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

    There is no dismissal. There is simply a stating of fact. One of the starting problems with the position is that people assume everything happened at once. How many nativities do we see with the shepherds there with the wise men? Wouldn't have happened that way.
    I disagree. When reading them all and trying to force them all together is tough. Beginning to end, it just doesn't line up. Each omitting significant details that the other captures. When people omit significant details, it looks like they're trying to hide something, unless that something didnt really happen. I'll read them again, though. I hope you do as well while trying to see if they can be mushed together in one master story.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post

      Here's the problem. Try doing this with any claim of ancient history. Say that you will not believe any ancient writer when you see an error or something that contradicts. You will walk away believing nothing. I am not asking you to treat the Bible as Inerrant or even the Word of God. I am asking you to treat it like any other ancient document.
      .
      I think another problem is that we're not understanding one another. I never said that I wouldnt believe anything that any history wrote if there was one problem. I never said that that i think the entire bible is false due to one problem.

      what i am saying is that I am automatically skeptical of supernatural or larger than life claims in any history. Perhaps you lean more toward belief until they are absolutely proven wrong, while I do not understand that approach, others are free to it.

      I am also saying that within a book, of many supernatural claims, I find errors and contradictions, then I become even more certain that their supernatural and larger than life claims are very suspect. If God can do anything and wanted us to all have his word, and if he can create the cosmos and raise dead men alive again and let them fly into the heavens, then why is it not fair to ask why his special message couldn't be written a little accurately? is that too hard?


      so again, I expect people to make errors and we all sift through history ;lending credibility to accounts. "This is probably accurate," "I'm skeptical of this but it could happened, or perhaps went down like this..."

      we interpret it. But with the bible, we're expected to ignore the problems and just believe Jesus was the son of God, born to virgin woman because Matthew said so, and that he died, came back to life and flew away. It looks to me that the we have to treat the bible like a special case in order to believe it.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
        This is false. Much of the resurrection evidence comes from the creed in 1 Cor. 15. I don't think the Gospels were written to convince people of the resurrection really.
        I made a mistake and left out 1 Cor 15. But at the end of 1 Cor 15, verses 35 and following, Paul goes through lengths to explain that resurrected bodies are not fleshly bodies, but new spiritual bodies suited for heaven. So Paul could speaking about jesus in spiritual Resurrection sense anyways.

        But regardless, amend my statement to include 1 Cor 15.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post

          And what I wonder is for instance with science, why think the ancients were interested in scientific terminology. Let's use two examples. For one thing, we're told about insects with four legs. These people were eating insects regularly and you know what? They could count. So what is going on? Jumping legs were not counted as legs. We might say that's ridiculous, but that's our modern standard.

          How about how the bat is listed as a bird. We look at modern taxonomy and think the writer got it wrong. Bats are mammals. That works until you realize the word used for a bird simply refers to a winged creature. Bats were included under creatures with wings.

          Hares eat poop and are compared to animals who regurgitate food to chew on, while simultaneously being set apart from pigs who eat poop but do not regurgitate food to chew on. Bats and birds don't settle this. "maybe there's an answer" doesn't answer it.

          seeds die, nothing rows. So then how is it an accurate statement to say a seed must die before it can grow?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post



            Okay. Two straw men.



            The idea of save us from a Hell He created for us and made Himself invisible and as much like an imaginary being etc. The language throughout this is entirely derogatory. For one thing, Hell is not created for men but for the devil and His angels. Second, this assumes that we are on the innocent side when in fact, most all of us, even non-theists, know we do things that are wrong regularly. That's the claim. We're not innocent. As for invisible, I think in fact God has given excellent evidence of His existence. I happen to favor the five ways of Aquinas personally.



            This is also a straw man. I am not a fideist. I do not leap. Leap would be saying "Okay. There's a God, therefore I'm going to be a Christian!" That's a leap. I do not do that. I make a case for why I think the Christian revelation is the true one. As for the sacrifice, you know the Son gave Himself up. Right? I also don't believe just because the human authors claim. I do so because I have indeed read those scholars for years and I think the case against the Bible is very weak.


