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 Gary View Post
    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.
    No. It's my argumentation. (And it's quite ironic that you who have made so many dogmatic statements without supporting them are accusing me of fundamentalism.)

    I gave an argument why I think my position is the right one. Guess what? Everyone does that! Everyone thinks their position is the right one or they wouldn't be arguing it. The difference is I gave reasons. You have never responded to the reasons. Quite frankly, I anticipate you never will.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      No. It's my argumentation. (And it's quite ironic that you who have made so many dogmatic statements without supporting them are accusing me of fundamentalism.)

      I gave an argument why I think my position is the right one. Guess what? Everyone does that! Everyone thinks their position is the right one or they wouldn't be arguing it. The difference is I gave reasons. You have never responded to the reasons. Quite frankly, I anticipate you never will.
      I gave you plenty of reasons, you just ignored them due to your fundamentalist mindset that there is only one possibility: a reanimation of a dead body.

      I am willing accept several possible explanations for this belief:

      1. The tomb was empty but for naturalistic reasons. This "naturalistically" empty tomb gave rise to the resurrection claim.
      2. There was no tomb. Jesus was buried in an unmarked hole in the ground with the corpses of other criminals left hanging for days on their Roman crosses, as was the Roman custom. The belief in a resurrection developed due to false sightings, visions, and hallucinations that occurred days, weeks, months, or years later; it then spread by mass hysteria among uneducated, superstitious people.
      3. There never was a Jesus. The entire story is a legend.
      4. Jesus did rise from the dead...in a spiritual sense. He "appeared" to followers in visions and "in their hearts", thereby imbolding them to preach his teachings.

      If I were a "fundamentalist atheist" I would say that Jesus never existed to do the most damage to the Christian claims.

      You have wanted to argue with me about hypothetical possibilities of uneducated, desperate-for-hope, first century, Jewish peasants believing a shameful belief in an Honor-Shame society. I have argued the scientific and medical evidence for why these uneducated people were mistaken in believing such a scientifically ignorant claim. You don't like that because it kills your position. You don't like it because it leaves your position flapping WAY out on the limb of fringe thinking in a modern, educated society.
      Last edited by Gary; 08-01-2015, 05:21 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
        I gave you plenty of reasons, you just ignored them due to your fundamentalist mindset that there is only one possibility: a reanimation of a dead body.
        I didn't ignore them. I gave reasons against them. I didn't just say "It's a resurrection of a body period." I've done years of reading on this topic and you think I'll just keel over because of one reference? You have to really do your homework.

        I am willing accept several possible explanations for this belief:

        1. The tomb was empty but for naturalistic reasons. This "naturalistically" empty tomb gave rise to the resurrection claim.
        2. There was no tomb. Jesus was buried in an unmarked hole in the ground with the corpses of other criminals left hanging for days on their Roman crosses, as was the Roman custom. The belief in a resurrection developed due to false sightings, visions, and hallucinations that occurred days, weeks, months, or years later; it then spread by mass hysteria among uneducated, superstitious people.
        3. There never was a Jesus. The entire story is a legend.
        4. Jesus did rise from the dead...in a spiritual sense. He "appeared" to followers in visions and "in their hearts", thereby imbolding them to preach his teachings.
        So in accusing me of dogmatism, you refuse to accept the explanation they gave.

        I'm going to go where I think the data points best. You've given me zero reason to think otherwise.

        If I were a "fundamentalist atheist" I would say that Jesus never existed to do the most damage to the Christian claims.
        No. That would just make us laugh all the more. That you think 3 is even plausible tells me enough.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          I didn't ignore them. I gave reasons against them. I didn't just say "It's a resurrection of a body period." I've done years of reading on this topic and you think I'll just keel over because of one reference? You have to really do your homework.



          So in accusing me of dogmatism, you refuse to accept the explanation they gave.

          I'm going to go where I think the data points best. You've given me zero reason to think otherwise.



