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 tabibito View Post
    1/ Christian translators had nothing to do with producing the Septuagint translation. The Hebrew-as-mother-tongue scholars who produced that translation also put the wording into present tense.
    2/ The qal perfect tense, denoting completed action, has uses beyond the simple past tense of English. Specifically with regard to the passage of Isaiah 53:3, we have a "past" tense relating to the person mentioned in Isaiah 53:2, the verbs relating to the person being "future" (qal imperfect). Thus, the "past" tense used in verse 3 is a past relative to the future. If we were to make this an over-exactly translated wording, it would come out as "will have ~". The problem with that translation being that it would not preserve the sense of the passage as nearly as a present tense translation does.
    3/ Translation of the words in view as "illness" or "disease" would be valid in some circumstances, but the words typically indicate more a matter of affliction in the more general sense.
    Well, I'm sure you and other Christians understand the Hebrew language better than all the Hebrew-speaking Jewish scholars who disagree with you.

    Comment


    • At any rate, my university library and my local library doesn't have Norman's book. I'm not spending $25 I don't have right now for it.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        Yes, I read this review before I posted. The last sentence I quoted shows that the reviewer is not to be taken seriously; it's basically categorizing all Christian arguments as tautological. I suspect that what we have here is an anti-theist happy to uncritically accept any anti-Christian argument because Christians are his main opponent.


        Wait, Norman buys into the pagan copycat thesis?

        Thanks for posting that - it confirms I need not look further. Also, I note that the author is writing outside his field of expertise.

        From reviewer vladimir998:
        Source: Amazon review

        Norman's list is a formidible one, but it is not as formidible as he apparently thinks. There are several problems with Norman's handling of materials:

        1) He seems almost completely uninformed about Christian apologetic works that deal with the "contradictions" he raises.

        2) He relies overly much on secular works which approach the New Testament and Jesus from the vantage point of the unbelieving, heavily modernist influenced debunker. If Norman wants to refute Christians, he should probably use Christian works and not those written by men who laugh at his religion as much as they do Christianity. This obvious problem goes entirely unadmitted by Norman. These "scholars", rationalists all, think that Norman is just as much a dope as any Christian for daring to believe in the Old Testament.

        3) Norman often makes mistaken conclusions or suggestions when he thinks he is covering all of the bases. When dealing with a problematic verse that he claims the Christian understanding of which is untenable and, he, therefore, rules out the possibility that the "contradiction" could be resolved by use of the Septuagint. Fair enough. But what about the possibility that the gospel writers used a mss. that simply survives no longer in copies or that they were simply using paraphrases? These seemed like obvious possibilities to me, but Norman never even suggests them. He apparently believes never mentioning them is the same as their not existing.

        Norman's book is, however, very useful for anyone who wishes to understand the ammo used by "anti-missionaries" - a term Norman sees as no insult to himself and other Jews. He provides, for instance, an appendix with "Nine examples of the three hundred false messianic prophecies used in the Christian Bible". Such lists are certainly useful.

        I must add that Norman's book is not a difficulty for any serious Christian apologist. Those who know Christianity well will certainly be able to show the flaws in Norman's arguments. Some of them are glaring!

        © Copyright Original Source


        (emphasis added)

        Try coming up with something that actually deals with counter-arguments next time; this work patently does not.
        You are correct that there is nothing new in Norman's criticisms of the Christian Bible. Critics have noticed these discrepancies and errors for two thousand years. And Christians have had two thousand years to come up with some of the most mind-boggling harmonizations to explain away these discrepancies and errors. I would encourage everyone to read Norman's book and decide for yourself.

        And here is something to keep in mind while you are reading: Would a "perfect" god really write a holy book that needs so much spin by human beings to understand??

        Comment


        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          Perhaps archaeologists will one day find the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.
          I wouldn't be too eager for that to happen. By the laws of probabilities, they will probably find the remains of a dead first century Jewish prophet inside.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            Frankly, I'm not sure where that would come up in his surviving correspondence. Paul was not writing apologetics; he was writing to those who already believed, mostly about particular problems they were having. There is no indication in the NT that any place was especially venerated for what had happened there - which is not to say that no place was venerated. It seems clear from early church history that such places were known, even if the trail of evidence is inconclusive at this remove, but large scale pilgrimage didn't take place until the 4th century (see Holy City, Holy Places?: Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the Fourth Century (Oxford Early Christian Studies) by P. W. L. Walker).
            When the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, they did not remove every Jew from the land of Palestine. Many Jews remained. If the location of Jesus' tomb was known to all Jewish Christians, at least some of them would have still known where it was. I find it incredulous that if an empty tomb existed in the first place, that Christians wouldn't still know its location.

