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
    I've read it, along with the Analycts, the Tao Te Ching, and all of the Mormon Scriptures. I find reading other "Scriptures" a revealing exercise.
    well said.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by William View Post
      now I'm curious, have you read it through?
      Yes, a few years ago.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
        I've read it, along with the Analycts, the Tao Te Ching, and all of the Mormon Scriptures. I find reading other "Scriptures" a revealing exercise.
        and out of more curiosity, when reading those, do you read as you would the bible? what I mean is, do you read the bible looking for God's Word, while the others you look for some enlighetening things, but never once trying to Find God's truth in them... My question could be worded better, but i think you see what I'm getting at.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by William View Post
          and out of more curiosity, when reading those, do you read as you would the bible? what I mean is, do you read the bible looking for God's Word, while the others you look for some enlighetening things, but never once trying to Find God's truth in them... My question could be worded better, but i think you see what I'm getting at.
          Oh yes. I try to be open to anything that I read or listen to. I never miss an episode of the podcast Unbelievable? for instance and there will be times where a Christian will debate a non-Christian and I will say the non-Christian won the debate. I can even say that thinking the non-Christian didn't make the best case, but he made a better one than his opponent. I've also wrote highly critical reviews of Christian apologetics books as well. See for instance here. There are books by atheists I thought were pretty good. I actually thought there was a lot to Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World" for instance.

          Part of good thinking is not looking at just the conclusion and deciding how the argument is based on the conclusion. There can be bad arguments for good conclusions. There can be good arguments for bad conclusions.

          However, in all my reading, I keep coming back to Christianity. It's just totally set apart by the data and the logic of it.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
            That didn't really contradict anything I said as being untrue.
            It does explain more why scientology and other systems have survived. For scientology, we often today view religion as a private matter and believe what you want as long as you don't interfere with anyone else. Back in ancient Rome, oh no. Religion was everything as was politics and the two were intertwined deeply. To go against one was to go against the other. Christians were being villains on both ends of the spectrum by denying the gods, denying the emperor, and even proclaiming a rival to the emperor. (I have been told that Crossan has said the opening line of Mark that speaks about the Gospel of Jesus Christ could be read as saying "In your face, Caesar.")

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
              Seriously? Scientology is just getting started and it's got a big following for only forty years old.
              It is failing miserably.


              But even still, is this seriously your argument? Most Christians today have no clue about Christianities origins or the arguments for and against it, so this idea is pretty dead in the water.
              That is completely false.

              All we really have for Christianities early days is two passages from historians that confirm Jesus had some sort of ministry and nothing else outside of that. We have no idea how the Romans and Jews really responded to claims of Jesus being the messiah, or the idea of him being resurrected.
              As you said in another post, scientology is failing because we have information from both sides and we can see that it is false. Well don't you think those that lived during and near the time of Jesus would also know what really happened and not be fooled by a pack of lies? Yet, the church grew exponentially right from the beginning, despite them being hunted down and killed by the Romans and Jews. If the apostles were just a bunch of phonies, the people would have known that and the church would not be in existence. After all Christianity was making wild claims about God walking the earth, dead people coming to live, and instead of promising prosperity to it's followers, it promised persecution and suffering instead. Who would want to join such a religion if it were not true?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                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.



                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.
                I am certain that the statues drinking milk has a natural explanation. Out of the things we are able to test, they all come out that way. With the bible, so much of it are things we cannot test or verify, but have to take the claims at face value if we're to believe them.

                there are things the bible we can verify, by history, archaeology, or science. Some of it comes up wrong.

                Hares chewing cuds. they dont. I know, i know, the scientific term wasn't around back then, so we're applying modern terms to ancient points, but I think that statement is just an attempt to sweep this under the rug. All the other animals chewed on regurgitated food - the cud. Hares, while they look like they're chewing, do not chew on regurgitated food, but they eat their own poop. "Well that's close enough," except that pigs do the same thing and are said in the bible to not chew the cud...

