 07-29-2015, 11:12 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by William View Post
                    "we should believe because we saw that they believed" doesnt seem like a good reason to me, and it also seems like one anyone can use regarding literally anything, right?
                    It has a bit more weight than that. Our beliefs are shown by our actions - Jesus actions seemed consistent with what He claimed to believe and He claimed He would be raised. The actions of the disciples are consistent with what we'd expect from ones who really believed they had witnessed the risen Christ. So as discussed in my previous post there is a whole chain of consistent links here which have an appealing integrity

                    Originally posted by William
                    ...this was a time of poor education and scientific ignorance (in many ways). desperate people looking for hope. Very superstitious. To me, it's easier to believe these very superstitious, grieving, and uneducated people were mistaken, delusional and/or lying that for these things to be true. But that's me. And these are claims, just claims, written in copies and fragments of books and letters, all decades after the alleged events, some of which were anonymous. I just don't find that as reliable or believable.
                    Though this is not what we see in the Bible. The disciples are portrayed just as incredulous as us moderns about what they were seeing and what is reasonable to believe. Before Jesus feeds the five thousand they ask if they should send the crowd off to buy food and when Jesus tells them to give the crowd something to eat they are like 'What???'. When they see Jesus walking on the water (Mark 6:45), they are scared thinking they must be seeing a ghost until Jesus tells them it is Him and gets into the boat with them.
                    Originally posted by William
                    I don't rule out miracles completely, but I am highly skeptical when they're claimed, which I think is typical and quite reasonable.

                    Out of curiosity, do you believe in any miracles from any other religion, or just the ones mentioned within your own religion?

                    But with large and grandiose claims, I expect matching evidence, as we discussed before - I just don't find the "there's claim that there was great evidence and we can believe that since we see that many found the evidence convincing..." for one, it seemed most people in the area were not convinced by it, and two, evidence works for those who actually see it - and since I havent seen it, i am forced to take their word on it... and with some of their claims not panning out and others wrong, then I am doubly hard pressed to find their claims of the supernatural believable - but again, that's me.
                    If you read the beginning of Acts a lot of people were convinced by it. If a miracle claim has enough evidence to support it then it is believable. Are all miracles or apparent miracles of the same quality. No - read Exodus 7:8-13, especially verse 12. I tend to agree with others that the Holy Spirit does play a role here in helping us discern things. Gary seems to be one who is looking for 100% certainty as a starting point yet the Bible says all we need is faith the size of a mustard seed and God can grow that.
                    Last edited by Abigail; 07-30-2015, 06:19 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      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


                      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                        I'm not understanding. Let me rephrase it:

                        Let's say that today, July 29, 2015, a reporter writes an article for a highly respected newspaper or journal, and in that article he says that he has interviewed 550 people who say that they saw Elvis Presley alive within one week of his death and his witnessed burial, on multiple occasions, to multiple people at the same time, and once to 500 all at the same time and in the same location. The reporter reports that these 550 people sincerely believe that Elvis has come back from the grave, and that his purpose for coming back from the dead is to take them to a special spiritual Paradise in another dimension.

                        People, including historians are going to want to investigate this claim. What historians would investigate is the evidence for these people's claim that Elvis has returned from the dead and has truly appeared to almost 550 people, not the "why" he came back or any religious significance, in the minds of some people, for his return.

                        There is a religious context, but historians don't investigate that type of context. It isn't their field of expertise. That would be the responsibility of theologians and clergy. The only thing that would interest historians are the facts: Did Elvis really appear, in the flesh, to 550 people, after his death and burial?

                        And the same is true for the Resurrection of Jesus. Yes, there is a religious context and a historical context, but historians don't involve themselves in the religious context such as the MEANING of Jesus resurrection, only the facts to support the claim that he really did, and, that he appeared to more than 500 people in a resurrected body.

                        So, Nick, do you still claim that majority of PhD historians teaching at United States public universities would not want to make a "historical fact or non-fact" judgment about the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus due to their desire "to remain neutral" because of this claim's religious association? And if you do believe this, do you have evidence to support your position, or is this simply your opinion?
                        Gary. You keep using analogies over and over instead of dealing with the actual case and the specifics of that case. If you're not well-read on the resurrection of Jesus (Which it's pretty easy to tell you're not), just say so. Until then, no more to the analogies. Any case is addressed by dealing with the case itself, like William and Dave are.

                        Comment


                        • [QUOTE=Dave;224143
                          If no one knew where Jesus was actually buried, but all of the followers believed Jesus was alive again (using my hypothetical scenario) then it is just a matter of time before someone feels the need to fill in the blanks and put in a burial story along with a discovery. All it takes is one creative person to add some details and a story like this can spread. That they agree on points could have been the result of using Mark as a source. [/QUOTE]

                          First off, because we do not know where Jesus was buried for sure does not mean they did not know. I would also think a "little thing" like the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. could affect even grave sites. You would need to show that we do not know. Kirsopp Lake tried the "The women went to the wrong tomb" argument. It didn't work well.

                          Also, when it comes to Mark, this is where it gets problematic. When the Gospels disagree on something, it's shown that they contradict and can't be trusted. When they do agree, it shows that they were all copying one another. You can make the evidence fit whatever you want that way.


                          I don't really see that omission as a big deal. It may have not mattered to someone if they were writing in a distant city, four decades removed from the event. Or it may have not even crossed the authors mind. I don't say with any certainty that it was four decades. I realize a lot of things in this topic are speculation.
                          Oh my. This is the problem of the modern westerner speaking. Today, it's quite possible to go to a funeral for someone and miss the burial service. In their world, how you were treated after your death told everything about you. It would not have been a good verdict for Jesus. The recipients would have heard about his death and said "And then what?"



                          I was not thinking of being considered important by the community at large. I was just thinking about being considered important by everyone else in the group of like-minded followers.
                          It would not be a blessing to be thought of well by a small obscure group and to be deemed deviant by society as a whole. Hebews even shows that some Jews were considering apostasizing back to Judaism on the basis of this ostracism alone.

                          I do think Paul sincerely believed he was speaking for God and doing his will. Enduring hardships could have been mentally rewarding to someone in this mindset.
                          The question to ask then is why did he sincerely believe that? What great evidence convinced him.

                          Sorry, I am cutting my reply short due to time constraints. Thanks for all of your well-researched responses Nick.
                          It's fine. I try to limit my time on here anyway.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                            Gary. You keep using analogies over and over instead of dealing with the actual case and the specifics of that case. If you're not well-read on the resurrection of Jesus (Which it's pretty easy to tell you're not), just say so. Until then, no more to the analogies. Any case is addressed by dealing with the case itself, like William and Dave are.
                            Ok. Got it. No more analogies.

                            Nick, do you have evidence to support your claim that US public university historians believe that there is overwhelming historical evidence in support of the bodily resurrection of Jesus as an historical fact, but, are unwilling to place it in public university history textbooks as an historical fact due to their desire to remain neutral because it has religious associations?

                            If so, would you please give your source? Or is this simply your opinion?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post

                              Let me rephrase #8: Jesus of Nazareth was bodily resurrected from the dead and was seen alive again by over 500 people after his death.

                              What number, 0-10, would you give for the strength of the evidence for this historical claim?

                              Comment


                              • Gary. I gave you the evidence for the resurrectin. Do you want to deal with it or to make excuses? Or do you just want to say "I can't find a textbook teaching this so I'm going to say it has to be explained away somehow."

                                You could learn a lot from Dave and William. At least they know how to make an argument.

                                Comment

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