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
    Are you an all-knowing god? You can only hope you are correct, but unless you have supernatural powers, similar to the people in your ancient superstition, there is no way for you to know this.
    What do we need rescuing from? Okay, this ain't an argument, but I agree with Puddleglum.

    Of course, I'm talking about Jesus, not Narnia.
    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      My reaction to conspiracy nut reasoning is the same, whether it's coming from skeptics, or Christians. If a Christian apologist claimed that "Egypt records" do not match the claims in Genesis and Exodus because people had destroyed these record and had no evidence to back that claim up I would facepalm as well.
      yeah, and why not?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        Oh stop. What's there to rebut? Your point was nonsense, and I told you why it was. Gary isn't here for open and honest discussion. And asking you why you're defending someone who is acting obviously trollish is a legitimate question. You want me to have an open and honest discussion, but you don't seem nearly as concerned with Gary having one. If you did, you would've jumped on his case a long time ago.
        I'm afraid I just dont follow. You admitted to not even reading half of what gary writes, and now you're accusing him of not wanting honest discussion?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by William View Post
          this is a small thing maybe, but I try to remind myself that i am looking for truth, instead of trying to show that what i currently believe is truth. I know we differ on our understands of truth now, and may always, but i still think it's a valid point.
          I don't what know this means. What is wrong with arguing for what you believe is true? People are obviously going to argue for what they believe is more likely to be true than not to be true. I don't know anyone who would argue for something they don't believe is true, unless they're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary or they're playing devil's advocate. You yourself have been attempting to show us that what you currently believe is true throughout this thread. I don't even have to dig that deep, your post #1189 is filled with points where you're showing Nick what you think is true.
          Last edited by Adrift; 08-14-2015, 10:57 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by William View Post
            I'm afraid I just dont follow.
            Sure you don't.

            You admitted to not even reading half of what gary writes, and now you're accusing him of not wanting honest discussion?
            How many posts of his do you have to read before you realize they're all garbage?
            Last edited by Adrift; 08-14-2015, 11:12 AM.

            Comment


            • One question, William - do you see anything materially different between your posts and Gary's?
              1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
              Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              "It is not divine truth that makes the man seem more innocent in what is equally sinful, but human wrong-headedness." AUGUSTINE: re adultery

              "The synoptic gospels claim that Jesus was crucified on the 15th day of Nisan and buried on the 14th day of Nisan:" Majority Consensus

              Comment


              • The earliest Resurrection “encounters” were based on “visions” of Jesus instead of actually seeing him in the flesh.

                In the earliest reference to the resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15.3-8, we read:

                “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”

                Paul includes himself in his list of those to whom the risen Jesus “appeared”. He makes no distinction, but in fact equates, the appearance of Jesus to him and the appearances to others. The Greek verb Paul uses for all these appearances he mentions is the same one – ὤφθη (Greek – ōphthē) meaning “appeared, was seen” – in each case.

                “The choice of this word is significant because it does not necessarily imply the actual appearance of a person, but may only indicate an unusual phenomena…the use of the word ὤφθη in enumerating other visions in the Pauline lists…excludes such details as prolonged conversations, meals and resumption of ordinary life, on which the gospels dwell.” – Charles Guignebert, “Jesus” pg. 523

                The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol. V, p. 358) points out that in this type of context the word is a technical term for being “in the presence of revelation as such, without reference to the nature of its perception.” In other words, the “seeing” may not refer to actual sensory or mental perception. “The dominant thought is that the appearances are revelations, an encounter with the risen Lord who reveals himself…they experienced his presence.”

                There are many instances where it’s used of spiritual “visions”. For example: Acts 16:9-10 “And a vision appeared (ōphthē) to Paul in the night; there stood a man of Macedonia…And after he had seen the vision (horama), immediately we endeavored to go into Macedonia” Is there anyone who thinks the Macedonian man’s physical body was actually standing in front of Paul when he “appeared” to him?

                Same thing in Mark 9:4/Matthew 17:1-3, Moses and Elijah “appeared” (ōphthē) to Peter. Matthew 17:9 calls the experience a “vision”. Did their physical bodies actually appear?

                The word is used in the LXX (Greek translation of the OT) to describe how the Lord God appeared to the patriarchs (e.g., to Jacob in a dream, in Gen 31:13). In the LXX stories that use this word, the emphasis is more on the presence of God and on its power to reveal than on the “reality” of the experience.

