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

  • Dude, these are just too long. I may have missed one and Iím not proof reading these in my haste to push them out and get back to work Ė sorry.

    I can really sum it all up like this: You think the evidence given is sufficient to believe the miraculous claims. I find it lacking and remain unconvinced.

    and this is making me divide it into at least 2 posts...

    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    It would have been gravely inconsistent had they believed exclusively in YHWH. For many Jews, YHWH was being seen as one in a pantheon. They could have been henotheists, but they were seen as deviants by the other cultures around them, hence even wanting a king. They wanted the honor of the other nations and the blessings of the gods of the other nations so you have to do what those gods require. If that means sexual orgies, well that means sexual orgies. It's all a way of gaining blessings from the patron.
    Youíre saying that no YHWH jew was ever a whore or whoremonger?
    What would you say about thieves, liars, drunks? None of them either?


    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    He did? That's odd because you don't really see that in the epistles at all. The epistles say very little about Heaven and Hell and in fact, I consider our ideas of both in many ways to be a modern misconception. However, your claim is that the crucifixion would not be seen as shameful to those who were poor and could not climb the social ladder. Okay. Show it. Give some evidence these people existed. Meanwhile, I'm still pointing out we have people who were high on the social ladder and were not poor who did become Christians. Why?
    Jesus is quoted several times regarding hell and heaven. He told the story of Lazarus and the Rich man and often tangled with the Jewish elite, no?
    Who do you think made up the bulk of the disciples? Do you think it was more like 50/50 wealthy and poor, or do you think one class had a majority? Thereís always exceptions.


    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    They hadn't? This was Jerusalem. This was where the Passover had been taking place. What do you think people would be talking about? Recent events. This would include the talk about a crucified Messiah and his tomb being found empty. You're also forgetting something else. If you accept the account as accurate, a miracle took place at Acts 2. People who did not know foreign languages starting speaking in a foreign language. That would have been seen as a fulfillment of Scripture particularly Joel 2. That would get people's attention. I've also addressed sympathy many times. If someone did have sympathy, what would stop them from doing what you're doing? They could say "Yeah. Jesus was wrongfully convicted. Yes. That was an outrage of injustice." That's it. You could think that about the historical Jesus right now and yet not willing to say "Therefore, I will believe He rose from the dead."
    Talking about something is different that witnessing something. Being aware of an execution is one thing, but witnessing the dead come back to life is something else. All we know from acts 2 is that 3000 believed Peters sermon (which was preached the way I suggested it was) while many still didnít believe, mistaking tongues for drunkenness.





    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    Fine. Feel free to find the people in the ancient world who did not put honor and shame as their main motivators.
    So youíre no longer implying ďsole motivatorĒ but have come down to ďmain.Ē I am fine with that. People have many motivations and arenít always guaranteed to be ruled by what society sees and the ďmainĒ one. And even then, as youíve pointed out, there can still be a difference within a culture as to what is shameful or honorable, where what is one to one particular group, could even be the exact opposite to another.

    No, the more we discuss this point, the more I think we actually agree.




    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    You know what that tells me? It tells me we could discuss historical evidence until we're blue in the face here, but it wouldn't work unless you have an experience. Is that really the way to do a historical investigation?
    LOL, depends on what weíre investigating. They found Troy. Many Greeks cited Homer. So is the Iliad true and by extension Greek mythology as the iliad refers to it?

    Do you really not understand that certain claims are more plausible than others and that some require more substantial evidences than others? Your trying to put all historical claims on the same level isnít an accurate way or view it. Youíre either not as educated as youíre trying to demonstrate, or youíre just making strawmen with points like that, which is a sophomoric way to score imaginary pojnts in an argument. Letís skip that and just chat.



