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

  • #46
    One has to be really interested in what is true before one can be in any position to be enabled to comprehend the genuine gospel of grace. And the bodily resurrection of Christ being believed only then is of any use or has any real value and meaning.
    Last edited by 37818; 07-22-2015, 08:20 AM.
    . . . 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


    • #47
      Gary says he only uses verifiable evidence like the scientific method, yet he doesn't actually use or present any evidence whatsoever, and merely argues philosophy (poorly) using strawmen and non-related analogies as his "defense"

      He does nothing to show that the resurrection did not happen, other than to wave his hands and dismiss it.

      Comment


      • #48
        I read through the debate, and I am still not sure what evidence there is beyond claims that were made decades after the event allegedly took place. I am not a scholar, and only hold a BS degree, so I cannot point to anything and do not claim to have any information that can prove anything one way or the other. I ask only to ask for myself.

        I just didn't read anything in the debate that actually lended any credibility to the Resurrection claim. I think Gary was right about one thing, typically any natural explanation is automatically more plausible than a supernatural one, so what is there that is actual evidence for claim?

        I've read through some scholarly works, but not much in the whole scheme of it all, but my understanding is that the majority of scholars actually agree on very little; that they agree that Jesus was likely real, had some type of following and was likely crucified. I suppose you could say that they also agree that many believers, believed they saw Jesus after his death - but that's quite different than scholars actually believing that the witnesses actually saw Jesus.

        I thought Gary had a few good points. The period of Darkness and Christ's death, the dead walking out of their graves at Christ's death and rather huge events, yet no one else thought them noteworthy. No one else thought them significant enough to record. Why didn't a contemporary of Jesus write or record any of this at the time it happened? Why wait several decades like in the case of teh gospels - but also why didnt any non-believers right down a long period of darkness at that time or dead people walking around?

        Is there any other evidence or is this basically it?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          One has to be really interested in what is true before one can be in any position to be enabled to comprehend the genuine gospel of grace. And the bodily resurrection of Christ being believed only then is of any use or has any real value and meaning.
          you seem to be implying that if anyone is really interested in the truth, then they will see it your way, which is the only way to comprehend something genuine. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it or perhaps you misspoke, but I'd suggest that mind set seems counter to honest search.

          Are we assuming that their must be one God who needs to save us from a Hell He created, or are we simply looking for what's true, whatever it may be?

          Comment


          • #50
            Anyone that thinks Gary had any good points must be a fellow fundy! William and Gary fail historical studies forever!
            If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
              Anyone that thinks Gary had any good points must be a fellow fundy! William and Gary fail historical studies forever!
              I thought I shared where i thought Gary had a good point and then elaborated on it. I dont know what you mean by "fundy" by I consider myself an agnostic after finding holes in the Bible in my late 20's. There are many good parts of the bible, and I hold no ill will toward it, my issue is one of belief - as in I just don't find it believable.

              You didnt really comment on anything i said, so i am not sure where to go from here. I did attend college as a history major for awhile before switching over to engineering. I read, but can't profess to have read it all. Can you let me know where I have failed in historical studies, or were you just making a dig?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                Anyone that thinks Gary had any good points must be a fellow fundy! William and Gary fail historical studies forever!
                not necessarily. however, the problems William brings up have been answered for a while by J.P and Nick.
                "It's evolution; every time you invent something fool-proof, the world invents a better fool."
                -Unknown

                "Preach the gospel, and if necessary use words." - Most likely St.Francis


                I find that evolution is the best proof of God.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                I support the :
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Irate Canadian View Post
                  not necessarily. however, the problems William brings up have been answered for a while by J.P and Nick.
                  ah, can you provide the link, please? Again, i'm not trying to stump anyone. I am asking for myself. Usually I am told, "this isn't new," as if that mattered, and "has been answered before." Good. where?

                  I didn't see it answered in Nick and Gary's debate.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Let's just say no one ever died for the belief in a tooth fairy when they had evidence to know for sure if it were true or not. The disciples died for their claims. Paul certainly did not gain any wealth or honor for believing that Jesus rose from the dead in an imperishable body.
                    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      All Gary basically did was use logical fallacies, like saying if stories about Buddha are not true, then that means reports about Jesus are not true either. Derp.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                        Let's just say no one ever died for the belief in a tooth fairy when they had evidence to know for sure if it were true or not. The disciples died for their claims. Paul certainly did not gain any wealth or honor for believing that Jesus rose from the dead in an imperishable body.
                        oh, well that's certainly true. But all other religions have martyrs, yes? I think it certainly shows that a person was devoted to something and believed in that something, but people can be mistaken, despite the best of intentions, so I am not sure that i find someone's fervent belief as evidence that what they believe in is true.

