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
    So you are saying that the apostles Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to all these events, but, one of them says that "the car accident" was in Galilee while the other says "the car accident" was in Jerusalem...and you expect us to still believe that these two guys were eyewitnesses to this alleged event???

    Come on, people!
    Well now, we could take it that either one of the witnesses (if not both) has a slightly faulty grasp or geography, or that the investigator has mistakenly assumed one car accident when in fact there have been two.

    According to Matthew: The angel said to the women: Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’
    Further, according to Matthew: Now, the disciples went to Galilee.
    Does Matthew's account make any mention of when they set out for Galilee?
    That "now" might indicate there was a reasonably lengthy time before they left Jerusalem: then again, maybe not.

    According to your estimation of the record of John,
    (No appearances in Galilee)
    John 21:1 - After these things Jesus showed Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias**, and in this way He showed Himself:
    ~~~~ detailed account ~~~~
    John 21:14 - This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead.
    ** The Sea of Tiberius was the Roman name for the Sea of Galilee.

    It is reasonable to assume that there were indeed two car accidents.
    Last edited by tabibito; 08-11-2015, 09:02 PM.
    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


    • You obviously did not read my comment on John chapter 21 being a later addition to the Gospel.

      Even if you want to believe that Matthew chose to never mention the appearances of Jesus (to his male disciples) in Jerusalem, and believe that Luke chose never to mention appearances in Galilee; that they both chose to only discuss particular appearances that "fit the theme" of their book, and, you ignore the fact that the original Gospel of Mark had zero appearances, and that many scholars believe that the 21st chapter of the Gospel of John is a forgery, or at a minimum, a later addition, you still have one problem:

      Jesus himself says in the Gospel of Luke that the disciples are to REMAIN in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit is given (Pentecost). Bouncing back and forth to Galilee does NOT meet the definition of the word, "remain"...unless, of course...you are Bill Clinton.
      Last edited by Gary; 08-11-2015, 09:42 PM.

      Comment


      • The first nine verses of John 21 - at least - can't be considered additions - there is no substantiated evidence that they are not original. Some doubt may reasonably be entertained about the final verses.

        It is interesting to note how often inconvenient verses get labelled "late additions" or "interpolations" by parties with vested interests, whether Christian or Atheist.
        Even without John 21 - it is reasonable to understand the "now*" (or "then", depending on the translation) of Matthew's "now the eleven disciples went to Galilee" as indicating a break in the narrative. Just as internal evidence in this chapter indicates a delay of some years between the events and the record being written.
        *actually the word is "de" - "but" or "moreover"

        All up - I accept claims of error in the Biblical record when they can be substantiated. There are some, and a couple that atheists don't seem to have found. I don't accept claims of error with as little supporting substance as has been presented in the "car accident" claim.
        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


        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          The first nine verses of John 21 - at least - can't be considered additions - there is no substantiated evidence that they are not original. Some doubt may reasonably be entertained about the final verses.

          It is interesting to note how often inconvenient verses get labelled "late additions" or "interpolations" by parties with vested interests, whether Christian or Atheist.
          Even without John 21 - it is reasonable to understand the "now*" (or "then", depending on the translation) of Matthew's "now the eleven disciples went to Galilee" as indicating a break in the narrative. Just as internal evidence in this chapter indicates a delay of some years between the events and the record being written.
          *actually the word is "de" - "but" or "moreover"

          All up - I accept claims of error in the Biblical record when they can be substantiated. There are some, and a couple that atheists don't seem to have found. I don't accept claims of error with as little supporting substance as has been presented in the "car accident" claim.
          Unfortunately if we could bring the authors of the Gospels back to life, and if these four authors testified in a court of law that they were not eyewitnesses nor did they get their information directly from eyewitnesses (only from people who said they were relating eyewitness testimony... but were not), most conservative Christians would still not believe the truth staring them right in the face.