    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    Okay. Feel free to show who was arguing that. As for Newton, feel free to find the quote.
    Which part? Earlier you were saying that it was honor shame, and I asked about Harlotry (as one example) you said it would have been shameful to a jew but honorable to a pagan, right? I donít care to look back and cut and paste. Do you not recall saying that or are you recanting/revising?
    And Newton, when I get a moment Iíll try to look it up for you. You could always go to your local libraryÖ


    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    Yeah. Someone tells me "God told me" and my red flags go up immediately. I don't buy into that kind of stuff. Now are there fake claims? Yep. There have also been evolutionary fossils that have been faked. There are faked insurance claims. There is fake money out there. Does that discount the real? As for the passage:

    10:16 Jesusí conclusion ties back in with the reference to sheep in 9:36 and likens the disciplesí opponents to those who would attack the flock. With incisive, proverbial language, Jesus calls the Twelve to exhibit great acumen without sinful compromise. ďInnocentĒ literally means unmixed and refers to purity of intention. Shrewdness and integrity form a crucial combination not often found in the Christian church. In fact, we more often invert the two, proving to be as guilty as serpents and as stupid as doves! High Christology appears in Jesusí claim that oneís eternal destiny is based on oneís response to him and his emissaries.
    Well, I havenít seen any real miracles but I have seen real fossils, and real insurance claims, so even if there are fake ones (and there are) I have real ones to know that they are also real. VampiresÖ I think theyíre fake too Ė in part because of the fake ones, and in part due to the absence of real ones.

    Serpents are wary of anything, always on the watch for danger.

    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    Blomberg, C. (1992). Matthew (Vol. 22, pp. 173Ė174). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.


    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    No. Not at all. But I am saying when you have a compendium of miracle claims from all over the world and many of them with medical documentation, it seems a stretch to say at the start "They must all be wrong." I have no dogma at this point in this. If all of them were false, it would not prove miracles impossible. If one of them is true, it proves miracles possible and that changes everything.
    ďI doubt they are true.Ē Claims of miracles are made by all religions and sects of said religions. So even if I were persuaded that miracles did happen, which god did it? Which adherence to that god is the right one? And what if there are miracles from competing religions? Are both gods real?

    Visit India. Those folks have miracles every day, if youíre inclined to belief that sort of thing.

    But I have yet to read of a miracle, validated by medical professionals, of someone being dead for 3 days and coming back to life, or regrowing a missing limb before their eyes.

    Healing Steven Hawkins might be good trick. Win over your enemies is a pretty sound tactic.


    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    I don't claim to hear the voice of God either. What of it? I do claim that the evidence for the resurrection is more than sufficient and so I've been asking for a better explanation that explains all the data.

    No one has given one.
    This all comes down to opinion. I havenít seen sufficient evidence for the resurrection. You think the best explanation is the miraculous in this case. We just differ.





    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    Such a downplay of semantics, as if words should be used another way. You said God desires all men to be saved the most. I don't think so. That's not just talking about phrases but doing theology. As for saved, I make the case that God does not want converts. He wants disciples, and disciples are people who are willing to do the work of a disciple. Those who are not willing to work are not ready to be disciples.
    And you call me a fundy? Fine. ďGod is not willing that any should perish, and who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.Ē That better?


    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    I haven't been over there.
    Itís neat.




    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    No. A basic message can be got from the text easily enough, but to understand the text on a greater level one needs to do the research, just like we would with any other text. It's amazing that you speak so much about all this knowledge we have but seem so hesitant to apply it.
    Do i? in what way? I read. I study and travel. I do not devote 100% of my time to it, no Ė but if thatís what it takes, I donít think anyone would make it.

    And you should know that there is more knowledge to be learned that what is found in religion and philosophy. Or do you not consider your computer or doctor, or automobiles? You speak of the natural world as one of Godís revelations, but you seem here to be implying that for one to apply this knowledge, they must study to become an NT scholar. That seems shallow in thought, but I assume it was a remark shot from hip in a effort to score some sort of point?

    But yes, we have more knowledge today than they did back then. Is that really news?




    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    Ah. So you haven't read the book, but you already know that no miracles are proven. That's nice. Your evidence was to have miracles taking place. I think Keener shows that they are indeed taking place. But now you're saying "Well if other people are receiving miracles, that's not enough. I must receive one also."

    Why should you think you'll get one?
    I question claims regarding miracles and your solution is to send me a fellow who makes more claims about miracles, and you really donít understand why that isnít adequate?

    And I donít think Iíll get one. But Iíd be more likely to believe one I witnessed than one I didnít. It supposedly happened and worked for Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, the Israelites, Hezekiah, Naaman, all the apostles, Herod and Paul.