                “When Paul classifies the Damascus appearance with the others in 1 Cor 15:5 this is not merely because he regards it as equivalent….It is also because he regards this appearance similar in kind. In all the appearances the presence of the risen Lord is a presence in transfigured corporeality, 1 Cor 15:42. It is the presence of the exalted Lord from heaven. This presence is in non-visionary reality; no category of human seeing is wholly adequate for it. On this ground, the appearances are to be described in the sense of revelation rather than making visible.“ – Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 5 pg. 359



                We know from the book of Acts, Paul’s description of his encounter on the Damascus road makes it clear that this was a vision – a light from heaven and a disembodied voice – not an encounter with a physically-revived former corpse returned to life.

                Acts 9:3-8
                “As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him….”

                Acts 22:6-11
                “About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me….”

                Acts 26:13-18
                “About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions….”

                Acts 26:19
                “So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven.”



                We also know that the companions of Paul did not see or hear the vision/voice properly. This indicates that the experience was, at least in some sense, subjective to Paul.

                Acts 9:7
                “The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.”

                Acts 22:9
                “My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.”



                As far as the appearances go Paul makes no distinction, but in fact equates, the appearance of Jesus to him and the appearances to others in 1 Cor 15. So if we’re to take the accounts in Acts 9:3-8, 22:6-11, 26:13-18 as historical then the appearances mentioned in 1 Cor 15 were originally understood to be “visionary” in nature. This comes as no surprise considering Paul himself admits to having “visions” and “revelations” of the Lord (2 Cor 12:1). By Paul’s own admission, he was “seeing things.”

                Acts also records Peter as having “visions” in Acts 10.10-16. At the beginning, Luke says that ‘a trance came upon him’, and afterwards that he was perplexed at ‘what the vision which he had seen might be’ (Acts 10.17). Later, Peter begins to explain it, saying ‘I saw a vision in a trance’ (Acts 11.5). This makes Peter a particularly suitable candidate for ‘he [Jesus] appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve’ (1 Cor. 15.5).

                So we have evidence that two of the eyewitnesses mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:5-8 were susceptible to having “visions”.

                In the earliest manuscripts of Mark there are no resurrection appearances. In Matthew, only Jesus’ feet are mentioned and he appears on a mountaintop but “some doubted” (Matthew 28:17). In Luke and John the physical body is increasingly more emphasized. Also in John, the deity of Jesus is stressed which is nowhere mentioned in the synoptics. This seems to be clear evidence of a legend growing in the telling with the earliest beliefs being that of “visions” then to bodily encounters all the way up to Jesus being God in the flesh in John. If this story were actually true we would expect a lot more consistency than we get from the documents, especially if a perfect, all-knowing god is the Editor-in-Chief.
                Last edited by Gary; 08-14-2015, 11:38 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  I don't what know this means. What is wrong with arguing for what you believe is true? People are obviously going to argue for what they believe is more likely to be true than not to be true. I don't know anyone who would argue for something they don't believe is true, unless they're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary or they're playing devil's advocate. You yourself have been attempting to show us that what you currently believe is true throughout this thread. I don't even have to dig that deep, your post #1189 is filled with points where you're showing Nick what you think is true.
                  well of course. We all think we're right, so we present what we think is right. What i mean is more like when I was still a christian, I would pray, "Help me better understand the truth of your word," or something like that. But in that request, I presume to know what truth is. If we cannot fathom that we may be completely wrong, then are we really looking for the truth?

                  I then started praying something more like, "help me see teh truth and not believe a lie." And that's a sentiment I try to maintain still.

                  does that make more sense?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    Sure you don't.



                    How many posts of his do you have to read before you realize they're all garbage?
                    Hm, I dont have an exact number. I mean, I've read enough of the bible to know it's not what's it's proclaimed to be, but i still read it too.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      One question, William - do you see anything materially different between your posts and Gary's?
                      i think i do.