            Probabilities and common sense tell us that the "empty tomb" is a later embellishment.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
              We have to ask why it did. All other beliefs died out and this one didn't. This one survived without military might and even overtook the Roman Empire.

              Had it been false, it should have died immediately.



              The rabbis quickly exposed the prophetic claims made by Matthew? Could you show me the rabbis doing that? Note I mean the rabbis at the time. Please do such.

              Also, we have no indication Christianity morphed. They taught a bodily resurrection with Jesus fully man and fully God from the start. With regard to other practices, they said circumcision was not required and held to salvation by grace through faith.

              Also, Christianity would have been just as shameful among the Gentiles. Crucified kings were popular nowhere.



              How about this? Go get the book and look up this claim and others. Many were verified by physicians. Why do I think doctors would dismiss much of this? For the same reason you are. That's not a conspiracy. It's the same reason many of us don't investigate claims outside of our worldview. Yet here you say that modern medicine has not documented one miracle claim that there has not been a natural explanation for. Keener wrote two volumes looking at such claims. Are you saying you know all of them are false without looking? That's a statement of faith. It's not one of evidence.



              We know this from Acts. Several of the people in the area owned land. These were also people held in high honor and even James, the brother of Jesus, was still seen as an honorable person even by Josephus. Travel to Jerusalem would not have been as unheard of. People had to travel the world and some delegates were going from Corinth to Jerusalem with Paul as 1 Corinthians 16 says. Paul himself says some of these witnesses are alive though some have fallen asleep. He's in fact begging them to question and this at a church where Paul has enemies who would love to show him a fraud.



              Jesus didn't ask for revenge. However, there was a generation of Jews that was judged. It was that generation. When they said his blood be on us and our children, what they were really saying was that they were innocent and that if they were lying, they were willing to have the blood of the accused fall on themselves and their offspring. That's not anti-semitic. That's just what it means. Now all you're doing is playing the "I find this offensive" card. If a group of Jews was judged guilty, it was only the Jews in the area at the time. It was not Jews of all time. There's no textual basis for that.



              I didn't say anything except asked if he interacted with Longenecker. Perhaps if we're going to play this kind of game, you should consider this work: http://www.amazon.com/Answering-Jewi...tions+to+Jesus



              Oh. It's simple. I'd challenge them on it. It's not about how I'd feel. How I feel is irrelevant. The data is what matters.



              ANd I would be glad to debate them on those points.



              Are you willing to look at Michael Brown's work on what the Jewish Scriptures say about the Messiah?
              Nick: "Also, we have no indication Christianity morphed. They taught a bodily resurrection with Jesus fully man and fully God from the start. With regard to other practices, they said circumcision was not required and held to salvation by grace through faith."

              This is your opinion and that of a fringe of evangelical scholars. Most scholars agree that the divinity of Jesus was not settled until Nicea when the proto-orthodox won, defeating the Arians, Gnostics, and others.

              Comment


              • Hey, AP, on a scale of 1-10(1 being didn't fail, 10 being that he failed so bad that a young child could do better), how badly does gary fail history/theology/hermeneutics?
                If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                  Well, I'm sure you and other Christians understand the Hebrew language better than all the Hebrew-speaking Jewish scholars who disagree with you.
                  Some current Jewish scholars, it would seem, disagree with the Jewish scholars who lived before Christ was born. And it would seem, some of them are no more careful of faithful translation to English than are some of the Christian translators.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • Dear conservative Christians: I have good news for you. William, Dave, Red Sea, I, and other skeptics can continue to bring up apparent discrepancy after apparent discrepancy in the Bible and Nick and other Christian apologists will always have a harmonization for that alleged discrepancy to reassure you of the veracity of your Christian faith. There are no new discrepancies. Christians through the centuries have faced every criticism we are currently presenting many times before. For 2,000 years, Christians have faced these same criticisms from other skeptics and have come up with some dazzling harmonizations to demonstrate there are no true discrepancies in the Bible. The interesting thing is that Mormons have had just two hundred years, and they too have a harmonization for every alleged discrepancy in their holy book. And I'm sure the Muslims and Hindus can do the same with theirs.