    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    Yeah I am. The claim in Romans 1 is that all of creation is testifying of His existence and reality. That's another way He has revealed Himself.
    What ion creation points toward the bible? I can see where creation may indicate an intelligent designer or designers, but does any part of it lead to the bible? Some of the things in creation seem counter to whatís found about it in the bible Ė what then? Just assume the bible must mean something other than what it says?

    Comment


    • part 2

      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      The difference is I've given my evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. If you want to say the Gospels were writing it as a metaphor, give some evidence of that. It's quite invalid to say "Because it was written this way here, it's written the same way there."
      It seems as arbitrary as the points youíve made. Hell seems like a literal, eternal place of torment, yet you claim otherwise. I was just saying that anyone can play that game Ė and I did so to show how dumb it can be.


      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      This is largely an argument from silence. Some of the church fathers however did speak about these people and spoke about them as real people and some could have even still been around.
      Oh, Iíd be curious to see it. Many of the early church fathers also spoke about other gospels and books that we donít recognize as cannon today. Some wrote about the differences in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Lots of interesting stuff.


      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      Sure, but if multiple people see the same thing, that's something that is not really a hallucination. It has to be explained what was seen.
      And as with alien sightings or mass witness miracles from other religions, itís usually explained as mistaken identity.




      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      Devoid of science....

      Okay. Let's see what scientific discovery they didn't know.

      Could you tell me when it was that modern science proved that dead people stay dead? After all, in the ancient world, they buried their dead because they weren't coming back, but maybe they all thought otherwise. (Despite my showing the Greek plays where it says the dead do not arise)

      As for prone to superstition, this just fits into the "Ancient People Were Stupid." When you're a middle or upper class person with wealth whose reputation is on the line entirely, you're not just going to blindly believe in something.
      Just because a few upper middle class people bought into it, doesnít mean that they all did. Look at scientology. And it doesnít take a history scholar to know that they didnít know as much back then or that they were far more superstitious.

      I donít think ancient people were stupid, I think that they didnít have the benefit of 2000 more years of learning that we have today. I feel like youíre trying to play this down to make your position sound better. You donít have to. Youíre reluctance to admit this simple fact doesnít make me question my position on it. I am an educated man Ė just because I admit to not having read on the subject of Christianity that there is isnít a statement of ignorance or lack of education.


      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      Well if you want the data for his followers in his lifetime, that's in the GOspels, and some were lower-class, but not all. Luke 8 points to a number of wealthy women who were his patrons and Jesus had to have several to be able to travel all over Israel. Matthew was a tax collector which would have required a good deal of education. Fishermen would actually need to have basic literacy in that day.
      I donít doubt that the people had literacy or that some wealthy people joined in- I just donít think thye majority of the early Christians were wealthy people.


      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      Okay. Do you have any evidence that any of this was going on? Why would they talk about a spiritual kingdom not on Earth and yet have Mark with Jesus on the move throwing out the devil and taking back the world for God and why would Matthew say "Your Kingdom come your will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven?"
      Any evidence that his disciples were distraught and confused? Or that people search for answers when theyíre taken by surprise, when what they thought was the case was actually not the case at all?

      Jesus was dead. The fact that their ďmessiah (guy who they thought would sit on Davidís throne)Ē was dead, may have prompted a second look at the idea of him ruling on earthÖ




      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      Except it wouldn't. This would lead to a charge that the Messiah was illegitimate. Worse than that, it would be like placing the blame of God on Mary having a child "out of wedlock." Furthermore, why would the Gospel writers make up so many shameful things about Jesus? He's from Nazareth? He's betrayed by one of his own trusted disciples? (And since Judas handled the money, he could have been the most trusted) His own family doesn't believe in Him? This doesn't fit with a hypothesis of fiction. Furthermore, if the church was making this up, why would Matthew and Luke have such radically different accounts?
      That rumor was going around, wasnít it? Shameful? but your first paragraph to this iteration started off by saying that most were influenced by the pagans. Pagans already had a lot of Demigods, so now the jews did too. Same reason there were whores and johns back then. And thieves. And explains why there were jewish tax collectors in Roman occupation. Lazy drunkards too.

