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
    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.
    I just want to say that i dont think this is completely fair. For one, I think gary's points are a little more than "I don't like it," and two Gary was once a Christian, so now that he's done a full 180, so Gary has admitted he was once quite and completely wrong, no?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by William View Post
      I just want to say that i dont think this is completely fair. For one, I think gary's points are a little more than "I don't like it," and two Gary was once a Christian, so now that he's done a full 180, so Gary has admitted he was once quite and completely wrong, no?
      His mindset is still exactly the same. If his position was not based on evidence before, why should I think it is now?

      As for the points, I was replying to what was said about God and hell. Outrage is not an argument.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
        Yep. I've called you a fundamentalist because you are one, and unfortunately you just give the definition you think is common, but it really isn't.

        As some of you know, I do not respect the demeanor of other mythicists (some of whom are atheist fundamentalists, as unpleasant as many Christian or Jewish or Muslim fundamentalists or worst than most in their self-righteous vitriol).

        http://ehrmanblog.org/debates-for-a-price-for-members/


        Fundamentalism refers to a mindset and not to a belief system. There are fundamentalists on both sides. You're still a fundamentalist Gary. You believe everything about your worldview blindly and wholeheartedly, you don't produce evidence for its central claims, and you disdain any scholarship that disagrees with you and treat it like not worthy of reading.



        So I write out a long response addressing answers to the objections that you made and looking at the context and you have no response other than "Duh. Your worldview is stupid because science." That's not an argument. It's a tacit appeal that you have no argument. I also am not going around saying I'm educated. I leave that to others to decide and on this thread, even the atheists have spoken and said you're dealing with someone who is educated.



        Really? They're not? People like John Polkinghorne or Alister McGrath or David Wood or many others? I could show you a long list of people who came to believe in Christianity in adulthood and these are people who take the life of the mind very seriously. All you have is an argument ad populum.



        It would definitely have an impact proportional to the evidence.
        Sorry, Nick, but I am not an expert in the supernatural, as you claim to be, and I have no interest in studying the supernatural nor reading the extensive research of supernaturalist scholars, for the simple reason that I do not believe that there is sufficient scientific or medical evidence to believe in leprechauns, flying witches, goblins, nor the reanimation of dead human tissue.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          In case you don't know, the writer of the link is myself. Deeper Waters is my ministry.
          ah crap. Are both feet in my mouth?



          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          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."



          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.



          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?
          Carrier's write mentions that Paul did mention a resurrection, but based on other points Paul made about Earthly Bodies not being suited for the afterlife and that new spiritual bodies would be given, that Paul was speaking of a spiritual type Resurrection, almost like an apparition. I am not saying that is right, but he did address that point.



          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          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.



          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.)



          Sure he says it was Acts, but Acts treat it as a bodily appearance as does Paul himself.
          where? Paul says he saw jesus. Acts says Paul saw a vision. nothing says that he saw jesus in the body before or after Jesus death.



          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          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.
          that may be. I can only comment on the few things I've read of him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
            His mindset is still exactly the same. If his position was not based on evidence before, why should I think it is now?

            As for the points, I was replying to what was said about God and hell. Outrage is not an argument.
            true. outrage is not.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
              Sorry, Nick, but I am not an expert in the supernatural, as you claim to be, and I have no interest in studying the supernatural nor reading the extensive research of supernaturalist scholars, for the simple reason that I do not believe that there is sufficient scientific or medical evidence to believe in leprechauns, flying witches, goblins, nor the reanimation of dead human tissue.
              So then, you regularly speak on subjects that you are not an expert in and you do not study?

              Why should anyone take your opinion seriously?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by William View Post
                ah crap. Are both feet in my mouth?
                It's an understandable mistake, though an amusing one too.





                Carrier's write mentions that Paul did mention a resurrection, but based on other points Paul made about Earthly Bodies not being suited for the afterlife and that new spiritual bodies would be given, that Paul was speaking of a spiritual type Resurrection, almost like an apparition. I am not saying that is right, but he did address that point.
                This is stuff where he's highly influenced by Doherty. Too bad it's not by real Greek scholars. Consider Robert Gundry's work "Soma in Biblical Greek." Licona has a great summarization of that in his book on the resurrection (And he does get into Paul's vision.) Even Dale Martin, a non-Christian scholar, in "The Corinthian Body" writes about how the body would have to be physical. I addressed this all in the OP of the debate.





                where? Paul says he saw jesus. Acts says Paul saw a vision. nothing says that he saw jesus in the body before or after Jesus death.
                1 Cor. 15. Paul treated his appearance like the others except for out of time. If others saw a bodily Jesus, then so also did Paul.





                that may be. I can only comment on the few things I've read of him.
                I've honestly said Richard Carrier is one of the best gifts Christian apologetics has been given in a long time.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                  Hence, it's an error to apply concordism. I have no problem saying God is using ancient beliefs to describe what is taking place.
                  cant any problem be defended this way, though? "It doesnt mean what it says," or, "if we can imagine this along with that, then now it's okay."




