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
    Any personal interaction would result in a scared human.
    unless everyone had a personal interaction.

    Comment


    • According to the Bible, the Pharisees in Jesus day asked for a sign, for evidence, that Jesus was who he said he was: the Son of God. Did Jesus give them a sign? Did Jesus give them the evidence they sought? No. No he did not. Why?

      The Gospels tell us why: Jesus wants you to believe in him by faith, not by evidence. And not just any faith. Jesus wants you to believe in him with the faith of small child. Small children do not need to read the peer-reviewed research of Christian apologists and theologians. Small children do not "weigh the evidence". Small children believe what they are told.

      Jesus wants you to stop evaluating evidence; he wants you to stop using your own intellect and education to determine if what He said is true really is true. Jesus wants those of you who want to believe in him to turn off your brains; Jesus wants you to have the brain of a small child: empty...and to just do and believe what he tells you. That is Jesus' way to believe. Nick is trying to teach you another means of belief. A belief based on evidence. Jesus never taught this kind of belief.

      If you want to believe in Jesus, believe in him as Jesus himself taught: empty your brain of any education and adult intelligence and simply believe what you are told, just as a small child would.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by William View Post
        unless everyone had a personal interaction.
        Except that He doesn't want us to just be theists. He wants us to choose salvation of our own free will. Ironically, being too obvious could result in fewer being saved because we'd take God for granted.
        If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
          Except that He doesn't want us to just be theists. He wants us to choose salvation of our own free will. Ironically, being too obvious could result in fewer being saved because we'd take God for granted.
          So what you are saying is that Jesus wants us to seek him (like in hide and seek) to prove to him that we really, really love him, and, to prove to him that we really, really don't want to be tortured in his eternal torture chamber. I am baffled as to how any educated person can consider this as "just"? The punishment does not fit the crime by any stretch of the imagination.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by William View Post
            unless everyone had a personal interaction.
            Christianbookworm: "Any personal interaction would result in a scared human."

            As my preacher daddy used to say, "Better hell-scared, than hell-scarred."

            Comment


            • Hell is not a place of torture, but a place of shame. And here is my source if anyone is interested. But don't watch it if you won't listen!

              And C. S. Lewis posited that Hell is locked on the inside. Enjoy your eternal shame a boredom! Unless you repent. Because we all have mess up and hurt others.
              If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by William View Post
                yeah, i will see what i can dig up regarding other miracles. although Gary is right, there is a lot out there on milk drinking Hindu idols... so maybe it's true?
                Not really. When I interviewed Tim McGrew on my show we actually talked about that some. His own wife did an experiment in her kitchen on the Hindu milk drinking and found out the cause of it.

                and the God the Father thing - I waffle on that one. the Bible itself has God supposedly making that analogy, as being our father and us his children, so maybe it's not far off the mark. while these sort of things didn't bother me when I was a believer, and had no reason for my departure, i do think on them now. It seems that the things God does in the bible often mirror what we have villains doing in our movies and literature (killing David's baby to punish David, slaughtering women and children in Canaan while saving the young virgin girls, etc). These points add nothing to our present discussion, so I apologize for the tangent.
                What I would tell you is I think these can be answered, but these points are aspects that we don't understand at first about a person. When I married my wife, I knew there were some things about her that weren't perfect, but I was willing to pursue it still for the good that I saw. I would just ask one question. "Did Jesus rise?" If not, the others don't matter. If so, then the others can be answered.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                  Hell is not a place of torture, but a place of shame. And here is my source if anyone is interested. But don't watch it if you won't listen!

                  And C. S. Lewis posited that Hell is locked on the inside. Enjoy your eternal shame a boredom! Unless you repent. Because we all have mess up and hurt others.
                  But you still believe that I, William, Dave, and every other non-Christian will suffer some form of punishment, even if it is only psychological...FOREVER!

                  That is not just by any definition of the term. Your god is punishing me for using my brain and for making the informed decision that the evidence just isn't good enough to believe in this one supernatural claim but reject such other silly claims as walking under a ladder or breaking a mirror will bring me seven years of bad luck. That is evil, not just. If your god punishes people for committing "thought crimes" by punishing them, in some form, physical or psychological, for all eternity, he is not just, he is a monster.

                  Comment


                  • Nope. It's because you called Him a jerk. And aren't completely perfect. You wouldn't want to spend eternity in His presence anyways, so why would it be so bad for you to be separated from Him?
                    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                      Why don't you provide everyone a quote?
                      "With impressive erudition, Licona marshals all possible evidence of Jesus' resurrection and considers its significance in a careful, methodical way. He then compares several alternative explanations of the disciples' faith in the resurrection, judging them according to important criteria, and concludes that Jesus' bodily resurrection provides the best explanation of their conviction, and so is worthy of belief. This is an astonishing achievement and a major contribution to the ongoing debate. It is clearly written and full of fresh insights and arguments that will enrich discussion for years to come."
                      C. Behan McCullagh,
                      author of The Logic of History


                      Here's another review found on SBL about Licona's book.

                      Now let's look to what else you've said.

                      According to the Bible, the Pharisees in Jesus day asked for a sign, for evidence, that Jesus was who he said he was: the Son of God. Did Jesus give them a sign? Did Jesus give them the evidence they sought? No. No he did not. Why?
                      Bzzz. Wrong answer. Jesus had already given plenty of signs.