      You accuse me of being fundy, but you keep suggesting that this shame/honor society made people into robots and there was never a deviation. Deviations happen all the time, regardless of culture. Travel sometime and maybe youíll experience a little on your own.


      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      Do you really have any idea about the concept of YHWH in Second Temple Judaism? This isn't something taken lightly. No one up until then was included in the Godhead. No one. Yet scholars like Hurtado and Bauckham have shown that Jesus being seen as fully in the divine identity was not a later development. That's how the movement started.
      One reason they killed him, I suppose.


      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      Because the Jews were not Greeks. Faithfulness to YHWH was essential to the covenant. If Jesus was crucified, then YHWH had spoken. He was under a curse. Also, there is not the emphasis on the afterlife that you think there is.
      Makes me think of Deuteronomy 13.


      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      Not more plausible after the evidence. Theft theories really aren't taken as seriously today. The disciples stole the body and then lied. Why? How does that explain the appearances then? The Jews or Romans stole it. Why? Grave robbers? They didn't steal whole bodies. They just stole certain parts. Went to the wrong tomb? Kirsopp Lake argued this at one time. He didn't get much success with it. Anyone would have been more than happy to point out the right tomb.
      People do weird things. Disciples could have stolen it to start a story about resurrection, I really dont know. The Jews could have stolen it to prevent there from being a martyr monument (same reason USA dropped Bin Laden into the sea). And the Romans? Heck if I know. Maybe Joseph really did try to buy the body to burry it, but the Romans reneged when he came to collect, just throwing the body in a mass grave in Gehenna instead. It seems so odd that none of these are taken seriously, but that an idea about a body coming back to life and flying away isÖ


      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      I think otherwise and a Google search could provide a lot. It could provide a lot of nonsense as well. The best material to go to is the books by the people who have studied this the most. Keep in mind what someone like Jodi Magness, a Jewish scholar, say about the burial accounts in the Gospels.


      ďJesus came from a modest family that presumably could not afford a rock- cut tomb. Had Joseph not offered to accommodate Jesusí body his tomb (according to the Gospel accounts) Jesus likely would have been disposed in the manner of the lower classes: in a pit grave or trench grave dug into the ground. When the Gospels tell us that Joseph of Arimathea offered Jesus a spot in his tomb, it is because Jesusí family did not own a rock- cut tomb and there was no time to prepare a grave- that is there was no time to dig a grave, not hew a rock cut tomb(!)óbefore the Sabbath. It is not surprising that Joseph, who is described as a wealthy and perhaps even a member of the Sanhedrin, had a rock-cut family tomb. The Gospel accounts seem to describe Joseph placing Jesusí body in one of the loculi in his familyís tomb. (Jodi Magness, Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus, pg 170)


      ďThere is no need to assume that the Gospel accounts of Joseph of Arimathea offering Jesus a place in this family tomb are legendary or apologetic. The Gospel accounts of Jesusís burial appear to be largely consistent with the archeological evidenceĒ ( Magness, pg 171)
      Yeah I can buy that Joseph may have offered his tomb. Jesus may have actually been buried there Ė but what archeological evidence is there? I doubt she means a tomb with an inscription ďfrom: Joseph, To: JesusĒ on it that dates to around 30AD. Thatís kind of a joke, yes, but thereís plenty of reason to suspect itís fictions. It may be as much information as we have for anyone buried at that time, yes, but other burials arenít tied to claims of coming back to life and flying off. That huge claim makes the entire story suspect for me. I can believe there are nuggets of truth intermingled, but I wouldnít bet my life on which ones.


      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      I do not find it hard to see that. What I find hard to see is people who will go with "I'll believe anything before I believe a miracle."
      I will believe something natural happened, until I actually see something unnatural happen.



      [QUOTE=Apologiaphoenix;231247]James Crossley on his first debate with Gary Habermas on Unbelievable referred to the creed in 1 Cor. 15 as golden. This is the kind of stuff historians would dream of having for other works. The appearances remain something really undisputed in the scholarly
      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      literature and this is not just Christians. Gerd Ludemann tried to connect it to what happened at Pentecost in Acts, but now he's abandoned that position.
      That some believed or claimed jesus appeared to them isnít disputed, itís the accuracy of those claims and the reality of those beliefs that are disputed.