                Jesus said that a seed must die before it can grow. that's false.

                Read Gen 1 closely. It's scientifically incorrect regarding the solar system and earth, and looks so much like ignorant ancient people trying to make sense of their world.

                this is just a sample.

                and then contradictions in various places.

                and so I can see where somethings are off out of things that I can verify, so why would I believe the larger than life claims of the things I cant verify, when every other claim in superstition that can be verified is shown to be quite natural?

                Comment


                • Sparko, I will get back to you on this so keep on eye out for my post. Right now, you're going to have to stand in line as one person will undoubtedly wants a piece of me later today.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by William View Post
                    I am certain that the statues drinking milk has a natural explanation. Out of the things we are able to test, they all come out that way. With the bible, so much of it are things we cannot test or verify, but have to take the claims at face value if we're to believe them.

                    there are things the bible we can verify, by history, archaeology, or science. Some of it comes up wrong.

                    Hares chewing cuds. they dont. I know, i know, the scientific term wasn't around back then, so we're applying modern terms to ancient points, but I think that statement is just an attempt to sweep this under the rug. All the other animals chewed on regurgitated food - the cud. Hares, while they look like they're chewing, do not chew on regurgitated food, but they eat their own poop. "Well that's close enough," except that pigs do the same thing and are said in the bible to not chew the cud...

                    Jesus said that a seed must die before it can grow. that's false.

                    Read Gen 1 closely. It's scientifically incorrect regarding the solar system and earth, and looks so much like ignorant ancient people trying to make sense of their world.

                    this is just a sample.

                    and then contradictions in various places.

                    and so I can see where somethings are off out of things that I can verify, so why would I believe the larger than life claims of the things I cant verify, when every other claim in superstition that can be verified is shown to be quite natural?
                    Honestly, I've found many of these don't really effect me the more I look at them. I haven't seen anything that overcomes the resurrection and that is something I think can be verified by studying the accounts and the leading scholars.

                    One problem is we read the text with our modern lenses on. I think Genesis 1 is a fine example of this. You're reading it as a scientific account. I contend that it isn't. The text has zip to say about science. It's a functional account where God is creating sacred space for Him to dwell in and naming the function of everything that is in the creation.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                      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.
                      I dont know Carrier personally, so I cannot comment on him specifically, but in the article his points seemed sound.

                      In the link you provide, the refuter seems more argumentative than he actually seems to be addressingt the points with stuff like, "Well actually, we do have some physical evidence. We do in fact have documents. We have the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, Acts, and of course the rest of the New Testament. We also have writings outside of the NT such as Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, etc."

                      Carrier said that those things were there. He also said why The Rubicon crossing was better since actual contemporaries of Jesus wrote about it. There are none of jesus, at least none that wrote about it until much later down the line.

                      BUt also, while I feel fairly certain that Jesus was at ;eats a real man, and that the Rubicon was crossed, I would not say I have 100% certainty. I trust expert scientists in their field too, but i do not have 100% certainty that the leading scientific understandings are the end all be all - and that level of certainly fluctuates depending on what we're discussing. I can say that, "yeah, it looks like this is case with the info we have right now..." I think it's this way for most people and I wouldnt be surprised if you were the same. But with the Resurrection, not only are expected to believe this otherwise unrealistic event based on the claims of superstitious men who recorded their testimonies decades after the fact, but we're to feel certain about it.

                      but with jesus' Resurrection, it wasnt carrier's point that no contemporary enemies wrote of a belief in Jesus ressurection, as appears to be the claim in your link, it was that no contemporaries of jesus even wrote about the claim or that others believed it. All the sources there are come from believers, who wrote much much later. And the closest author, Paul, didnt claim many of the things that the others did, who wrote much later than he did.

                      and let's not forget, an army crossing a river is not unique. It isn't supernatural or miraculous. While it may be a feet of engineering and determination, it is completely plausible. While everyone may feel very certain that Caesar's own account of the event is mostly accurate, i doubt that anyone feels 100% that all of it perfectly accurate. and even if they did, if you toss in a single miraculous claim, then the majority of people would not believe that claim, while still likely finding the other stuff plausible and likely.