          You still did not give a harmonization for Jesus' command to "remain" in Jerusalem.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gary View Post
            Unfortunately if we could bring the authors of the Gospels back to life, and if these four authors testified in a court of law that they were not eyewitnesses nor did they get their information directly from eyewitnesses (only from people who said they were relating eyewitness testimony... but were not), most conservative Christians would still not believe the truth staring them right in the face.
            That's true enough.

            You still did not give a harmonization for Jesus' command to "remain" in Jerusalem.
            Because it is unnecessary. kathizo (καθιζω) doesn't imply that a few or several days travel is prohibited. When I am in Japan, I καθιζω in Okazaki - but weekends, I could be anywhere on the islands of Honshu or Kyushu ... maybe even in Taiwan.
            Last edited by tabibito; 08-11-2015, 11:24 PM.
            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


            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
              that's true enough.

              Because it is unnecessary. Kathizo (καθιζω) doesn't imply that a few or several days travel is prohibited. When i am in japan, i καθιζω in okazaki - but weekends, i could be anywhere on the islands of honshu or kyushu ... Maybe even in taiwan.

              omg.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                I deconverted from Christianity due to the evidence. I would convert back to Christianity if shown good evidence.

                I lost my entire social network when I deconverted. All my friends and my wife's friends were in the church. Once we deconverted, we became non-existent to these people. It is as if we had died.

                So I have demonstrated that I am willing to take the heat for changing my beliefs. It would cost me nothing but maybe my pride to convert back. What would it cost you to deconvert, and, if you did discover sufficient evidence that proved to you that Christianity is false, would you be willing to pay that cost in order to be faithful to your conscience?
                Hi Gary,

                I have two questions. They are not debate questions since they have to do with your understanding. The first, when you were a professing Christian, how would you at that time explained to another person as to how to become a Christian? The second question, what was that you believed at that time you were originally surprised to discover was not even true?

                Thanks.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • Gary. In my last response to you, I had asked you several questions. You never answered them. You have a penchant of not answering my questions and then firing back several yourself. Thus, for your questions on Hell, I'll answer you when you answer me. Also, I do check the thread from time to time throughout the day to see what people are saying, but I am under no obligation to respond then. In fact, I often choose not to because that will take too much time and is too distracting. My time is better spent in other ways, such as reading books and not just google.

                  So go back to the post you made concerning Bart Ehrman and see what I said in response because around here, it looks like when you're answered on one point, you ignore it and go on to another point.

                  Such is not the behavior of a man of reason.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by William View Post
                    ?

                    come on.

                    give me hard evidence that every single person back then was too ashamed of crucified people to believe in their causes.
                    We have no evidence of anyone thinking in an individualistic mindset. If they had existed back then, then they would have been viewed as deviants just as much in their culture. This is the way these people think. We see it in similar cultures today.

                    Give me hard evidence of the resurrection while you're at it.
                    Already done in the debate. Still waiting for a response.

                    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.

                    Oh I always prefer that, but that means you respond to the evidence that is given.


                    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.
                    No it isn't. I'm quite convinced most of us in this thread who are Christians have read more of the non-Christian writers. I have in fact written several responses to books that I have read on the topic. I don't ignore it. If I find an area of disagreement, I speak about what I think this person is wrong in that area. That's not dismissing.

                    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.
                    And I could just as well say when you hold that everything must be a "natural" explanation, then you can give any possible natural scenario you want to avoid dealing with the data no matter how absurd it is. I'm only interested in the historical data we have and what explanation explains it best.

                    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.
                    Um. No. All that follows is that something unusual happened but there's nothing specific tied to the event. For the resurrection of Jesus, the claims of Jesus were directly tied to the event as well as the Old Testament promises of a coming Messiah. It was more than just a miraculous event. That's why N.T. Wright rightfully says that if it had been a thief next to Jesus who had resurrected the Jews would have thought "YHWH is doing some strange things." They would not have said he was the Messiah.

                    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.
                    Okay. Got any evidence that this happened? Got any evidence it has happened in modern honor-shame societies?

                    Who knows. I find all of these much more convincing than miracles.
                    So what? I find the arguments for God and the reality of miracles much more convincing.

                    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?
                    Sure. THe data. For instance, have you gone through Keener's Miracles?