      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      Even though you did say it.
      Even though you took it out of context? Even though you appeared to take it out of context deliberately? I had hoped we were above that.


      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      When we go to any point in the ancient text, yes, the scholars do know better than we do.
      I donít deny that they have a grand education, and know more than me on many topics. But I am unclear as to what youíre getting at Ė are you saying that since they have studied more and have read more, that I should have faith in them and align with their position by default?

      If so, should we do this with experts in every field?

      And do you realize that no one can be the best at everything, so everyone will end up having to default to the beliefs of someone else on various topicsÖ is that what you do?

      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      No we don't. That's also why you must learn how to recognize what books are the most worth reading, such as looking at the credentials of the author and looking at the publishing house that printed it.
      Okay.


      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      No. Not really. A scholar should not be just dismissed, but their claims taken seriously save the extreme fringe positions. (The number of NT scholars and classicist scholars in the world who say Jesus never existed could be counted on one hand. That position is not taken seriously.)
      I think miracles are an extreme fringe position, which why I ask for more evidence beyond the claims of people who lived in very superstitious times, amongst all sorts of religions and superstitious ideas.


      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      A large number could go for a spiritual resurrection if not a physical one. Many of them when they get to the point of the resurrection just stop writing. This even includes Christian scholars.


      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      Yes. Put forward an argument as to why we should think miracles cannot occur or do not occur.
      I guess they can. And if youíve seen one, I am sure it was impressive. I just donít buy claims that they happened. It would take me seeing one, or seeing someone I knew had been lame or dead healed/raised.

      Again, a claim of the miraculous is not the same as claim of the mundane and common. And Iíd be skeptical of wild claims of huge feats that werenít miraculous.

      You even requesting this seems odd to me. Why donít you put forth evidence that they do happen, or is all you have claims that some have happened? And if claims are evidence, then my claim that there isnít, is evidence. And if youíve never witnessed one, then thatís more evidence.



      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      It doesn't mean I haven't done the reading. I've read the Mormon Scriptures, the main works of Taoism and Confucianism. I've also read the Koran. But I can tell you that if I was going to go and argue against Muslims regularly, for instance, and argue about their holy book, I would be reading up a lot more about it.
      I have read the bible extensively and still do. I read up on extra biblical literature that relates to the bible from sources on all sides, pro, con and neutral. What I reject regarding scholars is that one must take their side until weíve read as much as they. Thatís silly, as it would have us aligning with every expert on every field. Plus, itís just trying to force people into agreeing with your select scholars Ė if one should default to their opinion until theyíve read more than them, then theyíll likely never have read as much as we donít have academic jobs where we can sit around and study this subject to the extent they can.

      And honestly, I am still a little unsure as to how you define subject ,matter experts. You keep saying NT scholars, and by that do you mean the people who specialize in the NT, or do you include the non-religious who specialize in the time period and location?

      But even so, once you felt certain that the other religions werenít from God, you abandoned them and didnít keep studying until you were convinced they were right. You treat the bible special and you seem to expect others to toss other religions aside, but when it comes to the bible, keep reading all you can until you believe it, and if you donít, trust the NT scholars who believe itís real until youíve read more than them. This is kinda dumb.






      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      I would contend that's because you've still got a fundamentalist idea of what the Scriptures are supposed to be, an idea that's completely foreign to them.
      You May be right. But you, like the rest of us, assume that youíre closer to the truth now, than you were before; and like the rest of us think that youíre right, while those you argue with are wrong. But without God whispering in each of our ears, or proclaiming from on high that youíre right, Iíd just have to take your word for it, and thatís just not enough. Thatís not a dig, itís just the obvious, as youíd no sooner take my word for it.
      Last edited by William; 08-17-2015, 05:17 PM.

      Comment


      • I'm still in shock, literally, from "Stein's" statement that the majority of evangelical scholars no longer believe that the Roman guards at the tomb was historical. Have I misunderstood Nick's position all along??

        This is what I believed Nick was saying: "There is only ONE plausible explanation for the cumulative evidence---the bodily resurrection of Jesus. All other explanations for the evidence are either impossible or ridiculously implausible."