                      and some people dont believe socrates was real (from your link). Does that matter? Is there any consequence to a belief or disbelief in Socrates being real or not? as far as teachers writing stuff, Pluto wrote. Aristotle wrote. Paul wrote. Some teachers may not, but some do and did.

                      your link also said this, "Carrier also says Paul saw Jesus in a vision. Evidence of this given? None." except Carrier did give evidence and it was christian evidence from the book of acts. This was discussed in the link I provided.

                      Again, i cannot comment in much detail about Carrier, but his lecture seemed well thought out and presented to me, while the rebuttal you provided didnt touch on everything and things it did touch on were skewed, and seemed to be addressing something other than what was actually stated. if the mention of Carrier brings out laughter without reading his stuff, then that rebuttal certainly should.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                        Honestly, I've found many of these don't really effect me the more I look at them. I haven't seen anything that overcomes the resurrection and that is something I think can be verified by studying the accounts and the leading scholars.

                        One problem is we read the text with our modern lenses on. I think Genesis 1 is a fine example of this. You're reading it as a scientific account. I contend that it isn't. The text has zip to say about science. It's a functional account where God is creating sacred space for Him to dwell in and naming the function of everything that is in the creation.
                        I dont know, Gen 1 couldnt be a scientific account if it were true, as it has some questionable things in it. I mean, just look at it again. God divides the waters above from the waters below and places the firmament between them. He then puts birds in the firmament to rule it, so it's the sky. We have lakes and rivers and oceans, which are the waters below and then the big blue sky, where rain (water) comes from above. He then sets the moon and sun in the firmament. That makes sense since you can see them both in the sky, with blue (water) still behind them, just as ancient man would have seen it.

                        I suppose different translations could read differently. But i'm not a hebrew scholar, so i am somewhat forced to trust the translators.

                        but just as you see nothing to overturn the Resurrection, i just still do not find anything compelling in support of it. and i dont really think our failure to see eye to eye is that tragic. I think it's okay, and human.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gary View Post

                          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 still curious why the difference between 3 and 4. Since you keep avoiding an answer, I'm beginning to think you have no good reason for it.

                          And as a reminder, you were willing to answer Cow Poke's question about 7 before you required him to answer them all for himself, and I'd appreciate the same treatment. Thanks.
                          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 William View Post
                            I dont know Carrier personally, so I cannot comment on him specifically, but in the article his points seemed sound.

                            In the link you provide, the refuter seems more argumentative than he actually seems to be addressingt the points with stuff like, "Well actually, we do have some physical evidence. We do in fact have documents. We have the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, Acts, and of course the rest of the New Testament. We also have writings outside of the NT such as Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, etc."
                            In case you don't know, the writer of the link is myself. Deeper Waters is my ministry.

                            Carrier said that those things were there. He also said why The Rubicon crossing was better since actual contemporaries of Jesus wrote about it. There are none of jesus, at least none that wrote about it until much later down the line.
                            Okay. There's something incorrect here. Actual contemporaries of Jesus wrote about the Rubicon? I take it you mean Caesar. But the problem is Carrier says all the great historians of the age write about it. Those historians wrote at least 100 years later. The synoptics are placed by even many of the most liberal scholars in the first century so earlier, and I would still contend the Gospels are indeed by contemporaries of Jesus such as in Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses."

                            BUt also, while I feel fairly certain that Jesus was at ;eats a real man, and that the Rubicon was crossed, I would not say I have 100% certainty. I trust expert scientists in their field too, but i do not have 100% certainty that the leading scientific understandings are the end all be all - and that level of certainly fluctuates depending on what we're discussing. I can say that, "yeah, it looks like this is case with the info we have right now..." I think it's this way for most people and I wouldnt be surprised if you were the same. But with the Resurrection, not only are expected to believe this otherwise unrealistic event based on the claims of superstitious men who recorded their testimonies decades after the fact, but we're to feel certain about it.
                            I have not made my case dependent on any sources of the event decades after they wrote and again, the Rubicon is mentioned by historians centuries after it happened.