                    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 did not suggest that they would not make mistakes. Inerrancy has never been a foundation for my position. I also question what you mean by a "perfect" way.

                    I am thinking that we'e just on two completely different planes.
                    We are. One of us is going by what we would like to have had done. One of us is going by what we have.

                    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?
                    Even if that's the case, we do it the same way. We look at the data that we have. Some events are better attested than others. This is also the case in secular history as well. It's not as if if there's a contradiction in the Bible then that means that everything is a grab bag. That's a very fundamentalist way of thinking.

                    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?
                    I made no such agreement. As for an all-powerful God, why should I think an all-powerful God would have to cater to my wants and desires?

                    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.
                    Some of it is true? Well geez. How could you know? Could it be you'd use the historical method?

                    You know, the exact same way I am right now?

                    Once again, it's you and Gary that are making an issue out of Inerrancy.

                    The rest of us don't really care at the moment.

                    Now you said the following:

                    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.
                    I replied with

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

                    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.
                    Now this really isn't an honest look at the question in my opinion. The Bible nowhere says "Just believe." It always gives reasons why. You can think those reasons are poor, but they are reasons. No one is asking you to ignore history. We're suggesting to read the scholars on both sides of the issue.

                    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?
                    And modern language presents a barbaric view of sporting events. How many times do I hear from sports fans about how one team massacred another or slaughtered another or murdered another? You would think the police would arrest some of these people....

                    Oh wait. Could it be that the language is highly symbolic language that is common in the era? Yeah. That could be it, just like our language does the same.

                    Once again, it's non-Christians that have a hang-up with literalism.

                    None of the rest of us do.

                    what?

                    the scholars dont know any better than the rest of us.
                    Okay. So you want to say people who learn the original languages and study the culture of the time and earn Ph.D.'s and pass peer-review on these topics that they dedicate their life to don't know any better than the rest of us?

                    That's either massive ignorance or arrogance.

                    They only have Paul's claim on it. maybe you rely too heavily on NT scholars. I dont know where Paul got the 500, but I think the number isnt accurate, if at all real, and that whatever number may have actually seen something, were mistaken in what they saw, if anything.
                    We do know where he got the 500. He received it from the oral tradition. The creed isn't original with Paul. He's passing along something that was formulated by the original community of disciples. Whatever they saw they were mistaken? Why think that.

                    I cant point to anytjing and say, "look there it isnt" so what can I show? Why doesnt Paul name his witnesses? Why didnt they write down their own testimonies? Why doesnt someone prove the 500 or their claims or any of it? "well scholars things..." some scholars think that. You embellish the majority agree upon, and you then want to assert that being skeptical of the miraculous claims is just as ignorant as being skeptical of someone like George Washington. If there are strawmen here, it wasnt me who made them.
                    Do you know how expensive writing was back then and yet you expect Paul to write out a list of about 500 names and this to be part of a creed that was memorized? Why didn't the rest of them write something down? Because writing was not the best means of getting your information out there.

                    And It's not derogatory. They were much less educated than we are today. They have much less access to information than we do today. they have far less means of transportation and communication than we do, which means it was harder to go verify for themselves or pick up a telephone to ask someone else about it. they were also far more superstitious than we are today, already believing all sorts of absurdities. Trying to make sound like they were better back then is like saying black people actually loved being slaves in the south. dishonest and just stupid.
                    Actually, I think by and large the average person back then probably knew more comparatively speaking than we do today. Most of us don't even bother learning anything today. Note also that my argument has depended on people who are middle and upper class becoming Christians. These people DID have the means to check and these people DID have the honor to lose and these people would not risk their position without having a strong reason to do so.

                    It'd be nice to see the argument I present dealt with.

                    This isnt a hard concept. It's not derogatory, and it's frankly dishonest to say otherwise.
                    Yeah it is derogatory. It boils down to a statement we have around here of "Ancient people were stupid." Sure. They would just blindly believe in a claim of a resurrection of a crucified Messiah. No problem.

                    And as for your two points, I think I've already dealt with two, so let's look at one.