          No. That would just make us laugh all the more. That you think 3 is even plausible tells me enough.
          Dear evangelical Christians: When I was growing up in the 70's and early 80's, no respectable evangelical pastor, apologist, or theologian would have ever dared deny the literal, twenty-four hour days, six day Creation, a young earth of no more than 6,000-10,000 years old, or a literal, world-wide flood that covered even Mt. Everest by 22 cubits of water. To have denied the literal historicity of these events would have been heresy; you would have been branded a liberal, and kicked out of your evangelical church.

          Nick probably wasn't even alive in the 70's.

          The zeal with which Nick wants you to believe in a literal, bodily resurrection, is the same evangelical/conservative Christian zeal that I witnessed for a literal Creation, young earth, and world-wide Flood. What has changed in the last 40 years? Answer: Scientific knowledge has grown at an astounding rate. To believe that the universe and the earth are only 6,000-10,000 years old is now considered ignorant and naïve, even in Christian circles. The scientific evidence is overwhelming that the universe is much, much, much older. And the geological evidence is clear: there never was a world wide flood. Never. Anyone who still believes this is consider naïve and uneducated even among many evangelicals.

          Nick wants you to hold onto the last major supernatural, anti-science, fundamentalist Christian belief: a literal, bodily reanimation/resuscitation/resurrection of Jesus.

          It's so silly, folks, much more silly than believing that the universe is only 6,000 years old.

          You can still be a good Christian; you can still believe in a Resurrection, just as Bishop Spong and Christian apologist Dr. Borg say above. Just abandon the fundamentalist, literal understanding of this Christian belief. Dead bodies cannot be reanimated. Period.
          Last edited by Gary; 08-01-2015, 09:54 PM.

          Comment


          • It's so silly, folks. You can still be a good Christian; you can still believe in a Resurrection, just as Bishop Spong and Christian apologist Dr. Borg say above. Just abandon the fundamentalist, literal understanding of this Christian belief.
            In point of fact, being a Christian with such a belief is impossible.

            1Co 15:12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. 20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.
            The preaching that Christ was resurrected in his body to live again is among the most fundamental tenets of the Christian faith.


            Dead bodies cannot be reanimated. Period.
            Is it that the one law of nature cannot be circumvented or over-ridden by the proper application of other laws of nature? Or could it simply be that you can't even begin to imagine how to go about achieving it.

            When I was growing up in the 70's and early 80's, no respectable evangelical pastor, apologist, or theologian would have ever dared deny the literal, twenty-four hour days, six day Creation, a young earth of no more than 6,000-10,000 years old, or a literal, world-wide flood
            Prithee tell me, which planet were you living on?
            sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

            Comment


            • Gary is setting a world record for the number of times he can fail to grasp the distinction between reanimation and resurrection.
              Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                Christian apologist Dr. Borg

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                  This would get us back to a worldview question. If theism is true, then a predictive prophecy becomes much more possible. If not, it becomes much less possible.
                  But it's a totally separate question that in theory, we should simply remain neutral and use other methods to determine the date. I'm of the opinion that Paul's silence in his letters, what we know about Paul and Peter's history in Rome, what we've got from church history, and when it was used that a date around 65-75 AD is much more plausible.

                  They very well could have, and why think it wouldn't have done just that? Who can believe Jesus is risen after Jesus's body is shown? Now some could say it was a "spiritual resurrection" but that wouldn't really produce the high Christology that followed nor would it be a threat to Rome to say that. Gnosticism had no reason to be persecuted. Christianity did because it made a direct challenge that someone overcame Rome by His resurrection.
                  You're assuming the Romans or Jews would have gone to the trouble of doing such a thing. They had their own problems without continuing to get mixed-up with a religious happening they all saw as a mere cult.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    In point of fact, being a Christian with such a belief is impossible.

                    1Co 15:12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. 20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.
                    The preaching that Christ was resurrected in his body to live again is among the most fundamental tenets of the Christian faith.



                    Is it that the one law of nature cannot be circumvented or over-ridden by the proper application of other laws of nature? Or could it simply be that you can't even begin to imagine how to go about achieving it.


