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
    Is Gary committing chronological snobbery or being a bigot?
    Yes

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      Let me know when you want to take your head out of the ground and actually discuss the issues. For now, this is the rant of a small child who is just saying "Is not! Is not! Is not!" without bothering to make a case that a miraculous event can happen or provide a better explanation.
      No this is the position of a licensed professional in the field for which you have made a preposterous claim. I have provided the unanimous, consensus scientific and medical position on the reanimation of dead tissue: It is NOT possible. It is NOT possible within the realm of reality.

      Science and medicine do not make statements regarding the possible reanimation of dead tissue outside of the laws of science and medicine because that is the realm of religion and science fiction. If you want to believe that witches fly on brooms, that warlocks have the power to cast spells, and that the dead flesh of ancient prophets can be reanimated, that is your right, but stop embarrassing yourself by attempting to prove such an outlandish event occurred based on the testimony and social norms of ancient, superstitious, scientifically ignorant peasants.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
        No this is the position of a licensed professional in the field for which you have made a preposterous claim. I have provided the unanimous, consensus scientific and medical position on the reanimation of dead tissue: It is NOT possible. It is NOT possible within the realm of reality.

        Science and medicine do not make statements regarding the possible reanimation of dead tissue outside of the laws of science and medicine because that is the realm of religion and science fiction. If you want to believe that witches fly on brooms, that warlocks have the power to cast spells, and that the dead flesh of ancient prophets can be reanimated, that is your right, but stop embarrassing yourself by attempting to prove such an outlandish event occurred based on the testimony and social norms of ancient, superstitious, scientifically ignorant peasants.
        Gary. Again, who in here is doubting the claim that dead people don't naturally come back to life?

        When you say no deity on the outside can interfere, well that's not a medical question. That's a metaphysical question.

        You're in my playground then and frankly, you don't know what you're talking about.

        I can assure you that when others post here like SoR or William or Dave, it makes me look into the issues deeper.

        When you post, I just roll my eyes and know the small child is back again.

        Sorry, but that dead people don't naturally come back to life is not a major scientific discovery.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          No. You can be an expert on what happens with no outside interference, but the question is is there outside interference? That's not a scientific question. That's a metaphysical question and you are not an expert on metaphysics.

          And as for what you said above. Only one thing can be said to that.

          [ATTACH=CONFIG]8429[/ATTACH]
          You are correct. I am not an expert in science fiction.

          Nick: "If you want to argue this case, you would have to demonstrate that there has never ever been anything in history that has not been a result of the laws of science. "

          You are making a preposterous, scientifically ignorant claim, Nick. Many Christians are moving to the position that Jesus' resurrection was a SPIRITUAL resurrection because they accept the scientific and medical evidence that a bodily resurrection is impossible.

          You are welcome to continue to believe the older view, but it is quickly being seen as silly and ignorant, even among Christian intelligentsia. But if you want to continue to make this preposterous, anti-science claim it is YOU who must provide the evidence, not me or any other critic to disprove it. In our culture, it is the person making the extraordinary claim who bears the burden for providing proof of his extraordinary claim, not those who question the claim. I am under ZERO obligation, according to the standards of western civilization, to search for evidence to DISPROVE your wild, supernatural claim....YOU are under obligation to prove that anything in history HAS been the result of something supernatural, or as you like to say, "outside interference", including your extraordinary claim of the reanimation of dead tissue 2,000 years ago.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
            Gary. Again, who in here is doubting the claim that dead people don't naturally come back to life?

            When you say no deity on the outside can interfere, well that's not a medical question. That's a metaphysical question.

            You're in my playground then and frankly, you don't know what you're talking about.

            I can assure you that when others post here like SoR or William or Dave, it makes me look into the issues deeper.

            When you post, I just roll my eyes and know the small child is back again.

            Sorry, but that dead people don't naturally come back to life is not a major scientific discovery.
            Where did I ever say that a deity CANNOT interfere? My contention is that if deities HAVE interfered, we have no concrete evidence that they have done so outside the rules of science and medicine. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that they have.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
              You are correct. I am not an expert in science fiction.