                    1) if the bible was God's word to all of mankind, it may should have been written in a way to reach all of mankind. I do not claim to be perfect, so I do not claim to have the best suggestion, although I do have suggestions that would have been better than what we have.
                    I'm here in America. We live in a different culture far removed from the Bible. We live about 2,000 years from the time. We live thousands of miles away from the location. We speak another language. Yet many many people in America believe the message of Christianity. There are people all over the world, billions, who believe the message. There are numerous Christians all over the world who right now would give their lives for Jesus Christ.

                    Looks to me like the method that was used worked pretty effectively.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      Hi Gary,

                      I have two questions. They are not debate questions since they have to do with your understanding. The first, when you were a professing Christian, how would you at that time explained to another person as to how to become a Christian? The second question, what was that you believed at that time you were originally surprised to discover was not even true?

                      Thanks.
                      How to become a Christian: Recognize the you are a sinner bound for an eternity in Hell; repent of your sins; believe in the resurrected Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

                      What I discovered was not true, or at least had very poor evidence to support believing it:

                      1. The existing manuscripts of the Bible have thousands of scribe alterations and additions to the text. The overwhelming majority of these alterations and additions are insignificant, but some such as the story of the woman caught in adultery; the story of the angel stirring the water at the pool of Bethesda; and the Johannine Commae, the only passage in the Bible that EXPLICITLY spells out the Trinity, are significant and very troubling, at least to me.

                      2. There are many, many discrepancies in the Bible. One of the big ones is how Judas died and who purchased the Potter's Field. The Christian harmonizations for these discrepancies just don't seem believable. There are many instances in the Old Testament where the details regarding the number of casualties in a battle, or the number of chariots, or soldiers is told in two books and are wildly different.

                      3. The six resurrection accounts in the four gospels, Acts, and I Corinthians are extremely difficult, and in my final analysis, impossible to reconcile. I recognize that eyewitnesses can give slightly different accounts of an event, but the "testimony" in these six accounts are so very different that I do not believe that they are from eyewitnesses. To me, it looks more like there was a core story of a first century prophet who taught some good teachings, was then executed, and after then over years the story became embellished with all kinds of wild, supernatural details (zombies roaming the streets? three hour eclipses??).

                      4. Most scholars today believe that the authors of Matthew, Luke, and possibly John borrowed heavily from Mark. Why would Matthew and John, two alleged eyewitnesses need to borrow material from Mark, a non-eyewitness?

                      5. Modern scholars do not believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Jesus believed he did.

                      6. Modern scientists and geologists can prove that there was no world wide flood that destroyed every breathing creature on earth except for eight people and two of each kind of animal. Jesus believed this story was true.

                      7. The overwhelming majority of archeologists do not see any evidence to believe in the historicity of the Hebrew Slavery in Egypt, the Exodus, the Forty Years in the Sinai, the Conquest of Jerusalem, nor the great kingdoms of David and Solomon as described in the Bible. Jesus believed these events were historically accurate.

                      8. Many scholars believe the book of Daniel was written circa 200 BCE, during the Greek occupation of Palestine, by a Jew in Jerusalem, not a captive in Babylon and Persia. It is a forgery. Jesus believed Daniel was a real historical figure.

                      9. The concept of Hell cannot be found in the HEBREW Bible. The Jewish translators of the Greek Septuagint changed Hebrew passages to incorporate an afterlife and a Hell to fit with the adoption of this concept into Judaism from Hellenistic culture. The terms "Hades" and "Lake of Fire" originate from the ancient Egyptians and Greeks. Jesus believed that Hades was a real place.

                      10. We have no evidence that any of the alleged eyewitnesses to the resurrection were willing to die instead of renounce their testimony of seeing a resurrected body. James, the brother of Jesus was killed, but he could have been killed just because he was a member of a despised sect. Millions of fanatics of new sects have been killed in human history. Their willingness to die is not proof of the veracity of their beliefs. We have no proof of the martyrdom of any of the Eleven. These stories are all based on Church tradition.