                        Otherwise, we'd believe practically all religions, and align to practically all political views as well, and... I just don't have that kind of time ;)

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by William View Post
                          The period of Darkness and Christ's death, the dead walking out of their graves at Christ's death and rather huge events, yet no one else thought them noteworthy. No one else thought them significant enough to record. Why didn't a contemporary of Jesus write or record any of this at the time it happened? Why wait several decades like in the case of teh gospels - but also why didnt any non-believers right down a long period of darkness at that time or dead people walking around?
                          According to Julius Africanus, the pagan historians Thallus and Phlegon were supposed to have written about the period of darkness.

                          According to the NT scholars Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh in their Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, "the saints who had fallen asleep" is a designation of Jesus' followers, so the picture painted is not that of thousands of dead men and women rising from the graveyard like some sort of zombie film, rather it would have been those recently dead followers of Jesus, placed in their rock-hewn tombs, who happened to live in Jerusalem. How many of his Jerusalem-based followers had died within his 3 year ministry? Probably not a whole lot. Matthew says they were many, but the word "many" is very relative in Matthew's Gospel ranging from about a half dozen on up. More than 6 followers raised from the dead would be "many" in most people's books I imagine, especially since resuscitation of the dead is rare throughout the Old and New Testament. If we imagine that Matthew is referring to 6 to 8 recently dead followers of a Jewish cult leader coming back to life, and returning to family and friends it might not get as much contemporary attention as a lot of people think it ought to, but the church fathers as early as Ignatius discuss it (late 1st - early 2nd century).

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            All Gary basically did was use logical fallacies, like saying if stories about Buddha are not true, then that means reports about Jesus are not true either. Derp.
                            I wont argue with that, but is there actually evidence for the resurrection, and if so, where?

                            Women witnesses? I dont follow this reasoning. How is it embarrassing that woman saw something first, when the men saw the same thing later? And even if that were embarrassing, how does that mean it's impossible for men to invent? Women witnesses doesn't really prove anything one way or the other. And I cant help but wonder why if something like this stands as evidence, then why doesn't the discrepancies serve as evidence against the bible?

                            All the witnesses? who were they? The gospels were written well after the fact. Paul saw a light, not Jesus in the flesh.

                            scholars? the majority dont agree on much other than Jesus was probably real, had some followers and was likely crucified. That's about it...

                            If someone finds these convincing, that's fine with me. I am just asking whether there's more to it than this?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Adrift, thanks for the reply. You could be right, and I'll ponder it. Matthew does say many, like you say. I guess that number could be anything. Maybe dead people did come to life and walk into Jerusalem.

                              You have to admit, that's a hard pill to swallow even if seen with your own eyes...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by William View Post
                                I read through the debate, and I am still not sure what evidence there is beyond claims that were made decades after the event allegedly took place.
                                For most of history, scholars would kill to have evidence as good as "claims that were made decades after the event allegedly took place." Take, for example, my namesake. Pythagoras was one of the most influential and important philosophers in history, and yet most of the details we have of his life come from works written 800 years after he had died.

                                I am not a scholar, and only hold a BS degree, so I cannot point to anything and do not claim to have any information that can prove anything one way or the other. I ask only to ask for myself.
                                No shame in that! The pursuit of knowledge is almost always a rewarding venture.

                                I've read through some scholarly works, but not much in the whole scheme of it all, but my understanding is that the majority of scholars actually agree on very little; that they agree that Jesus was likely real, had some type of following and was likely crucified. I suppose you could say that they also agree that many believers, believed they saw Jesus after his death - but that's quite different than scholars actually believing that the witnesses actually saw Jesus.
                                Typically, the consensus of scholars believe that Jesus of Nazareth was an itinerant Jewish preacher living in 1st Century Galilee who had been a follower of John the Baptist before striking out into his own ministry. After a relatively short career, Jesus and his followers took a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the Passover. During this pilgrimage, Jesus' message conflicted with that of the Jewish authorities in the city, who turned him over to Roman authorities for his claims of being King of the Jews. The Romans then executed Jesus for the crime of sedition.

                                Relatively soon after his death, at least some of Jesus' followers began to sincerely claim that they had witnessed him risen from the dead. This belief in Jesus' Resurrection spread somewhat quickly, and the first generation of Christians centered their new sect around this belief.

                                I thought Gary had a few good points. The period of Darkness and Christ's death, the dead walking out of their graves at Christ's death and rather huge events, yet no one else thought them noteworthy. No one else thought them significant enough to record. Why didn't a contemporary of Jesus write or record any of this at the time it happened? Why wait several decades like in the case of teh gospels - but also why didnt any non-believers right down a long period of darkness at that time or dead people walking around?
                                I actually agree with the thrust of your point, here-- it is exceedingly peculiar that the author of Matthew is the only person in all of history who attests to the Resurrection of the Saints at Jesus' death, and that not even the other New Testament authors recorded such an event. However, it is entirely anachronistic to expect that we should have records of major events which date to those events. For example, we know that Thales correctly predicted a solar eclipse with astronomical calculations, but the first extant attestation to this event comes from Herodotus well over 100 years later.
                                "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                                --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                                Comment

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