              Nick: "If you want to argue this case, you would have to demonstrate that there has never ever been anything in history that has not been a result of the laws of science. "

              You are making a preposterous, scientifically ignorant claim, Nick. Many Christians are moving to the position that Jesus' resurrection was a SPIRITUAL resurrection because they accept the scientific and medical evidence that a bodily resurrection is impossible.

              You are welcome to continue to believe the older view, but it is quickly being seen as silly and ignorant, even among Christian intelligentsia. But if you want to continue to make this preposterous, anti-science claim it is YOU who must provide the evidence, not me or any other critic to disprove it. In our culture, it is the person making the extraordinary claim who bears the burden for providing proof of his extraordinary claim, not those who question the claim. I am under ZERO obligation, according to the standards of western civilization, to search for evidence to DISPROVE your wild, supernatural claim....YOU are under obligation to prove that anything in history HAS been the result of something supernatural, or as you like to say, "outside interference", including your extraordinary claim of the reanimation of dead tissue 2,000 years ago.
              I believe that the fine tuning of the Universe is very good evidence for the existence of a Creator or Creators. But by the evidence we have, the Creator/s don't interfere in the established order that he/she/it/they have created. They started it all, and then took a hands off approach. To me this best explains the massive amount of suffering and violence in the world. The belief that all this suffering and violence is due to a god punishing us for our ancient ancestors eating some of his fruit, is preposterous to me.

              Comment


              • And now we get to the problem of evil also....

                Looks like you have to explain it just as much as I do. Frankly, everyone does, and I would add in atheists have to explain the problem of pleasure.

                But if you want to say a deity cannot interfere, then lo and behold, everything you've said about medicine goes out the window because that is the area of theology or metaphysics or philosophy or all of them together.

                That's more my area.

                Being a doctor gives you on special insight here whatsoever. The claim you are pushing as so important is one no one is arguing against.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                  And now we get to the problem of evil also....

                  Looks like you have to explain it just as much as I do. Frankly, everyone does, and I would add in atheists have to explain the problem of pleasure.

                  But if you want to say a deity cannot interfere, then lo and behold, everything you've said about medicine goes out the window because that is the area of theology or metaphysics or philosophy or all of them together.

                  That's more my area.

                  Being a doctor gives you on special insight here whatsoever. The claim you are pushing as so important is one no one is arguing against.
                  Nick, please try to read my comments before jumping to conclusions.

                  I never said that deities CANNOT interfere, I said that I see no evidence that they have. I see evidence that the entire universe operates by a set of rules, the rules of science. I do not pretend to know who established these rules, all I know is that the rules are there. Could a deity do something outside of these rules? Sure. Anything is possible. But we have no good/strong evidence that a deity has ever done this, other than the claims of a few superstitious people.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                    And now we get to the problem of evil also....

                    Looks like you have to explain it just as much as I do. Frankly, everyone does, and I would add in atheists have to explain the problem of pleasure.

                    But if you want to say a deity cannot interfere, then lo and behold, everything you've said about medicine goes out the window because that is the area of theology or metaphysics or philosophy or all of them together.

                    That's more my area.

                    Being a doctor gives you on special insight here whatsoever. The claim you are pushing as so important is one no one is arguing against.
                    Scholars of ancient Egypt are experts in the beliefs and customs of the people of ancient Egypt, not experts in the reality of the supernatural claims of ancient Egyptians.
                    Scholars of the ancient Maya are experts in the beliefs and customs of those ancient peoples and civilizations, not experts in the reality of their supernatural claims.
                    Scholars of the New Testament are experts in the beliefs and customs of one small sect of ancient middle-eastern/Mediterranean peoples, not in the reality of their supernatural claims.

                    New Testament scholars, and aspiring New Testament scholars, need to learn the limitations of their expertise.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                      Nick, please try to read my comments before jumping to conclusions.

                      I never said that deities CANNOT interfere,
                      Let's look at what you said here.