                    So you can sit back and relax. Your precious conservative/orthodox Christian Faith is secure...unless you start studying science.

                    And that is where it all breaks down. Christian apologists are usually not scientists. They are scholars, experts, of an ancient text, ancient cultures, and perhaps philosophy, but most are not scientists. Some, yes, but most are not.

                    Christianity doesn't do to well against science. Christianity has repeatedly been forced, grudgingly, to modify its interpretation of God's Holy Word, based on scientific discoveries. Let me list them:

                    1. A flat earth held up by pillars, with a domed ceiling (firmament) above.

                    It is true that Christians never taught this concept, but the ancient Hebrews, the original followers of Yahweh and his holy text, the Bible, did. It took the scientific discoveries of the ancient Greeks---pagans---for believers in Yahweh to learn that the earth is a sphere.

                    2. The earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around the earth.

                    Wrong again. Both Roman Catholics and Protestants believed this until the scientific evidence became overwhelming.

                    3. Six day Creation, with 24 hour days, a young earth of no more than 6,000-10,000 years old.

                    Wrong. Even the avant garde of evangelical Christianity is beginning to abandon this position. The scientific evidence is too great.

                    4. A world wide flood.

                    Nope. Geological evidence is overwhelming. There never was a world-wide flood. Conservative Christians are now re-interpreting the story of Noah to say that "earth" only refers to the "earth" or soil of the Euphrates River Valley.

                    5. No Exodus, no Forty Years in the Sinai, no Conquest of Canaan, no great kingdoms of David and Solomon

                    Most conservative Christians don't accept the archeological evidence for this position yet, but there is movement away from the literal reading of the text. Some Christians are now saying that instead of several million Hebrews wandering in the Sinai for forty years (for which there is not one archeological trace) maybe it was just a few thousand families.

                    6. Moses could not have written the Pentateuch.

                    "So what," say some Christians. "So previous Christians had a few things wrong."

                    Here's the problem, my friends: Jesus and the writers of the New Testament believed that Moses and the Exodus, and Noah and the world wide flood, were real people and real events. Science has proven them wrong. Science has proven that Jesus made mistakes. And if Jesus made mistakes, he was only human...and the entire conservative Christian belief system comes crashing down, down, down...
                    Last edited by Gary; 08-04-2015, 11:47 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                      No. He wouldn't have. For one thing, Rome was his patron then. You think he's going to seriously speak out against his patron at that point? Also, this is the exception that proves the rule. Why would you not bury the dead in a time of war? Who can?! Everyone is just trying to survive.
                      Most of the dead bodies were from the famine which were piled up inside houses and eventually burned. Josephus includes such a detailed report of the entire siege and destruction that it seems he would have mentioned it if an effort had been made by the Romans to destroy tombs that were outside of the city walls. He was in very good standing with Titus and even persuades Titus to release all of his friends and almost 200 women and children. He mentions other cruelties performed by the Romans such as killing unarmed Priests who had surrendered and butchering deserters and opening their stomachs to obtain gold coins that were being swallowed.

                      OBP has answered this well, but Paul in all his talk about the resurrection hardly gives a defense of it and answers objections to it. The only reason he says what he says in 1 Cor. 15 is that it's an example of rhetoric. He's starting by stating what is accepted to everyone to get to his main argument and his argument is not "Jesus was raised." It's "We will be raised." That's the resurrection that was being denied and it was necessary to state what was agreed upon first, that Jesus rose. Why mention the empty tomb? Death, burial, resurrection says enough.
                      I accept this point. Perhaps all we can say is that prior to Mark there is no evidence for an empty tomb.

                      No it doesn't. You didn't need Christianity to do that. Any society could copy such behavior and just not have the add-on of believing in a shameful crucified Messiah. You had stoics and cynics and others living such lifestyles as well. You did not need Christianity to be moral and many Romans were quite fond of virtue.

                      Right. The Christians would also want to gain honor among themselves naturally and guard their honor, but why add on a crucified Messiah? Anyone could give generously without that.

                      And it was already out there. You could find patrons willing to bestow their blessings. The problem with going to Jesus is that you have a broker who is considered a traitor to Rome and a blasphemer to YHWH.