                    Prithee tell me, which planet were you living on?
                    If your position is that it is impossible for someone to be a Christian unless they believe like you, then by definition you are a fundamentalist.
                    Last edited by Gary; 08-01-2015, 11:43 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by fm93 View Post
                      Gary is setting a world record for the number of times he can fail to grasp the distinction between reanimation and resurrection.
                      My friend, you have been brainwashed to believe that "resurrection" is not the same thing as a reanimation. You cannot resuscitate a body that has been dead for 72 hours. Either the body of Jesus came back to life or his ghost came back and visited the disciples. There is no inbetween except in your fundamentalist imagination.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post

                        a·pol·o·gist

                        /əˈpäləjəst/

                        noun: apologist; plural noun: apologists

                        a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.

                        Or were you questioning his Christianity?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                          If your position is that it is impossible for someone to be a Christian unless they believe like you, then by definition you are a fundamentalist.
                          Originally posted by Gary View Post
                          My friend, you have been brainwashed to believe that "resurrection" is not the same thing as a reanimation. You cannot resuscitate a body that has been dead for 72 hours. Either the body of Jesus came back to life or his ghost came back and visited the disciples. There is no inbetween except in your fundamentalist imagination.
                          Originally posted by Gary View Post
                          a·pol·o·gist

                          /əˈpäləjəst/

                          noun: apologist; plural noun: apologists

                          a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.

                          Or were you questioning his Christianity?
                          I see you're in full troll mode now.

                          Comment


                          • I said I'd stay out of this, so feel free to respond or not respond as you will. This was meant for our observers, I am rather uninterested in speaking with you unless you stop repeating yourself and committing logical fallacies, and I doubt you've decided to enjoy speaking to me

                            Originally posted by Gary View Post
                            I gave you plenty of reasons, you just ignored them due to your fundamentalist mindset that there is only one possibility: a reanimation of a dead body.

                            I am willing accept several possible explanations for this belief:

                            1. The tomb was empty but for naturalistic reasons. This "naturalistically" empty tomb gave rise to the resurrection claim.
                            2. There was no tomb. Jesus was buried in an unmarked hole in the ground with the corpses of other criminals left hanging for days on their Roman crosses, as was the Roman custom. The belief in a resurrection developed due to false sightings, visions, and hallucinations that occurred days, weeks, months, or years later; it then spread by mass hysteria among uneducated, superstitious people.
                            3. There never was a Jesus. The entire story is a legend.
                            4. Jesus did rise from the dead...in a spiritual sense. He "appeared" to followers in visions and "in their hearts", thereby imbolding them to preach his teachings.

                            If I were a "fundamentalist atheist" I would say that Jesus never existed to do the most damage to the Christian claims.

                            You have wanted to argue with me about hypothetical possibilities of uneducated, desperate-for-hope, first century, Jewish peasants believing a shameful belief in an Honor-Shame society. I have argued the scientific and medical evidence for why these uneducated people were mistaken in believing such a scientifically ignorant claim. You don't like that because it kills your position. You don't like it because it leaves your position flapping WAY out on the limb of fringe thinking in a modern, educated society.
                            Look at how rediculous that list is!
                            1. Doesn't have any explanatory power for why people would believe in a resurrection, so it's worse than useless.

                            2. Starts off ignoring the specific evidence in favor of a generalization and concludes with, "false sightings, visions, and hallucinations that occurred days, weeks, months, or years later; it then spread by mass hysteria among uneducated, superstitious people." False sightings being what he's arguing for to begin with, so he's begging the question, visions without giving a source (from God? ), hallucinations that happen to be so remarkably similar for a disparate group of people that they all decide to start a religion together? And lastly, mass hysteria, I am not an expert on that, but a simple glance at wikipedia shows things like epileptic fits, meowing, and dancing to death. Certainly extreme, but also very different from a concrete belief that an itinerant preacher rose from the grave.

                            3. Is something you claimed isn't true earlier, and is an idea openly mocked by several historians. There is too much evidence too early for anyone who trusts the historic process to doubt his existence. But feel free to ignore an entire subject taught in every school everywhere.