                  Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                  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."
                  not many, and the ones I have perused through I couldn't name. Shame on me, maybe, but i'm not writing a book or trying to convince anyone, so I have collected a bibliography. To me, the bible is not trustworthy. The Resurrection has only so many sources and scholars speak on what they think about those sources. I try to read equal amounts on both sides in an effort to remain fair, and I just dont see it. I do remain ready to read any suggested works when I get the time.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by William View Post
                    cant any problem be defended this way, though? "It doesnt mean what it says," or, "if we can imagine this along with that, then now it's okay."
                    I always have a problem with this approach. It always assumes a modern literalist interpretation is what we have in mind. It would be like saying "It's raining cats and dogs." and having someone say "You idiot! It's just water! Say what you mean!" Things that would be clear to them might not be clear to us.






                    not many, and the ones I have perused through I couldn't name. Shame on me, maybe, but i'm not writing a book or trying to convince anyone, so I have collected a bibliography. To me, the bible is not trustworthy. The Resurrection has only so many sources and scholars speak on what they think about those sources. I try to read equal amounts on both sides in an effort to remain fair, and I just dont see it. I do remain ready to read any suggested works when I get the time.
                    Which ones have you gone through?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      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.
                      Brave Sir Gary, why are you ignoring this? It's not a difficult question.
                      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


                      • I am trying to read up a little on Richard carrier. I haven't gotten far, I see he has a Doctorate in Ancient History From Columbia University, and was invited by Yale to give a lecture.

                        what makes him a laughing stock? Is that he doesnt believe jesus was even a real man?

                        If someone doesnt think that Socrates was real, but more or less a teaching construct of Plato's, are they fools, because they doubt Socrate's literal existence?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by William View Post
                          I am trying to read up a little on Richard carrier. I haven't gotten far, I see he has a Doctorate in Ancient History From Columbia University, and was invited by Yale to give a lecture.

                          what makes him a laughing stock? Is that he doesnt believe jesus was even a real man?

                          If someone doesnt think that Socrates was real, but more or less a teaching construct of Plato's, are they fools, because they doubt Socrate's literal existence?
                          Jesus existence is on the fringe of the fringe. It's not treated seriously by Christians and non-Christians alike. When I meet anyone who questions his existence, I just roll my eyes.

                          Is Carrier teaching at any accredited university? Nope. Not a one. He's popular with internet atheists, and that's it, and he's even losing that crowd now.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                            I always have a problem with this approach. It always assumes a modern literalist interpretation is what we have in mind. It would be like saying "It's raining cats and dogs." and having someone say "You idiot! It's just water! Say what you mean!" Things that would be clear to them might not be clear to us.
                            this is a little different than "raining cats and Dogs." I am not saying that figures of speech and metaphor couldn't be used, but in the case of Gen 1, people genneraly take that to be God's fact, and use it to refute evolution or whatever else.

                            But by that rationale, why couldn't a bodily Resurrection of Christ also be allegory and not meant to be literal truth? In fact, I suppose it could have started that way, but then later been misunderstood by disciples and later distributed as literal truth.





                            Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                            Which ones have you gone through?
                            I'm afraid I dont have a list. I read, but admittedly it's mostly through the internet. Even then, i just never compiled any written or mental notes on who wrote or said said what, so I'd just lose if we wee having a book or scholar naming contest. I do not claim to be an expert.

                            and you and I just see evidence and certain claims differently, and I dont know that anything can really change that. I've read where Tecumseh accurately predicted an earthquake in Alabama - I dont believe it, even though Tecumseh was a real man, and Alabama a real place, and there have been earthquakes in Alabama, although extremely rare. to me, certain claims take much more evidence than what we have for the Resurrection to believe.

                            I wouldn't even swear that the basic events for anything were 100% certain if all we had was what there is for the Resurrection. So a lot of this talk about it being so clear is really over my head.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                              Jesus existence is on the fringe of the fringe. It's not treated seriously by Christians and non-Christians alike. When I meet anyone who questions his existence, I just roll my eyes.

                              Is Carrier teaching at any accredited university? Nope. Not a one. He's popular with internet atheists, and that's it, and he's even losing that crowd now.
                              lol, well maybe so. I also roll my eyes when people say that Jesus wasn't real. I think he was, i just don't think his miracles are.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by William View Post
                                this is a little different than "raining cats and Dogs." I am not saying that figures of speech and metaphor couldn't be used, but in the case of Gen 1, people genneraly take that to be God's fact, and use it to refute evolution or whatever else.
                                And if you think that's wrong, do you not realize you're guilty of the exact same reading? It's just your difference on if the text is true or not. I contend the text says zip about evolution. If I debate an atheist and they want to use evolution, I will just grant them evolution and say "Now give me your argument against theism."

                                But by that rationale, why couldn't a bodily Resurrection of Christ also be allegory and not meant to be literal truth? In fact, I suppose it could have started that way, but then later been misunderstood by disciples and later distributed as literal truth.
                                It doesn't work because this is a genre argument. The genre of the Gospels is Greco-Roman biography. This tells us that even if wrong, the writers were intending to write history.

                                I'm afraid I dont have a list. I read, but admittedly it's mostly through the internet. Even then, i just never compiled any written or mental notes on who wrote or said said what, so I'd just lose if we wee having a book or scholar naming contest. I do not claim to be an expert.
                                The problem with the internet is that the very best material is not on there. Writers like Licona and Wright have produced some excellent material on the resurrection and Habermas is working on his magnum opus on it. You can read others like Ehrman, Ludemann, Borg, Crossan, and others to get the other side.

                                and you and I just see evidence and certain claims differently, and I dont know that anything can really change that. I've read where Tecumseh accurately predicted an earthquake in Alabama - I dont believe it, even though Tecumseh was a real man, and Alabama a real place, and there have been earthquakes in Alabama, although extremely rare. to me, certain claims take much more evidence than what we have for the Resurrection to believe.

                                I wouldn't even swear that the basic events for anything were 100% certain if all we had was what there is for the Resurrection. So a lot of this talk about it being so clear is really over my head.
                                Okay. What evidence would it take to convince you of the resurrection?

                                And as for Jesus, I can understand not believing in His miracles. That's a position without sound scholarship, but believe it or not, even that barrier is starting to fall. A number of scholars are trying to go with psycho-somatic healings. Keener's work on the topic of Miracles is ground-breaking.

                                Comment

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