        This is the position that I have so many issues with. If this is not Nick's position, would someone please clarify this for me? If Nick and other Christians on this site simply believe that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best of several plausible explanations, I have no problem with that position at all. I disagree, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. It is the assertion that there are NO OTHER PLAUSIBLE explanations for the evidence that I find galling.

        Comment


        • i am wanting a little clarity on what we're calling Scholars. Are talking about NT scholars, as in those who study and are experts in the NT scripture and time period, or are we also including experts in archaeology, and historical studies for the time periods and locations and cultures surrounding the bible?

          Comment


          • Duplicate comment. Please delete.
            Last edited by Gary; 08-17-2015, 05:29 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
              I don't recall any claim of borrowing between Luke and Matthew. There is also the matter of the prophecy that the Christ would be born of a virgin. (Yes, I know of the dispute about the actual word used, but the whole - "the pregnancy is a sign from God" bit has to be tossed before the argument will float. Almah doesn't actually say virgin, but the term implies marriagability). This one I accept as valid. (If two authors could be shown beyond reasonable doubt to have been in collusion, then there is only one witness. Same if one author simply cites another, though not as strongly.)

              Paul's epistles were written to believers who were well grounded in the rudiments of the faith. Running through the basics all over again would be sort of like explaining the principles of 2+2 to a high school class. In fact, he complained about having to do just that on more than one occasion, but even then, it wasn't the basic gospel that he was forced to reiterate.

              Isaiah was giving a sign to Ahaz, right? He's basically saying that Ahaz's enemies will be defeated before this young woman gives birth and her son can do this or that. and then in the very next chapter, a son is born to a young woman and before the by can this or that Ahaz' enemies are defeated.

              it was a generic "sign," not that Ahaz would be amazed that a woman would give birth. and how would an event 700 years down the road serve as a sign for Ahaz?

              and since virgin births are so rare, maybe even more so back then, I find it hard to believe that Isaiah would specifically say "virgin" if that's what he meant. I would think he'd even belabor the point to ensure there was no mistaking what he just said.

              but young woman might have implied virgin back then, except that it never, never implied "virgin" when the young woman was pregnant. never.

              I think taking Isaiah 7 and 8 in its own context will show that nothing had anything to with jesus there. I really would any scholar who claimed to have first hand knowledge of the Mary's hoo-hah post conception/prior to birth that could actually validate the claim. Even if she were a virgin, I am not sure where Isaiah alludes to it.

              I have "dual prophecy" but I think that claim is only made to bridge the conflict here. It imagines a resolution. I think any discrepancy can be resolved in such a way. and it's an imagination that is needed in order to mainatin that Matthew and Luke are legit, that their claim about Jesus Mother is as they say.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                I'm reading the Greek. You're reading the English. One is a translation, the other is the original language. That's why you need to know the original language. Using a translation is often grossly inadequate.
                this is ab interesting point: the English translations were made my Greek Scholars. shouldnt we accept their translation, since they're the scholars?

                or is that sometimes we can make differing opinions based on our own research?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  Which is often the excuse advanced by preachers of various stamps for allowing nonsense to continue to be believed. ,Another excuse is that if laypersons are apprised of the truth, they might take it upon themselves to cherry pick what they want to believe.
                  The second happens anyway, that's why there are so many different denominations.
                  Where there are two different authors attesting to the same thing, I won't regard the matter as being in dispute - unless there are two others in agreement and saying something else (but I've never encountered that problem.) One author in isolation isn't counted as authoritative (by me, that is).
                  so you dont think that two or more people could conspire to falsehood?

                  You're not saying that you buy anything that 2 or 3 people says is true...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by William View Post
                    this is ab interesting point: the English translations were made my Greek Scholars. shouldnt we accept their translation, since they're the scholars?

                    or is that sometimes we can make differing opinions based on our own research?
                    Hi William!

                    Did you read the comment today that most evangelical NT scholars, including William Lane Craig, no longer believe that Matthew's "Roman guards at the tomb" was historical, but rather just a literary technique? I wonder if Nick agrees with this assertion.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by William View Post
                      this is ab interesting point: the English translations were made my Greek Scholars. shouldnt we accept their translation, since they're the scholars?

                      or is that sometimes we can make differing opinions based on our own research?
                      In my opinion, knowing the Greek is paramount. The English translations are worked on by very competent scholars, but often Greek (and Hebrew) will have words and sayings for which there are no English equivalents. If you have a copy of the JPS Tanakh, just look through it. There are a bevy of footnotes with "no English equivalent." It's far better to read the original text if you can.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                        Again, I believe that all your statements here are very reasonable.