                            4. It is true, there were people who believed this at a relatively early point, but they were rebuked by the people who actually claimed to see and interact with Jesus, such as Paul who said that if Jesus didn't rise in the flesh then all Christians are to be pitied.

                            You conclude your arguments are based off science and medicine. Which would be great, except there is no scientific evidence for or against the supernatural, because science isn't meant to examine that type of truth claim. Science is exceptional at demonstrating the world without supernatural influence, and medicine does its part in telling us about the human body and how to take care of it. You have to leave that discipline and go to metaphysics if you want to be told about whether there could logically be a God or not, and if you refuse to (which you have so far), then we are again left with the generalities of science vs the specifics of the historical record.

                            Your position is lacking because of your utter failure to consider other academic disciplines that cannot be replaced by the scientific method which puts you on the fringe of all academic knowledge since the Academy in Athens.
                            Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                              If your position is that it is impossible for someone to be a Christian unless they believe like you, then by definition you are a fundamentalist.
                              My position is that a person who declares the statements of attested-by-God-apostles to be false needs a solid argument in favour of gainsaying them. You haven't mounted any such argument, just fallen back on appeals to questionable authority.
                              sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
                                I said I'd stay out of this, so feel free to respond or not respond as you will. This was meant for our observers, I am rather uninterested in speaking with you unless you stop repeating yourself and committing logical fallacies, and I doubt you've decided to enjoy speaking to me



                                Look at how rediculous that list is!
                                1. Doesn't have any explanatory power for why people would believe in a resurrection, so it's worse than useless.

                                2. Starts off ignoring the specific evidence in favor of a generalization and concludes with, "false sightings, visions, and hallucinations that occurred days, weeks, months, or years later; it then spread by mass hysteria among uneducated, superstitious people." False sightings being what he's arguing for to begin with, so he's begging the question, visions without giving a source (from God? ), hallucinations that happen to be so remarkably similar for a disparate group of people that they all decide to start a religion together? And lastly, mass hysteria, I am not an expert on that, but a simple glance at wikipedia shows things like epileptic fits, meowing, and dancing to death. Certainly extreme, but also very different from a concrete belief that an itinerant preacher rose from the grave.

                                3. Is something you claimed isn't true earlier, and is an idea openly mocked by several historians. There is too much evidence too early for anyone who trusts the historic process to doubt his existence. But feel free to ignore an entire subject taught in every school everywhere.

                                4. It is true, there were people who believed this at a relatively early point, but they were rebuked by the people who actually claimed to see and interact with Jesus, such as Paul who said that if Jesus didn't rise in the flesh then all Christians are to be pitied.

                                You conclude your arguments are based off science and medicine. Which would be great, except there is no scientific evidence for or against the supernatural, because science isn't meant to examine that type of truth claim. Science is exceptional at demonstrating the world without supernatural influence, and medicine does its part in telling us about the human body and how to take care of it. You have to leave that discipline and go to metaphysics if you want to be told about whether there could logically be a God or not, and if you refuse to (which you have so far), then we are again left with the generalities of science vs the specifics of the historical record.

                                Your position is lacking because of your utter failure to consider other academic disciplines that cannot be replaced by the scientific method which puts you on the fringe of all academic knowledge since the Academy in Athens.
                                If you had read my comments carefully you would have seen that I never once said that the supernatural is impossible. I said that the supernatural is improbable. It is improbable because these supernatural events for some odd reason do not happen today but only in the ancient past, a time without video cameras and scientists who could observe the phenomena in question. They don't seem to happen when non-believers are present to witness them. They almost always happen to farmers, fishermen, and other uneducated, superstitious people.

                                Like it or not, in our culture, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Just because you and your buddies believe that you had a thirty minute conversation with a green space alien last night, does not mean that the rest of us should simply accept your word for it because you sincerely believe it; because you are willing to die for it; and because it is a shameful belief in a Honor-Shame society.
                                Last edited by Gary; 08-02-2015, 11:49 AM.

                                Comment

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