            .
            I dont mean to be derogatory, only blunt and basic in what I wrote. It's the truth. Okay, so Hell was created for the devil and his angels, but on this point you're unfairly wanting me to perfectly accurate while pleading that a perfect God shouldn't be expected to deliver his important message error free. Hell is a place that all men were going without jesus, correct? Did God not know this when he created man?

            and when thinking about the worst possible crime committed to me, like someone raping and then killing my children. I might be persuaded to kill them. I may even desire to torture them - but at some point, i would not want them to continue to suffer. at some point, even with such an egregious and personal crime, I'd want it to stop. Am I more merciful than God, who'd torture them forever?

            and then if we looked at it like each condemned person were our children... come on.

            guilty? sure. deserving of eternal torture? I don't see justice or mercy there. Not in the least. And god made these rules. he only had to willingly offer himself because he made the rule that said it was necessary.

            I just dont think any of it adds up.



            I think it may not be me making strawmen.

            Thomas Aquinas may have had 5 points that lead intelligent design, but they do not help in discovering the designer. was it one or many? was it intelligent in the way we mean it? the questions go on, even beyond the limits of our imaginations.


            I find the case for the bible to be very weak. so we just differ there, I guess.

            Comment


            • One final response for this morning.

              Originally posted by William View Post
              I disagree. When reading them all and trying to force them all together is tough. Beginning to end, it just doesn't line up. Each omitting significant details that the other captures. When people omit significant details, it looks like they're trying to hide something, unless that something didnt really happen. I'll read them again, though. I hope you do as well while trying to see if they can be mushed together in one master story.
              It can be tough, but notice when we talk about harmonizations, we already have the text in an "Guilty until proven innocent" stance. Again, why not treat it as any account in ancient history? I have also read the texts many many times. If you want to discuss specific differences, that's doable, but it really doesn't matter without the resurrection.

              I think another problem is that we're not understanding one another. I never said that I wouldnt believe anything that any history wrote if there was one problem. I never said that that i think the entire bible is false due to one problem.
              Sure, but you take the idea of a supposed discrepancy with sandals as if it was a major point. That's not how history is to be done. Unfortunately, Inerrancy is usually the hang-up.

              what i am saying is that I am automatically skeptical of supernatural or larger than life claims in any history. Perhaps you lean more toward belief until they are absolutely proven wrong, while I do not understand that approach, others are free to it.
              No. I don't. I think you'll find Christians here tend to be quite skeptical. I've even posted in response to some things my wife has shared on Facebook to sadly inform her that the claim is false.

              I am also saying that within a book, of many supernatural claims, I find errors and contradictions, then I become even more certain that their supernatural and larger than life claims are very suspect. If God can do anything and wanted us to all have his word, and if he can create the cosmos and raise dead men alive again and let them fly into the heavens, then why is it not fair to ask why his special message couldn't be written a little accurately? is that too hard?
              Accurately to who? A 21st century American? An 18th century Englishmen? A 16th century Japanese? A 13th century German? An 11th century Frenchman? A 5th century Roman? A 1st century Jew or Gentile? To who?


              so again, I expect people to make errors and we all sift through history ;lending credibility to accounts. "This is probably accurate," "I'm skeptical of this but it could happened, or perhaps went down like this..."

              we interpret it. But with the bible, we're expected to ignore the problems and just believe Jesus was the son of God, born to virgin woman because Matthew said so, and that he died, came back to life and flew away. It looks to me that the we have to treat the bible like a special case in order to believe it.
              Who is expecting you to do that? No one here is.

              I made a mistake and left out 1 Cor 15. But at the end of 1 Cor 15, verses 35 and following, Paul goes through lengths to explain that resurrected bodies are not fleshly bodies, but new spiritual bodies suited for heaven. So Paul could speaking about jesus in spiritual Resurrection sense anyways.

              But regardless, amend my statement to include 1 Cor 15.
              I've responded to this kind of claim several times in the thread. Paul is a Pharisee. They believe in bodily resurrection. Paul uses the word Anastasis. That refers to bodily resurrection. Dale Martin, not a Christian, and Robert Gundry, who is a Christian, have written well to show that this is a physical body. Martin in The Corinthian Body and Gundry in Soma in Biblical Greek. Wright has a great section on this in The Resurrection of the Son of God and Licona does in The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.

              I've presented this data several times. No one's responded to it.

              Hares eat poop and are compared to animals who regurgitate food to chew on, while simultaneously being set apart from pigs who eat poop but do not regurgitate food to chew on. Bats and birds don't settle this. "maybe there's an answer" doesn't answer it.

              seeds die, nothing rows. So then how is it an accurate statement to say a seed must die before it can grow?
              And on the former part, I suggested consulting an Old Testament scholar in that area. For the seeds dying, it does not mean all seeds that die will grow, but I take it to mean a seed must die to grow, and in this case I take it to mean the burial in the ground.