                      Comment


                      • When the angel appeared to Joseph in a dream (Matthew 2:13), the word translated as "appear" is φαινω
                        Herod asked the magi when the star had first appeared (Matthew 2:7): the word translated as "appear" is φαινω
                        When a vision appeared to Daniel, the second to appear (Daniel 8:1), in both occurrences of the word, "appear" is translated from φαινω
                        When a head of grain appears on a stalk, whether wheat or tare, (Matthew 13:26), the word translated as "appear" is φαινω


                        Originally posted by Gary
                        Paul includes himself in his list of those to whom the risen Jesus “appeared”. He makes no distinction, but in fact equates, the appearance of Jesus to him and the appearances to others. The Greek verb Paul uses for all these appearances he mentions is the same one – ὤφθη (Greek – ōphthē) meaning “appeared, was seen” – in each case.
                        The word that conjugates to ωφθη is ειδαμεν and it is no more certain in usage than is φαινω

                        When Moses and Elijah appeared (Matthew 17:3) the word translated as "appear" is οπτανομαι
                        Strong's definition
                        ὀπτάνομαι optánomai, op-tan'-om-ahee; a (middle voice) prolonged form of the primary (middle voice) ὄπτομαι óptomai op'-tom-ahee; which is used for it in certain tenses; and both as alternate of G3708; to gaze (i.e. with wide-open eyes, as at something remarkable; and thus differing from G991, which denotes simply voluntary observation; and from G1492, which expresses merely mechanical, passive or casual vision; while G2300, and still more emphatically its intensive G2334, signifies an earnest but more continued inspection; and G4648 a watching from a distance):—appear, look, see, shew self.
                        "He was seen by Cephas then of the twelve (1 Corinthians 15:5) - οπτανομαι
                        "He was seen by more than five hundred" - οπτανομαι
                        "he was seen by James, then by all of the apostles - οπτανομαι
                        "he was seen by me (Paul) also" - οπτανομαι

                        However, this is only a brief check of information - and it is possible that further information will show Gary's information to be less erroneous.
                        Last edited by tabibito; 08-14-2015, 12:47 PM.
                        1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
                        Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        "It is not divine truth that makes the man seem more innocent in what is equally sinful, but human wrong-headedness." AUGUSTINE: re adultery

                        "The synoptic gospels claim that Jesus was crucified on the 15th day of Nisan and buried on the 14th day of Nisan:" Majority Consensus

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          One question, William - do you see anything materially different between your posts and Gary's?
                          and also, just because someone can be jerk, doesn't mean that they are devoid of any sound points - although I would say it likely makes those points easier to miss.

                          I actually think Gary is making good points, although I wont deny that he could be gentler in his delivery. But I think it's also fair to acknowledge he gets as good as he gives here.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by William View Post
                            and also, just because someone can be jerk, doesn't mean that they are devoid of any sound points - although I would say it likely makes those points easier to miss.

                            I actually think Gary is making good points, although I wont deny that he could be gentler in his delivery. But I think it's also fair to acknowledge he gets as good as he gives here.
                            It is true that I can be a real jerk. I don't deny it. I am passionate about my campaign to debunk dangerous, discrimination-inciting, supernatural, superstitious beliefs, and in my passion, I can be blunt, condescending, and abrasive, especially if my opponents are equally as snarky. No Christian on this site other than Tabby and the person who asked me why I deconverted has behaved in a "Christ-like" manner in our discussions, but have repeatedly been just as eager and gleeful as myself, to get down in the mud and brawl. For Nick and Adrift (who defiles the temple of his god with tobacco smoking) to complain about my attitude is the pot calling the kettle black.

                            Nick and I first encountered each other on Daniel B. Wallace's blog. We were both blunt, abrasive, and condescending to one another. But instead of continuing to debate me there, he asked me to come here...and here I am. I am here at Nick's invitation. If Nick doesn't want me here, he is free to disinvite me. But until he does so, I will speak my mind as I please (while refraining from "excessive blasphemy", of course).
                            Last edited by Gary; 08-14-2015, 12:40 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Rats - ωφθη also conjugates οραω - which broader inspection shows to be the word used in most major manuscript groups - so on that count Gary is right. However .... οραω no more distinguishes between a vision and sighting a physical event, than does φαινω.
                              Last edited by tabibito; 08-14-2015, 01:09 PM.
                              1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
                              Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              "It is not divine truth that makes the man seem more innocent in what is equally sinful, but human wrong-headedness." AUGUSTINE: re adultery

                              "The synoptic gospels claim that Jesus was crucified on the 15th day of Nisan and buried on the 14th day of Nisan:" Majority Consensus

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                Rats - οφθη also conjugates οραω - which broader inspection shows to be the word used in most major manuscript groups - so on that count Gary is right. However .... οραω no more distinguishes between a vision and sighting a physical event, than does φαινω.
                                i sincerely find all of this interesting, but the tediousness nature of this minutia make me think the bible is even less likely from a god. The majority of people dont couldn't be expected to do this sort of leg work in order to make sense of this book.

                                Comment

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