                      You have a few semesters of religious seminary training under your belt, Nick. I am a board certified physician who regularly testifies in courts of law on medical issues. You are out of your league, Nick. The true experts on this issue say that the reanimation of dead tissue is medically impossible, supernatural "interference" or not, and I am one of those experts.


                      Sure looks like you're saying supernatural interference can't change anything. So yes, you did say that. Maybe you should listen to your own words.

                      I said that I see no evidence that they have. I see evidence that the entire universe operates by a set of rules, the rules of science. I do not pretend to know who established these rules, all I know is that the rules are there.
                      Sorry, but this isn't news. You can believe in the laws of nature if you want to and still hold that miracles are possible. In fact, you cannot hold to miracles unless you believe in some regularities in nature.

                      Could a deity do something outside of these rules? Sure. Anything is possible. But we have no good/strong evidence that a deity has ever done this, other than the claims of a few superstitious people.
                      Yeah we do. The resurrection of Jesus. It's just you saying "We know a deity did not interfere because a deity does not interfere and we know a deity does not interfere because we have no evidence that they interfered." You're begging the question.

                      You are not a person of reason Gary.

                      William and Dave and SoR all give me reason to go out and look forward to further research. They are willing to read on the subject and even accept book recommendations.

                      You remind me of a creationist who refuses to read evolutionists because evolution just doesn't happen and we know that.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                        Let's look at what you said here.

                        You have a few semesters of religious seminary training under your belt, Nick. I am a board certified physician who regularly testifies in courts of law on medical issues. You are out of your league, Nick. The true experts on this issue say that the reanimation of dead tissue is medically impossible, supernatural "interference" or not, and I am one of those experts.


                        Sure looks like you're saying supernatural interference can't change anything. So yes, you did say that. Maybe you should listen to your own words.



                        Sorry, but this isn't news. You can believe in the laws of nature if you want to and still hold that miracles are possible. In fact, you cannot hold to miracles unless you believe in some regularities in nature.



                        Yeah we do. The resurrection of Jesus. It's just you saying "We know a deity did not interfere because a deity does not interfere and we know a deity does not interfere because we have no evidence that they interfered." You're begging the question.

                        You are not a person of reason Gary.

                        William and Dave and SoR all give me reason to go out and look forward to further research. They are willing to read on the subject and even accept book recommendations.

                        You remind me of a creationist who refuses to read evolutionists because evolution just doesn't happen and we know that.
                        Nick, you are a fundamentalist Christian. Ask learned Christian scholars such as Bishop Shelby Spong:

                        Resurrection: Myth or Reality? (1994)

                        Description

                        "A daring examination of the foundational event of Christianity, and an inspiring vision for reconciliation between Jews and Christians.

                        Using approaches from the Hebrew interpretive tradition to discern the actual events surrounding Jesus’ death, Bishop Spong questions the historical validity of literal narrative concerned the Resurrection. He asserts that the resurrection story was born in an experience that opened the disciples’ eyes to the reality of God and the meaning of Jesus of Nazareth. Spong traces the Christian origins of anti–Semitism to the Church’s fabrication of the ultimate Jewish scapegoat, Judas Iscariot. He affirms the inclusiveness of the Christian message and emphasises the necessity of mutual integrity and respect among Christians and Jews."

                        You are a literalist, Nick. You are following an out-of-date teaching. The avant-garde of Christian scholarship is now seeing Jesus' resurrection as a SPIRITUAL event, not a literal event. You are reading ancient literature as if it were a history book, instead of in the intended form it was meant to be understood: allegorical teachings about good and evil and Jesus' victory over hate and prejudice using the power of love, equality, and pacifism.
                        Last edited by Gary; 08-01-2015, 05:34 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                          Nick, you are a fundamentalist Christian. Ask learned Christian scholars such as Bishop Shelby Spong:
                          Really? How many fundamentalist Christians have no problem with evolution, deny a pre-trib rapture, and would have zero problem getting rid of Inerrancy? My position is quite far from fundamentalist. Your mindset is still fundamentalist.