                      11. My last hope in keeping my faith was the testimony of the Apostle Paul. Why would a devout Pharisee, a hater and persecutor of Christianity, convert unless he really had seen a resurrected body?? However, upon reading Paul's own words, in I Corinthians and the 26th chapter of Acts, I saw that Paul never claimed he had seen a resurrected body, only a talking bright light...in a "heavenly vision". Visions are not reality. Bizarre conversions do happen.

                      I lost my cherished faith and saw Christianity for what it was: A house of cards. A superstition-based belief system based on assumptions, hearsay, and the opinions of biased experts---Christian NT scholars. Assumptions, hearsay, and even the opinion of non-biased experts are considered weak forms of evidence. There is no hard evidence for this supernatural claim, and I believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence for ME to believe it. I cannot believe an extraordinary, supernatural, 2,000 year old claim...by faith.
                      Last edited by Gary; 08-12-2015, 12:57 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                        Gary. In my last response to you, I had asked you several questions. You never answered them. You have a penchant of not answering my questions and then firing back several yourself. Thus, for your questions on Hell, I'll answer you when you answer me. Also, I do check the thread from time to time throughout the day to see what people are saying, but I am under no obligation to respond then. In fact, I often choose not to because that will take too much time and is too distracting. My time is better spent in other ways, such as reading books and not just google.

                        So go back to the post you made concerning Bart Ehrman and see what I said in response because around here, it looks like when you're answered on one point, you ignore it and go on to another point.

                        Such is not the behavior of a man of reason.
                        It's ok if you don't believe in Hell, Nick. It is nothing to be ashamed of.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                          We have no evidence of anyone thinking in an individualistic mindset. If they had existed back then, then they would have been viewed as deviants just as much in their culture. This is the way these people think. We see it in similar cultures today.



                          Already done in the debate. Still waiting for a response.




                          Oh I always prefer that, but that means you respond to the evidence that is given.




                          No it isn't. I'm quite convinced most of us in this thread who are Christians have read more of the non-Christian writers. I have in fact written several responses to books that I have read on the topic. I don't ignore it. If I find an area of disagreement, I speak about what I think this person is wrong in that area. That's not dismissing.



                          And I could just as well say when you hold that everything must be a "natural" explanation, then you can give any possible natural scenario you want to avoid dealing with the data no matter how absurd it is. I'm only interested in the historical data we have and what explanation explains it best.



                          Um. No. All that follows is that something unusual happened but there's nothing specific tied to the event. For the resurrection of Jesus, the claims of Jesus were directly tied to the event as well as the Old Testament promises of a coming Messiah. It was more than just a miraculous event. That's why N.T. Wright rightfully says that if it had been a thief next to Jesus who had resurrected the Jews would have thought "YHWH is doing some strange things." They would not have said he was the Messiah.



                          Okay. Got any evidence that this happened? Got any evidence it has happened in modern honor-shame societies?



                          So what? I find the arguments for God and the reality of miracles much more convincing.



                          Sure. THe data. For instance, have you gone through Keener's Miracles?



                          I did not suggest that they would not make mistakes. Inerrancy has never been a foundation for my position. I also question what you mean by a "perfect" way.



                          We are. One of us is going by what we would like to have had done. One of us is going by what we have.



                          Even if that's the case, we do it the same way. We look at the data that we have. Some events are better attested than others. This is also the case in secular history as well. It's not as if if there's a contradiction in the Bible then that means that everything is a grab bag. That's a very fundamentalist way of thinking.



                          I made no such agreement. As for an all-powerful God, why should I think an all-powerful God would have to cater to my wants and desires?



                          Some of it is true? Well geez. How could you know? Could it be you'd use the historical method?

                          You know, the exact same way I am right now?

                          Once again, it's you and Gary that are making an issue out of Inerrancy.

                          The rest of us don't really care at the moment.

                          Now you said the following:



                          I replied with



                          You answered



                          Now this really isn't an honest look at the question in my opinion. The Bible nowhere says "Just believe." It always gives reasons why. You can think those reasons are poor, but they are reasons. No one is asking you to ignore history. We're suggesting to read the scholars on both sides of the issue.