              Edited to add:

              I dont mean to be derogatory, only blunt and basic in what I wrote. It's the truth. Okay, so Hell was created for the devil and his angels, but on this point you're unfairly wanting me to perfectly accurate while pleading that a perfect God shouldn't be expected to deliver his important message error free. Hell is a place that all men were going without jesus, correct? Did God not know this when he created man?
              No. I do not hold to that. I think there will be people in Hell who knew nothing of Jesus in this lifetime. I hold that God will be absolutely fair and there will be far more people in Heaven than realized. Also, my view of Hell is quite different anyway.

              and when thinking about the worst possible crime committed to me, like someone raping and then killing my children. I might be persuaded to kill them. I may even desire to torture them - but at some point, i would not want them to continue to suffer. at some point, even with such an egregious and personal crime, I'd want it to stop. Am I more merciful than God, who'd torture them forever?
              I do not hold to a torture view of Hell. I doubt anyone at this site does. I also think the greatest evil you can do is rejecting God. If God is real and He is the greatest good and the sustainer of all that is, then rejecting Him is the greatest evil one can do. God gives someone what they want for eternity. He does not destroy them but rather honors their choice.

              and then if we looked at it like each condemned person were our children... come on.
              And then if we looked at each person sentenced to life in prison like our children...

              Or sentenced to the death penalty like our children...

              Or sentenced to pay a large fine....

              Do you see what this leads to? We could say that any punishment is wrong.

              guilty? sure. deserving of eternal torture? I don't see justice or mercy there. Not in the least. And god made these rules. he only had to willingly offer himself because he made the rule that said it was necessary.

              I just dont think any of it adds up.
              I doubt anyone here holds to torture.

              I think it may not be me making strawmen.

              Thomas Aquinas may have had 5 points that lead intelligent design, but they do not help in discovering the designer. was it one or many? was it intelligent in the way we mean it? the questions go on, even beyond the limits of our imaginations.
              This is a straw man. Aquinas would not care for the ID movement today I suspect. Also, if you knew the arguments, you would know that it can only end in one being and that being has to be one that is what would be called pure actuality. I really recommend a work like Feser's Aquinas or The Last Superstition


              I find the case for the bible to be very weak. so we just differ there, I guess.
              Yes, because I find the case against it weaker and weaker.
              Last edited by Apologiaphoenix; 08-11-2015, 10:46 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                Upon what grounds is the LXX a poor Greek translation? Is there any reason to think Matthew was someone uneducated who did not know the language. He was certainly a highly educated man.

                Why was matthew certainly very educated?

                I think it was a bad translation as the word it was translated from was "young woman" and not "virgin."

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                  Okay. Give some hard evidence of an individualist back then.
                  .

                  ?

                  come on.

                  give me hard evidence that every single person back then was too ashamed of crucified people to believe in their causes.

                  Give me hard evidence of the resurrection while you're at it.

                  I am not wanting to be argumentative, and I want to resist the temptation to say, "this should be beneath you." I want this to stay cordial and I think you do too.

                  Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post


                  Sure. They could. I could even say that having an idol drink milk actually would not be a problem to my viewpoint.



                  Sure. So let's go with it. A Hindu idol drinks milk. What follows?



                  Hinduism has been around for thousands of years, even longer than Judaism, and we know of no significant opposition to it during its formation time, which we frankly know little about. When it becomes established, then the honor-shame argument no longer applies.



                  Feel free to try.

                  .


                  I just did. Defending Christianity is reading what subject matter scholars say in support of, but then dismiss what's in opposition to. It saying why discrepancies shouldn't matter. It's excusing it when it doesn't jive with science or history.

                  and when you have a perfect and all powerful God, you can invent any possible explanation to suite your purposes, since nothing is out of question for an all powerful God, even the absurd.

                  we should all try it.

                  Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post



                  No they don't. They use that partially, but they also study honor-shame cultures today. Most of the world still thinks this way so its pretty easy to do.



                  Sure. They could. I could even say that having an idol drink milk actually would not be a problem to my viewpoint.



                  Sure. So let's go with it. A Hindu idol drinks milk. What follows?
                  what follows is that Stone statues posses miraculous powers visible today, recorded with video tape, surrounded by true believers. so we should all convert to Hinduism.

                  or, it follows that people will believe in all sorts of nonsense.

                  all sorts.

                  next thing you know, someone will suggest that virgin women are having babies and dead men can come back to life and fly.