                          As for Spong as a scholar, what institution did he get his Ph.D. at and what is it in? What accredited university does he teach at? What peer-reviewed works has he published?

                          Scholar means something and it's dishonoring to real scholars to give that label to those who don't have it.

                          Resurrection: Myth or Reality? (1994)

                          Description

                          "A daring examination of the foundational event of Christianity, and an inspiring vision for reconciliation between Jews and Christians.
                          And I'm getting set to see if I can find it on the library web site. You see, I have no problem with reading books that disagree with me. I do it a lot, though a more scholarly work on the resurrection arguing against it can be found from Gerd Ludemann.

                          Using approaches from the Hebrew interpretive tradition to discern the actual events surrounding Jesus’ death, Bishop Spong questions the historical validity of literal narrative concerned the Resurrection. He asserts that the resurrection story was born in an experience that opened the disciples’ eyes to the reality of God and the meaning of Jesus of Nazareth. Spong traces the Christian origins of anti–Semitism to the Church’s fabrication of the ultimate Jewish scapegoat, Judas Iscariot. He affirms the inclusiveness of the Christian message and emphasises the necessity of mutual integrity and respect among Christians and Jews."
                          A spiritual resurrection. Sorry, but even Dan Barker who is not a scholar still and as anti-Christian as they come says that anastasis when used in Greek refers to a bodily resurrection and that is the term Paul uses even in 1 Cor. 15. Dale Martin, a scholar in the Corinthian body argues that the resurrection meant is physical. Robert Gundry in Soma in the Biblical Greek argues that Soma refers to a physical body using the Greek language.

                          Do you have an argument for Spong's position or do you want me to take it by faith?

                          You are a literalist, Nick. You are following an out-of-date teaching. The avant-garde of Christian scholarship is now seeing Jesus' resurrection as a SPIRITUAL event, not a literal event. You are reading ancient literature as if it were a history book, instead of in the intended form it was meant to be understood: allegorical teachings about good and evil and Jesus' victory over hate and prejudice using the power of love and pacifism.
                          Actually, it is meant to be that way. The genre of the Gospels is Greco-Roman Bioi and those were meant to be read as history. As for the Jesus movement you think would have been produced, there was no reason for Jews or Romans either one to persecute this movement.

                          You really have no clue what you're talking about.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                            Really? How many fundamentalist Christians have no problem with evolution, deny a pre-trib rapture, and would have zero problem getting rid of Inerrancy? My position is quite far from fundamentalist. Your mindset is still fundamentalist.

                            As for Spong as a scholar, what institution did he get his Ph.D. at and what is it in? What accredited university does he teach at? What peer-reviewed works has he published?

                            Scholar means something and it's dishonoring to real scholars to give that label to those who don't have it.



                            And I'm getting set to see if I can find it on the library web site. You see, I have no problem with reading books that disagree with me. I do it a lot, though a more scholarly work on the resurrection arguing against it can be found from Gerd Ludemann.



                            A spiritual resurrection. Sorry, but even Dan Barker who is not a scholar still and as anti-Christian as they come says that anastasis when used in Greek refers to a bodily resurrection and that is the term Paul uses even in 1 Cor. 15. Dale Martin, a scholar in the Corinthian body argues that the resurrection meant is physical. Robert Gundry in Soma in the Biblical Greek argues that Soma refers to a physical body using the Greek language.

                            Do you have an argument for Spong's position or do you want me to take it by faith?



                            Actually, it is meant to be that way. The genre of the Gospels is Greco-Roman Bioi and those were meant to be read as history. As for the Jesus movement you think would have been produced, there was no reason for Jews or Romans either one to persecute this movement.

                            You really have no clue what you're talking about.

                            Here is an excerpt from an article by the late Episcopal scholar, Marcus Borg. I believe that his explanation of the Resurrection represents the view of a large percentage of non-evangelical Christians in the United States on this subject:


                            The Resurrection of Jesus: “Physical/Bodily” or “Spiritual/Mystical”?