                            but with jesus' Resurrection, it wasnt carrier's point that no contemporary enemies wrote of a belief in Jesus ressurection, as appears to be the claim in your link, it was that no contemporaries of jesus even wrote about the claim or that others believed it. All the sources there are come from believers, who wrote much much later. And the closest author, Paul, didnt claim many of the things that the others did, who wrote much later than he did.
                            Actually, Paul did. Paul claimed death, burial, resurrection, and appearances. In fact, that claim comes to within five years of the immediate events. Also, of course only believers would write about it that way. Do you think an unbeliever in the resurrection would write that Jesus rose from the dead?

                            and let's not forget, an army crossing a river is not unique. It isn't supernatural or miraculous. While it may be a feet of engineering and determination, it is completely plausible. While everyone may feel very certain that Caesar's own account of the event is mostly accurate, i doubt that anyone feels 100% that all of it perfectly accurate. and even if they did, if you toss in a single miraculous claim, then the majority of people would not believe that claim, while still likely finding the other stuff plausible and likely.
                            Who says the data has to be 100% accurate? I don't. Also, this again is just stacking the deck against something miraculous. Tim McGrew's article can help here.

                            and some people dont believe socrates was real (from your link). Does that matter? Is there any consequence to a belief or disbelief in Socrates being real or not? as far as teachers writing stuff, Pluto wrote. Aristotle wrote. Paul wrote. Some teachers may not, but some do and did.
                            I think you mean Plato. Did they write? Maybe not. It could very well be their disciples who did the writing. I know some have said Aristotle's books could be collections of the notes his students took. (Which would explain their great boredom.)

                            your link also said this, "Carrier also says Paul saw Jesus in a vision. Evidence of this given? None." except Carrier did give evidence and it was christian evidence from the book of acts. This was discussed in the link I provided.
                            Sure he says it was Acts, but Acts treat it as a bodily appearance as does Paul himself.

                            Again, i cannot comment in much detail about Carrier, but his lecture seemed well thought out and presented to me, while the rebuttal you provided didnt touch on everything and things it did touch on were skewed, and seemed to be addressing something other than what was actually stated. if the mention of Carrier brings out laughter without reading his stuff, then that rebuttal certainly should.
                            I have read his stuff. I've read Sense and Goodness Without God and his book on the Historicity of Jesus. Carrier is harder and harder to take seriously and he is self-imploding right now.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by William View Post
                              I dont know, Gen 1 couldnt be a scientific account if it were true, as it has some questionable things in it. I mean, just look at it again. God divides the waters above from the waters below and places the firmament between them. He then puts birds in the firmament to rule it, so it's the sky. We have lakes and rivers and oceans, which are the waters below and then the big blue sky, where rain (water) comes from above. He then sets the moon and sun in the firmament. That makes sense since you can see them both in the sky, with blue (water) still behind them, just as ancient man would have seen it.
                              Hence, it's an error to apply concordism. I have no problem saying God is using ancient beliefs to describe what is taking place.

                              I suppose different translations could read differently. But i'm not a hebrew scholar, so i am somewhat forced to trust the translators.

                              but just as you see nothing to overturn the Resurrection, i just still do not find anything compelling in support of it. and i dont really think our failure to see eye to eye is that tragic. I think it's okay, and human.
                              What scholars have you read on both sides on the resurrection?

                              Also, with regard to Genesis, I recommend John Walton's "The Lost World of Genesis One."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                                That still doesn't account for the survival and growth of Christianity during the first few centuries of it's existence.
                                Poor, desperate, hopeless, oppressed people being told that if they only believe and follow the teachings of a resurrected dead Jewish prophet as the Son of God they will inherit mansions, crowns studded with gold, and live in a city with streets lined with gold in the after life.

                                Comment

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