                  Moderated By: rogue06

                  I just merged several of your posts into a single one since they are responses to the same post.

                  ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                  Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

                  Last edited by rogue06; 08-11-2015, 03:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Nick never answered my questions:

                    1. Do you believe in a literal Hell?
                    2. Do you believe that your god will inflict some type of eternal punishment upon all people who reject Jesus of Nazareth as their God and Savior?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                      The poor were dishonored so what would that mean? They would hold on to their honor all the tighter. Crucifixion was sending a message to the poor especially and the non-elite. Crucified victims were not set up as an example for the elite. Roman Citizens would not need to worry about the cross for instance. You want to say things are possible, but give some evidence that this was going on.
                      .
                      or they'd feel like it was pointless to try and adhere to honor codes in a setting where the ruling class would always view them as shameful. They might have been bitter and disenchanted at the with the prevailing parties and this was as much a way to protest as they could get away with.

                      Who knows. I find all of these much more convincing than miracles.

                      You find the miracles to be much more convincing than other natural explanations. We just disagree.

                      There may be no more reason to discuss it then?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post

                        Sure, but you take the idea of a supposed discrepancy with sandals as if it was a major point. That's not how history is to be done. Unfortunately, Inerrancy is usually the hang-up.


                        you suggest that men only act one way (honor-shame society) and would not make mistakes, but then suggest that an all powerful and perfect God should be given leeway and not expected to deliver his prodigiously important message in a perfect way.

                        I am thinking that we'e just on two completely different planes.

                        any problem is a major problem. They couldnt agree on whether sandals were worn or not, but we can trust them with eternal maters related to terrible consequences? If we cant be sure whether it was alright o were sandals or not, how can we be sure what God really wants us to do?

                        But again, sandals were not the only issued raised, not the issue present, and even you agree it's a contradiction. Surely an all knowing God would have seen this coming and sure an all powerful God could have easily eliminated this problem, no?

                        the implications are bigger that "just one small problem."

                        It's not the ply problem.

                        And with men we expect errors. With a perfect God we expect perfection.

                        so if we see errors, I see men at the helm.

                        I think some of the bible is true. But we both see errors in it, so we're discussing what else could be wrong with it.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post

                          Who is expecting you to do that? No one here is.

                          the bible does. you must believe in order to be saved. I take most histories with a grain of salt, thinking they're based on true events, but likely not exactly accurate accounts of the events.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by William View Post
                            just another reason that preserved originals would have been helpful.
                            We can probably thank Diocletian and his cohorts for the loss of many originals, but the vagaries of time haven't been kind either. And papyrus just doesn't last that long except in very dry climates. According to tradition, the original of John's gospel was preserved in Ephesus for quite some time, but we don't have it any more.
                            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 Apologiaphoenix View Post

                              And on the former part, I suggested consulting an Old Testament scholar in that area. For the seeds dying, it does not mean all seeds that die will grow, but I take it to mean a seed must die to grow, and in this case I take it to mean the burial in the ground.

                              Edited to add:



                              No. I do not hold to that. I think there will be people in Hell who knew nothing of Jesus in this lifetime. I hold that God will be absolutely fair and there will be far more people in Heaven than realized. Also, my view of Hell is quite different anyway.



                              I do not hold to a torture view of Hell. I doubt anyone at this site does. I also think the greatest evil you can do is rejecting God. If God is real and He is the greatest good and the sustainer of all that is, then rejecting Him is the greatest evil one can do. God gives someone what they want for eternity. He does not destroy them but rather honors their choice.

                              yet the bible paints a tortuous version of Hell. It has jesus presenting a tortuous version of Hell. This is also my point, if we cant read "die" and really meaning "die" and if several other parts, like hell, cant be taken at face value, and if see other parts that are just wrong, then how can you be certain that Heaven is really a reward, that Jesus isnt just allegory, or that any of it couldnt mean something else?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                We can probably thank Diocletian and his cohorts for the loss of many originals, but the vagaries of time haven't been kind either. And papyrus just doesn't last that long except in very dry climates. According to tradition, the original of John's gospel was preserved in Ephesus for quite some time, but we don't have it any more.
                                And look at all the works from that era of which hundreds if not thousands of copies were made, often on the finest material and carefully kept, such as the legion of lost plays, philosophical discourses, histories and even writings from various Emperors. If so many of them were either completely lost or only fragments remain quoted in other much later works, why is it a surprise that the original copies of the writings of a despised and persecuted minority aren't around?

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

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