                            I was recently invited to write an essay on whether the resurrection of Jesus was “physical and bodily” or “spiritual and mystical.” The distinction is helpful: it makes clear that Christians have understood the meanings of Easter in different ways. But for more than one reason, including the common meanings of these words in modern English, I don’t like either option.

                            I begin with the positive – with what we can say with certainty about the meaning of Easter in the gospels and the New Testament. It is twofold: Jesus lives and is Lord.

                            Both convictions are grounded in experience. Some of Jesus’ followers experienced him after his death as a figure of the present, not just of the past. And they experienced him as a divine reality, now “one with God” and “at the right hand of God.”

                            Many of these experiences were visions. Paul’s experience of the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus, described three times in Acts 9, 22, and 26, and referred to by Paul in Galatians 1, was clearly a vision. It happened a few years – three to five – after the death of Jesus.

                            In I Corinthians 15, Paul refers to his experience as belonging in a list of other visions of Jesus – to Peter, the twelve disciples (though obviously not to Judas), James, and five hundred people at the same time.

                            Visions are about “seeing,” as the word implies. Often visions involve seeing and hearing a person in bodily form and can even include tactility – a sense of touching or being embraced.

                            But visions do not always include seeing a bodily form. As Acts describes Paul’s vision of the risen Christ, Paul saw a brilliant light, but not a bodily form. Then a voice identified the brilliant light as Jesus. Yet Paul can say, as he does I Corinthians 9.1, “I have seen the Lord.”

                            In addition to visions of Jesus, I think there were non-visionary experiences – of the same presence and power that his followers had known in Jesus during his historical life. “The Spirit of the Lord” was upon him, as the gospels put it – and his followers continued to experience the same Spirit after his death.

                            And there was something about these experiences that led to the second meaning of Easter in the gospels and the New Testament. Not only that Jesus lives, that he is a figure of the present and not just of the past, but that he is “Lord” –a divine reality, one with God and having the qualities of God, at “the right hand of God.”

                            So Paul refers to the risen Jesus in Acts and his letters: Jesus is Lord. So also in the story of Thomas in John 20. When Jesus appears to him, Thomas exclaims, “My Lord and my God!” In both Matthew 28 and Luke 24, we are told that his followers “worshipped” the risen Jesus.

                            This second meaning of Easter distinguishes experiences of Jesus from other experiences of somebody who has died. Studies suggest that about half of surviving spouses will have at least one vivid experience of their deceased spouse. But if they do, they do not exclaim “My Lord and my God,” as if their spouse is now Lord and one with God. But there was something about the experiences of Jesus after his death that led to this exclamation. They were “numinous” experiences – experiences of the sacred – and not just “ghostly” experiences of a dead person.

                            Full article: http://www.marcusjborg.com/2011/05/1...tion-of-jesus/

                            See, now I have no issue with this concept of Resurrection, because it does not claim that a dead body was reanimated or resuscitated. Dr. Borg's view of the Resurrection is perfectly consistent with modern science and medicine but still allows for the supernatural. This view is perfectly fine with me as long as one's supernatural beliefs are not used to force one's spiritual views on others or upon society as a whole. If believing that Jesus was in some spiritual/supernatural-but-not-science-defying sense gives you inner comfort and peace, I have no problem with it.
                            Last edited by Gary; 08-01-2015, 05:54 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                              Here is an excerpt from an article by the late Episcopal scholar, Marcus Borg. I believe that his explanation of the Resurrection represents the view of a large percentage of non-evangelical Christians in the United States on this subject:


                              The Resurrection of Jesus: “Physical/Bodily” or “Spiritual/Mystical”?


                              I was recently invited to write an essay on whether the resurrection of Jesus was “physical and bodily” or “spiritual and mystical.” The distinction is helpful: it makes clear that Christians have understood the meanings of Easter in different ways. But for more than one reason, including the common meanings of these words in modern English, I don’t like either option.

                              I begin with the positive – with what we can say with certainty about the meaning of Easter in the gospels and the New Testament. It is twofold: Jesus lives and is Lord.

                              Both convictions are grounded in experience. Some of Jesus’ followers experienced him after his death as a figure of the present, not just of the past. And they experienced him as a divine reality, now “one with God” and “at the right hand of God.”