                        In regards to the "appearances" to Paul, James, and the 500:

                        We know that Paul was prone to visions and Paul specifically states in Acts 26 that he only saw a talking bright light...in a vision. A bright light is not a body and a vision is not reality.

                        Regarding the "500", we only have ONE source that makes this claim. Yes, most scholars believe it is a very early Creed, but no details of this appearance is given. If Paul believed that Jesus had appeared to him when he had only seen a talking bright light on a desert highway, how do we know that the 500 didn't have a similar experience?: They all saw a bright light or something that they believed to be Jesus. And one important point: the Creed in I Corinthians says that Jesus "appeared" to the 500, it says nothing about Jesus speaking to them, touching them, or letting them touch him. Therefore the "appearance" of Jesus to the 500 could have been no different that the appearance of the Virgin Mary to THOUSANDS of Roman Catholics.

                        What about James? Again, we have only ONE source that claims James received an appearance. No where in the Gospels is such a claim made. Could the brother of Jesus have had a vision similar to Paul's, seeing only a bright light? Sure. Once again, the Creed says nothing about James seeing a "body", or hearing a voice, or touching a body, or being touched by a body.

                        You said: "The belief in the Resurrection itself is very odd, especially in the context of Second Temple Judaism. The beliefs about resurrection have often been oversimplified (see Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God for a complete treatment), but it seems very strange anyone would believe in a dying and rising Messiah. Usually, if your Messianic claimant died, you went home or you got a new Messiah (often the brother). I don't think it's incompatible with another explanation; it's possible they were convinced by hallucinations alone. There are some other issues with a hallucinatory hypothesis though."

                        I agree it would be very odd for any Jew to suddenly believe in a resurrected Messiah in first century Palestine as such a concept was unheard of in all of Jewish history. But I see a problem in your theory: If the leader of a new Jewish sect in first century Palestine has been teaching for THREE YEARS that he will die and be resurrected three days later I DON'T think that anyone should be surprised if after the leader's death, his followers suddenly believe that their leader's prophesy has been fulfilled when several of them start having false sightings of him and others having visions of him in which he tells them he is resurrected...as he promised.
                        First, about James. It's pretty widely acknowledged James had an appearance. We're using a source dating within 18 months of the crucifixion, so I'm inclined to believe it's reliable. It's also extremely strange James, who wasn't a disciple, then becomes the central figure of the Jerusalem church. We're talking about a guy who thought his brother insane! Asking the creed to give more information than it does is a very strange position. The Greek is fairly clear about it as a bodily resurrection.

                        Acts is not nearly as reliable as the Pauline epistles with regard to Paul, so I'd throw out the Acts account. Paul himself is fairly vague as to what the nature of his appearance was, but what Paul does say is he immediately went to Arabia, spent three years there, then went to James, Peter, and John to figure out whether or not the message he was preaching was the correct one. He then says "they added nothing to me." Paul is generally a reliable source, and the ancient creed we've been discussing suggests seeing in the objective sense, rather than a vague sense.

                        The appearance to the 500 is a total mystery to me, and I won't pretend to know exactly what they saw. However, it would be in keeping with the theme of the creed if Paul is referring to some sort of bodily appearance (or apparently bodily appearance), rather than some bright light.

                        I don't think that claim is a problem for the theory at all. Jesus may or may not have been predicting his death. Scholars are still debating that topic, and probably will be for the next 50 years. I think it possible Jesus predicted his death in the belief that he would die like John the Baptist did. I happen to be rather agnostic on the topic. I think it possible Jesus thought he would die and be vindicated by the new age, but such a resurrection would be part of the general resurrection, not an individual one.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by William View Post
                          i am wanting a little clarity on what we're calling Scholars. Are talking about NT scholars, as in those who study and are experts in the NT scripture and time period, or are we also including experts in archaeology, and historical studies for the time periods and locations and cultures surrounding the bible?
                          I'm defining scholars as people with PhDs in New Testament, Classics, or early Christianity, preferably with peer-reviewed published work. Under those qualifications, people like Earl Doherty don't count, nor do people like Nick or myself.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                            I'm still in shock, literally, from "Stein's" statement that the majority of evangelical scholars no longer believe that the Roman guards at the tomb was historical. Have I misunderstood Nick's position all along??

