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

  • #76
    Originally posted by William View Post
    and let me add that of course I'd go to the woods with a trusted friend after such a claim, but I still wouldnt actually believe it until I saw it. IF I didnt see it, I wouldnt buy out. Not out of pride or whatever, just out of not finding it convincing. The same reasons you dont find Zeus believable.

    and again, i speaking to trustworthiness of claims, as some fellow had stated that decade old claims was a historians gold mine, or some such.
    so if you didn't believe him about bigfoot, does that mean he was wrong? Or could you be the one who is wrong for not believing him?

    Comment


    • #77
      "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." - Boxing Pythagoras

      Here I just wanted to say that Herodotus is taking with skepticism on several things, correct? In other words, not everything he wrote is accepted as being true.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by William View Post
        but women weren't the only witnesses.
        That's true, but the point remains that it's a fact that a 1st century writer is unlikely to have made up, which lends credence to the idea that the tomb was empty. Again, this isn't a very controversial idea among even critical scholars.

        and I just can't get around the fact that we're trying to say that men using women witnesses for something untrue is more absurd than a man coming back to life after dying and then flying into heaven. I'm sorry, but if i were to choose which was most likely, I'd have to pick men using women as collaborative witnesses over the awakening of the dead.
        We're not. Or at least...I'm not. A scholar will look at the female testimony about the empty tomb, and will come to the conclusion that the tomb was likely empty. Why it was empty is a mystery. Now, some scholars believe that the reason it was empty was because Jesus was raised from the dead. But many scholars don't; They simply say, "Yes, the tomb was empty. We know it was empty because of the female testimony, but we don't know how it came to be empty." Some of those scholars offer alternatives for why the tomb was empty.

        Take the word "prove" out. You're right. But even so, how likely is it that any missing persons case is accurately solved by the missing body having raised from the dead and having flown into heaven? Why is this plausible? I tell you that women witnesses makes it no more plausible - at least to me, which is why I am asking if there's anything else.
        A cumulative case for the resurrection of Jesus would include the acceptance of a divine being that could raise people from the dead. The testimony of the women that the tomb was empty. The sincerity of belief by the followers of Jesus of post-death appearances. The rise of the Jesus movement and worship of Jesus in the face of the shame that would have been accorded them in the 1st century social context for worshipping a crucified criminal. The fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Hmm, I'm probably missing a few others (been a long time since I've gone over this material), but those would be some of the starting places for belief in Jesus' resurrection.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          so if you didn't believe him about bigfoot, does that mean he was wrong? Or could you be the one who is wrong for not believing him?
          it just means I dont believe him on that point. I dont hold the cosmic keys to truth, nor does anyone else. I do the best i can. For that entails thinking things through, study, and trying to be objective and fair.

          So you believe Jesus in essentially God. I do not believe this. Who's right? you have an opinion and so do I. neither can prove or disprove these opinions. we weigh them for ourselves, correct? Hopefully never being satisfied that we have it all figured out 100%, because that would mean we've stopped looking.

          many things led to my deconversion, but while I was contemplating all that I had seen and read, it dawned on me that faith was never in God and could not have been, because the Bible is written by men who claimed certain things about God, then copied by men, translated by men, canonized by men, and sold to me by men - so in order for me to ever have faith in the God that makes claims about, i first had to have faith in their claims; in claims of men. It seemed to me that Faith in the Biblical God is therefore rooted first in faith in men.

          That realization, along with all the other stuff just wouldn't allow me to believe it anymore. But I still look and am willing to look. I just haven't seen anything convincing yet.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            That's true, but the point remains that it's a fact that a 1st century writer is unlikely to have made up, which lends credence to the idea that the tomb was empty. Again, this isn't a very controversial idea among even critical scholars.



            We're not. Or at least...I'm not. A scholar will look at the female testimony about the empty tomb, and will come to the conclusion that the tomb was likely empty. Why it was empty is a mystery. Now, some scholars believe that the reason it was empty was because Jesus was raised from the dead. But many scholars don't; They simply say, "Yes, the tomb was empty. We know it was empty because of the female testimony, but we don't know how it came to be empty." Some of those scholars offer alternatives for why the tomb was empty.