                              Many of these experiences were visions. Paul’s experience of the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus, described three times in Acts 9, 22, and 26, and referred to by Paul in Galatians 1, was clearly a vision. It happened a few years – three to five – after the death of Jesus.

                              In I Corinthians 15, Paul refers to his experience as belonging in a list of other visions of Jesus – to Peter, the twelve disciples (though obviously not to Judas), James, and five hundred people at the same time.

                              Visions are about “seeing,” as the word implies. Often visions involve seeing and hearing a person in bodily form and can even include tactility – a sense of touching or being embraced.

                              But visions do not always include seeing a bodily form. As Acts describes Paul’s vision of the risen Christ, Paul saw a brilliant light, but not a bodily form. Then a voice identified the brilliant light as Jesus. Yet Paul can say, as he does I Corinthians 9.1, “I have seen the Lord.”

                              In addition to visions of Jesus, I think there were non-visionary experiences – of the same presence and power that his followers had known in Jesus during his historical life. “The Spirit of the Lord” was upon him, as the gospels put it – and his followers continued to experience the same Spirit after his death.

                              And there was something about these experiences that led to the second meaning of Easter in the gospels and the New Testament. Not only that Jesus lives, that he is a figure of the present and not just of the past, but that he is “Lord” –a divine reality, one with God and having the qualities of God, at “the right hand of God.”

                              So Paul refers to the risen Jesus in Acts and his letters: Jesus is Lord. So also in the story of Thomas in John 20. When Jesus appears to him, Thomas exclaims, “My Lord and my God!” In both Matthew 28 and Luke 24, we are told that his followers “worshipped” the risen Jesus.

                              This second meaning of Easter distinguishes experiences of Jesus from other experiences of somebody who has died. Studies suggest that about half of surviving spouses will have at least one vivid experience of their deceased spouse. But if they do, they do not exclaim “My Lord and my God,” as if their spouse is now Lord and one with God. But there was something about the experiences of Jesus after his death that led to this exclamation. They were “numinous” experiences – experiences of the sacred – and not just “ghostly” experiences of a dead person.
                              Now Marcus Borg is a scholar (And yeah, way to ignore what was said earlier and go right on to the next thing.) But I have to ask Borg, what is his evidence that this is what happened? Does the word sometime refer to a visionary experience? Sure. Many times it doesn't. This is even in the LXX. Gen. 46:29, Ex. 10:28, 1 Kings 3:16 and 18:1. It's used in a physical sense in Luke 24:34 as well.

                              And if what I've said earlier with reference to the body being physical is correct, and I don't see an argument against that, and anastasis being physical, and I don't see an argument against that, and realizing that scholars like Martin and Gundry agree on this, then it is an option that should not be thrown out.

                              Furthermore, I think others did have experiences, but Paul places his on a different level in that Jesus appeared last to him of all the bodily appearances of the glorified Lord.

                              Feel free to try again.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                                Now Marcus Borg is a scholar (And yeah, way to ignore what was said earlier and go right on to the next thing.) But I have to ask Borg, what is his evidence that this is what happened? Does the word sometime refer to a visionary experience? Sure. Many times it doesn't. This is even in the LXX. Gen. 46:29, Ex. 10:28, 1 Kings 3:16 and 18:1. It's used in a physical sense in Luke 24:34 as well.

                                And if what I've said earlier with reference to the body being physical is correct, and I don't see an argument against that, and anastasis being physical, and I don't see an argument against that, and realizing that scholars like Martin and Gundry agree on this, then it is an option that should not be thrown out.

                                Furthermore, I think others did have experiences, but Paul places his on a different level in that Jesus appeared last to him of all the bodily appearances of the glorified Lord.

                                Feel free to try again.
                                Your fundamentalism is seeping out in this comment, Nick. Why does it have to be your way or the highway? Why can't we see that the Resurrection had many meanings for many different people? Why MUST it be the reanimation of dead human tissue? This is fundamentalist thinking, Nick.

                                Comment

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