                      Absolutely. That's the difference. If Jesus rose, then people who believed that would say His honor had been vindicated and they would go with Him for the honor, but that was only if He arose. If He was dead, He had zero honor. Avoid Him. If He was risen, He had all honor. Adore Him.
                      I pretty much agree with everything you're saying here. If Jesus was just a crucified messiah he should be forgotten about. I think we both agree that belief in a resurrected Jesus was critical and it is attested by the 1 Cor. 15 creed. It is this belief that takes away the shame of the crucifixion and restores Jesus to a place of honor.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                        When the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, they did not remove every Jew from the land of Palestine. Many Jews remained. If the location of Jesus' tomb was known to all Jewish Christians, at least some of them would have still known where it was. I find it incredulous that if an empty tomb existed in the first place, that Christians wouldn't still know its location.
                        Tradition tells us they did. According to the early church historians (Eusebius, IIRC), the site was buried under a mound of dirt, only removed when Constantine arranged for its excavation. The only Christians who believe differently are Protestants who are uncomfortable with the veneration shown the traditional site - and their postulated (in the 19th century!) "Garden tomb" has zero scholarly support.
                        Probabilities and common sense tell us that the "empty tomb" is a later embellishment.
                        Yet events of low probability happen, and common sense sometimes fails us.
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                          Hey, AP, on a scale of 1-10(1 being didn't fail, 10 being that he failed so bad that a young child could do better), how badly does gary fail history/theology/hermeneutics?
                          42

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                            Nick: "Also, we have no indication Christianity morphed. They taught a bodily resurrection with Jesus fully man and fully God from the start. With regard to other practices, they said circumcision was not required and held to salvation by grace through faith."

                            This is your opinion and that of a fringe of evangelical scholars. Most scholars agree that the divinity of Jesus was not settled until Nicea when the proto-orthodox won, defeating the Arians, Gnostics, and others.
                            Then I suggest you come up with a reply to scholars like Bauckham or Hurtado who have a CV far far better than yours.

                            STrange. Your source of Asher Norman is unbiased and we should all read it. Anyone we recommend would be fringe evangelicals.

                            Why do you want us to read what disagrees with us (Which we already do) but you are quick to say anyone who disagrees with you is biased?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                              You are correct that there is nothing new in Norman's criticisms of the Christian Bible. Critics have noticed these discrepancies and errors for two thousand years. And Christians have had two thousand years to come up with some of the most mind-boggling harmonizations to explain away these discrepancies and errors. I would encourage everyone to read Norman's book and decide for yourself.

                              And here is something to keep in mind while you are reading: Would a "perfect" god really write a holy book that needs so much spin by human beings to understand??
                              Here's something I keep in mind when reading your posts: You deconverted because your pastor didn't live up to your LMCS purity standards, and then walked off in a snit when he used words too big for you to understand in response to your questions.

                              Good day, sir.
                              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 Dave View Post
                                Most of the dead bodies were from the famine which were piled up inside houses and eventually burned. Josephus includes such a detailed report of the entire siege and destruction that it seems he would have mentioned it if an effort had been made by the Romans to destroy tombs that were outside of the city walls. He was in very good standing with Titus and even persuades Titus to release all of his friends and almost 200 women and children. He mentions other cruelties performed by the Romans such as killing unarmed Priests who had surrendered and butchering deserters and opening their stomachs to obtain gold coins that were being swallowed.
                                Not sure how this matters to the point. The Romans were also cutting down trees and crucifying people left and right.


                                I accept this point. Perhaps all we can say is that prior to Mark there is no evidence for an empty tomb.
                                Except Paul. There would be bodily resurrection in the case of Paul which implies an empty tomb and if that was customary, and I think it was, then....


                                I pretty much agree with everything you're saying here. If Jesus was just a crucified messiah he should be forgotten about. I think we both agree that belief in a resurrected Jesus was critical and it is attested by the 1 Cor. 15 creed. It is this belief that takes away the shame of the crucifixion and restores Jesus to a place of honor.
                                Right. If Jesus did not rise, who cares? If Jesus did rise, everything is different, yet it's hard for the ancient mind to think someone like Jesus would have even possibly been the Messiah just like it'd be hard to think of a convicted pedophile being the president of the SBC.

                                Comment

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