            A cumulative case for the resurrection of Jesus would include the acceptance of a divine being that could raise people from the dead. The testimony of the women that the tomb was empty. The sincerity of belief by the followers of Jesus of post-death appearances. The rise of the Jesus movement and worship of Jesus in the face of the shame that would have been accorded them in the 1st century social context for worshipping a crucified criminal. The fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Hmm, I'm probably missing a few others (been a long time since I've gone over this material), but those would be some of the starting places for belief in Jesus' resurrection.

            Adrift, I really appreciate your tone and efforts. thank you.

            I'd like to ask, regarding the OT prophecies, have you read them in the OT context, and when so doing, do they still seem like clear cut prophecies, or do they seem a little unclear as what they're talking about, but there's a few pieces here and there that seem to fit with what the NT says about Jesus? Please take the prophecies you have in mind, and reread them before answering, if you dont mind.

            havent other religions grown and persisted despite shame and opposition?

            Havent there been other sighting of dead certain dead people all over the world?

            I just dont see anything unique in this. It doesnt have to be unique necessarily, but we're talking about some supernatural even that one must believe in order to avoid eternal torture in Hell, so it's quite important that one believes in this, if it's true. For these reasons, I'd think there'd be more than decades old claims, details of women witnesses, martyrs, growth of the religions, and shaky "prophecies."

            I am curious to hear what you think about those prophecies and if you find some that are explicitly clear in the OT, then would you mind citing them?

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              You seem to want to isolate evidence. Women being witnesses, dates, places, who wrote what and when, etc. You isolate each item and try to find fault with it, while ignoring the rest. You are not seeing the forest for the trees. It all works together to make the accounts trustworthy. No, there is no absolute proof of the resurrection. There is no absolute proof that Alexander the Great existed either. At some point, after researching and studying, you have to make a decision to accept or reject the accounts. You have obviously chosen to reject them, and so far your posts seem to show you have little understanding of the 1st Century society, people, events, or anything, so I doubt you have done much studying on the matter. You seem a lot like Gary. Assured by your own ignorance.

              You might want to do a look up of the Kruger-dunning effect.
              well, I could say that you seem a lot like the guy you accuse Gary of being, but where does that get us? I find it is more profitable to stick to the subject rather than resorting to name calling and petty insults. I'm not the smartest or more educated man you'll encounter - if you only wish to have dialogue with the very best, I might suggest staying away from internet forums, and applying to mensa maybe.

              If we're taking totality of the evidence, then it's perfectly reasonable to look at each specific one more closely. if it fails under such scrutiny, it shouldnt be used. You cant assert that one cannot look at a particular tree, this just isnt true. Like in map reading, one continually transitions from a narrow view to abroad view. the view is never static when viewing something closely - it's when one selects only one particular view that mistakes are made and things are missed as some things can only be seen in detail, while the overall picture is best seen from afar.

              But the totality of the evidence doesn't end with women, dates, places and times. There is quite a lot of discrepancies between the gospels. There are issues throughout the bible that give me pause. If i cant trust many of things that can be verified, why trust the supernatural claims that cannot be verified?

              and we should say that Jesus rising from the dead and flying into heaven and the existence of Alexander the Great are two very different claims, which are in no way comparable. there are many historical references to Alexander, and many archaeological artifacts that lend credence to man having existed. There's far more evidence for Alexander being real than there is for Jesus being real, but the question isnt whether Jesus existed, it is "did he come back to life and fly into heaven?"

              These are very, very different. So different, I am unsure why you chose to compare the two.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by William View Post
                Adrift, I really appreciate your tone and efforts. thank you.

                I'd like to ask, regarding the OT prophecies, have you read them in the OT context, and when so doing, do they still seem like clear cut prophecies, or do they seem a little unclear as what they're talking about, but there's a few pieces here and there that seem to fit with what the NT says about Jesus? Please take the prophecies you have in mind, and reread them before answering, if you dont mind.
                Yes, I'm familiar with the OT prophecies in their context, but I'm not interested in defending their use as an argument for the resurrection in this thread. That would be a huge thread in of itself, and not one I'm especially interested in exploring. I might chime in once in awhile if someone else would like to create one.

                havent other religions grown and persisted despite shame and opposition?
                I can't think of too many, especially in that cultural context.

                Havent there been other sighting of dead certain dead people all over the world?
                Certainly. Though, not quite in the same manner as Christ's resurrection, nor with as much backing (that I'm aware of).