                      For one thing, why would the Pharisees be wanting a sign from Jesus to show His identity unless there was already some discussion of His identity, some reason for people to think He was the Messiah and/or Son of God? The Pharisees did not go up to random strangers asking for signs. They went to people that were being talked about and were developing a high honor reputation and would be threatening their own honor. In fact, this was AFTER Jesus had sent out messengers in His name in Matthew 10 and AFTER Jesus showed He was claiming to be the Messiah by the answer given to the disciples of John the Baptist and directly before this passage, the Pharisees had been saying that Jesus cast out devils by the hand of Beelzebub. Jesus had given them more than enough signs. Their problem was not wanting evidence, but rejecting the evidence they'd already been given.

                      The Gospels tell us why: Jesus wants you to believe in him by faith, not by evidence. And not just any faith. Jesus wants you to believe in him with the faith of small child. Small children do not need to read the peer-reviewed research of Christian apologists and theologians. Small children do not "weigh the evidence". Small children believe what they are told.
                      No. Small children act in trust. That's the difference. I've already addressed the question of what is meant by faith here. Furthermore, you could consider what Pilch and Malina say here:

                      Faith/Faithfulness

                      "These terms refer to the value of reliability. The value is ascribed to persons as well as to objects and qualities. Relative to persons, faith is reliability in interpersonal relations: it thus takes on the value of enduring personal loyalty, of personal faithfulness. The nouns 'faith', 'belief', 'fidelity', 'faithfulness,' as well as the verbs 'to have faith' and 'to believe,' refers to the social glue that binds one person to another. This bond is the social, externally manifested, emotionally rooted behavior of loyalty, commitment, and solidarity. As a social bond, it works with the value of (personal and group) attachment (translated 'love') and the value of (personal and group) allegiance or trust (translated 'hope.') p. 72 Pilch and Malina Handbook of Biblical Social Values.


                      But let's consider what you said. Small children do not need to read the peer-reviewed research of Christian apologists and theologians. (Never mind that we also here read atheists and liberals and other such people.) Let's see. Who was it who said they do not need to read?

                      Dear friend: You do NOT need to read the books of Christian apologists, theologians, and pastors to determine if these assertions of ancient, middle eastern facts are true. No. All you have to do is use your brain. And what does your brain tell you: It is all superstitious nonsense.


                      Why yes. This is you. You are the one advocating then thinking like a child. Well it also shows that you think like a child. If I did not know better, I would think I was reading the rant of a high schooler from you. The rest of us here are reading and bringing forward evidence for our positions.

                      Jesus wants you to stop evaluating evidence;
                      So are you still trying to follow Jesus because you stopped evaluating a long time ago.

                      he wants you to stop using your own intellect and education to determine if what He said is true really is true.
                      Looks like you stopped doing this too.

                      Jesus wants those of you who want to believe in him to turn off your brains;
                      So we can think more like the person who says you don't need to read and study?

                      Jesus wants you to have the brain of a small child:
                      Oh the irony....

                      empty...and to just do and believe what he tells you.
                      You mean like how you've gone from completely believing Christian claims to completely believing atheist claims?

                      That is Jesus' way to believe.
                      No. That is your way.

                      Nick is trying to teach you another means of belief. A belief based on evidence. Jesus never taught this kind of belief.
                      Nope. I follow in the footsteps of Jesus. I believe in evidence.

                      Let us know when you switch to a position based on evidence instead of one based on faith.

                      If you want to believe in Jesus, believe in him as Jesus himself taught: empty your brain of any education and adult intelligence and simply believe what you are told, just as a small child would.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by William View Post
                        here's a lecture on the subject from Richard Carrier.

                        http://infidels.org/library/modern/r...n/lecture.html
                        You should know around here, when Richard Carrier comes up, the laugh track starts playing.

                        I'd like you to consider one part of that. The Rubicon Analogy.

                        You can see why it fails and that Carrier is just dishonest here.
                        Last edited by Apologiaphoenix; 07-30-2015, 07:18 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          You were happy to answer Cow Poke before he gave his own answers. I only ask to receive the same treatment.
                          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 Christianbookworm View Post
                            Nope. It's because you called Him a jerk. And aren't completely perfect. You wouldn't want to spend eternity in His presence anyways, so why would it be so bad for you to be separated from Him?
                            CBW. If Gary's position was based on evidence, he would respond with a counter-argument beyond "I don't like it." The problem is Gary is a fundamentalist who doesn't think about the positions but feels about the positions.

                            For instance, if Islam is true, God is entirely right in punishing me for rejecting the truth and sentencing me with the worst sentence possible. I have no problem saying that.

                            When you meet someone who cannot be wrong in anything, you have to ask why you think they should be right in anything.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                              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.
                              If Jesus was buried in a common grave like other crucified criminals by the Romans then the fact that no one knows for sure where he was buried makes sense. And it could be said that the story in Mark of Joseph requesting the body from Pilate seems a bit contrived and convenient that he owned a nearby tomb that had never been used. If Jesus was crucified for claiming to be a king of the Jews then it would make more sense to make an example of him and deny him a proper burial (since burial was so important back then). Why would Joseph of Arimathea stick his neck out and request the body as if to say that the criminal deserved a proper burial? Weren't all the other disciples afraid and hiding?

                              Then we come to the women visiting the tomb and their strange question. (Side note: there is so much dialog contained in the gospels that it really seems (to me anyway) to be fictional content blended with traditional accounts/stories.) "Who will move the stone for us?" I find this strange because they knew the stone would be an issue, but they went anyway. The only explanation that comes to mind is that the author knew all along that the stone would be moved away and he uses the women performing burial chores as a means of discovering it.

                              It's fine. I try to limit my time on here anyway.
                              I only have about an hour each day to spare so my replies will be short.

                              Comment


                              • Nick, exactly what do you think is the single most convincing piece of evidence for the resurrection if you had to pick one?

                                Comment

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