                          And modern language presents a barbaric view of sporting events. How many times do I hear from sports fans about how one team massacred another or slaughtered another or murdered another? You would think the police would arrest some of these people....

                          Oh wait. Could it be that the language is highly symbolic language that is common in the era? Yeah. That could be it, just like our language does the same.

                          Once again, it's non-Christians that have a hang-up with literalism.

                          None of the rest of us do.



                          Okay. So you want to say people who learn the original languages and study the culture of the time and earn Ph.D.'s and pass peer-review on these topics that they dedicate their life to don't know any better than the rest of us?

                          That's either massive ignorance or arrogance.



                          We do know where he got the 500. He received it from the oral tradition. The creed isn't original with Paul. He's passing along something that was formulated by the original community of disciples. Whatever they saw they were mistaken? Why think that.



                          Do you know how expensive writing was back then and yet you expect Paul to write out a list of about 500 names and this to be part of a creed that was memorized? Why didn't the rest of them write something down? Because writing was not the best means of getting your information out there.



                          Actually, I think by and large the average person back then probably knew more comparatively speaking than we do today. Most of us don't even bother learning anything today. Note also that my argument has depended on people who are middle and upper class becoming Christians. These people DID have the means to check and these people DID have the honor to lose and these people would not risk their position without having a strong reason to do so.

                          It'd be nice to see the argument I present dealt with.



                          Yeah it is derogatory. It boils down to a statement we have around here of "Ancient people were stupid." Sure. They would just blindly believe in a claim of a resurrection of a crucified Messiah. No problem.

                          And as for your two points, I think I've already dealt with two, so let's look at one.



                          I'm here in America. We live in a different culture far removed from the Bible. We live about 2,000 years from the time. We live thousands of miles away from the location. We speak another language. Yet many many people in America believe the message of Christianity. There are people all over the world, billions, who believe the message. There are numerous Christians all over the world who right now would give their lives for Jesus Christ.

                          Looks to me like the method that was used worked pretty effectively.
                          Nick: I'm here in America. We live in a different culture far removed from the Bible. We live about 2,000 years from the time. We live thousands of miles away from the location. We speak another language. Yet many many people in America believe the message of Christianity. There are people all over the world, billions, who believe the message. There are numerous Christians all over the world who right now would give their lives for Jesus Christ.

                          Looks to me like the method that was used worked pretty effectively.

                          Gary: And Islam is soon to overtake Christianity as the world's largest religion. So by your logic, Islam must be true. And don't use the lame line that Muslims force people to convert. Many people, even here in the United States, are converting to Islam and they are not being forced.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            Welcome to Hotel California where you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
                            nice

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                              You obviously did not read my comment on John chapter 21 being a later addition to the Gospel.

                              Even if you want to believe that Matthew chose to never mention the appearances of Jesus (to his male disciples) in Jerusalem, and believe that Luke chose never to mention appearances in Galilee; that they both chose to only discuss particular appearances that "fit the theme" of their book, and, you ignore the fact that the original Gospel of Mark had zero appearances, and that many scholars believe that the 21st chapter of the Gospel of John is a forgery, or at a minimum, a later addition, you still have one problem:

                              Jesus himself says in the Gospel of Luke that the disciples are to REMAIN in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit is given (Pentecost). Bouncing back and forth to Galilee does NOT meet the definition of the word, "remain"...unless, of course...you are Bill Clinton.
                              this is how I also see the problem, Luke says that they were told to "Wait" in Jerusalem. If they went to Galilee then they didn't wait.

                              In Acts we see where they received power and Jesus ascended into Heaven - in Jerusalem, right? SO if they went to Galilee after that, and jesus met them... then that was the second coming...

                              Comment


                              • Seriously? The two statements about going to Galilee and then staying in Jerusalem are over a month apart! There's 40 days between the Resurrection and Ascension! Plenty of time for some stuff to happen in Galilee and then the disciples go back to Jerusalem.
                                If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                                Comment

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