                            This is what I believed Nick was saying: "There is only ONE plausible explanation for the cumulative evidence---the bodily resurrection of Jesus. All other explanations for the evidence are either impossible or ridiculously implausible."

                            This is the position that I have so many issues with. If this is not Nick's position, would someone please clarify this for me? If Nick and other Christians on this site simply believe that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best of several plausible explanations, I have no problem with that position at all. I disagree, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. It is the assertion that there are NO OTHER PLAUSIBLE explanations for the evidence that I find galling.
                            I believe the Resurrection is the best explanation of the information we have. It's certainly not the only explanation. As I've stressed, this is not math. We can't "prove" things to the same degree.

                            There are other explanations, as with all historical data. However, many of them require additional assumptions or require creative reinterpretation/ignorance of the data.

                            For example, it's totally possible (though very, very unlikely) that aliens stole Jesus' body and played mind games to trick the disciples into believing in resurrection. However, such a hypothesis requires a huge number of additional assumptions.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                              I believe the Resurrection is the best explanation of the information we have. It's certainly not the only explanation. As I've stressed, this is not math. We can't "prove" things to the same degree.

                              There are other explanations, as with all historical data. However, many of them require additional assumptions or require creative reinterpretation/ignorance of the data.

                              For example, it's totally possible (though very, very unlikely) that aliens stole Jesus' body and played mind games to trick the disciples into believing in resurrection. However, such a hypothesis requires a huge number of additional assumptions.
                              I agree with you. The hypothesis of aliens stealing Jesus' body is possible in a world allowing for the supernatural, but highly implausible. However, wouldn't you agree that the hypothesis that Aramathea, Pilate, the family of Jesus, or a group of the Sanhedrin taking/moving the body is not only possible but also plausible? You may not believe that they are the most likely explanations, but still they are plausible, not implausible, right?
                              Last edited by Gary; 08-17-2015, 07:22 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by William View Post
                                Isaiah was giving a sign to Ahaz, right?
                                It was a sign for the House of David. "Hear, o king" was not said, nor "Hear, Ahaz". The prophecy was translated by native speaking Hebrews into Koine Greek using the word παρθενος - virgin. The said pregnancy is stated to be a sign from God: that precludes a pregnancy resulting from swyving.

                                "Hear O House of David, I shall swyve with a woman and she shall become pregnant, and her pregnancy will be a sign from God." ... Really?

                                and how would an event 700 years down the road serve as a sign for Ahaz?
                                and since virgin births are so rare, maybe even more so back then, I find it hard to believe that Isaiah would specifically say "virgin" if that's what he meant. I would think he'd even belabor the point to ensure there was no mistaking what he just said. but young woman might have implied virgin back then, except that it never, never implied "virgin" when the young woman was pregnant. never.
                                You have said it yourself - bethula could not be used with regard to someone who was pregnant.

                                I think taking Isaiah 7 and 8 in its own context will show that nothing had anything to with jesus there. I really would any scholar who claimed to have first hand knowledge of the Mary's hoo-hah post conception/prior to birth that could actually validate the claim. Even if she were a virgin, I am not sure where Isaiah alludes to it.
                                Isaiah 8:1 begins a new topic, just as Isaiah 7:10 begins a new topic.

                                I have "dual prophecy" but I think that claim is only made to bridge the conflict here.
                                Really? - dual prophecy? By comparison, the "Isaiah gets the prophetess pregnant story is sensible.
                                It imagines a resolution. I think any discrepancy can be resolved in such a way.
                                Just as any inconvenient reading can be explained away by changing the meaning.
                                and it's an imagination that is needed in order to mainatin that Matthew and Luke are legit, that their claim about Jesus Mother is as they say.
                                It takes an imagination to ignore the fact that Isaiah 8:1 begins a whole new topic - unrelated to the topic of Isaiah 7:10 - 25.
                                1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                                Comment

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