                I just dont see anything unique in this.
                The evidence for the resurrection does not necessarily rely on each claim being unique. It's the strength of those claims, and the cumulative case that is built by those claims that results in the conclusion that Christ truly was risen from the dead.

                It doesnt have to be unique necessarily, but we're talking about some supernatural even that one must believe in order to avoid eternal torture in Hell, so it's quite important that one believes in this, if it's true.
                The threat of hell is not typically a reason why anyone accepts the resurrection. At least, no one that I know.

                For these reasons, I'd think there'd be more than decades old claims, details of women witnesses, martyrs, growth of the religions, and shaky "prophecies."
                Well, that's your choice. No one is forcing you to accept belief in the resurrection. I certainly won't. I personally find the evidence of the resurrection to be more than sufficient though.

                By the way, one of the things that I failed to add to the cumulative list that Sparko mentioned was personal testimony. The evidence of Christ's power in people's lives in the here and now is, in my opinion, powerful, and often convincing stuff.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  Yes, I'm familiar with the OT prophecies in their context, but I'm not interested in defending their use as an argument for the resurrection in this thread. That would be a huge thread in of itself, and not one I'm especially interested in exploring. I might chime in once in awhile if someone else would like to create one.

                  okay

                  I can't think of too many, especially in that cultural context.

                  not even islam? they had a lot of opposition yet is now the fastest growing religion. But the point is that all religions can claim something special and unique - it's just not good evidence for divine origins.

                  Certainly. Though, not quite in the same manner as Christ's resurrection, nor with as much backing (that I'm aware of).

                  what backing? I don't mean to be repetitive, but we have the claims of 4 gospels, which claim that others saw it... this is just hearsay... does this count for great evidence with something like this? do you find any other religion to be true? Have you actually studied other religious books, with the same intention as you do the bible?

                  The evidence for the resurrection does not necessarily rely on each claim being unique. It's the strength of those claims, and the cumulative case that is built by those claims that results in the conclusion that Christ truly was risen from the dead.

                  the evidence leads me to another conclusion.

                  The threat of hell is not typically a reason why anyone accepts the resurrection. At least, no one that I know.

                  not a reason to believe, but serves as ample evidence of why belief is so important to have. Do you decide to believe something, or can you not help but believe something when convinced by the evidence? Do you choose to disbelieve something, or can you help but not be skeptical of some things when the evidence seems lacking? Say your son just really and honestly doesnt believe in this stuff. How would you convince him order to save him from hell? "well, women saw it, and we were told to believe that lots of people saw jesus later, and there were martyrs..., so you see, Jesus being born to Virgin woman, had to die on a cross to save us from a hell he created for us, and he then came back to life and flew into heaven. We can be sure of this becuase there's an empty tomb and the bible names real cities and people, so there you go?" I dont mean to be so dismissive, but it's just a tall tale to accept and I just dont understand why the supernatural claim makes more sense than all the natural possibilities for this...

                  Well, that's your choice. No one is forcing you to accept belief in the resurrection. I certainly won't. I personally find the evidence of the resurrection to be more than sufficient though.

                  thanks. at this point we just disagree, and that's okay. I thought this what there was, but will always be willing to look if any other evidences are around. Thanks.

                  By the way, one of the things that I failed to add to the cumulative list that Sparko mentioned was personal testimony. The evidence of Christ's power in people's lives in the here and now is, in my opinion, powerful, and often convincing stuff.
                  yes, they can be. Do you believe everyone's personal testimonies about anything though? I guess what i am getting at is, what about certain testimonies do you find as compelling evidence for what they believe in? Out of curiosity, have you ever spent much time in other cultures or with people of different religions?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    well crap, sorry. I dont have these quote things down... my bad.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      But with the apostles, it wasn't just some fervent faith. They were good practicing jews with a nice life. They were in the position to actually KNOW if Jesus rose from the dead or not. They didn't just believe in him, they KNEW. And they gave up their nice comfy life and went out and preached him and were tortured and killed for it and they never recanted. Now I can see some fervent believer today dying for his faith, but that is because he has faith, but he doesn't KNOW whether what he believes is true, he just trusts that it is. But the apostles didn't have to trust their faith, they actually were there and knew it. People usually will not die a horrible death for something they know to be false, especially when the alternative was to just go back to their ordinary comfy lives.
                      They knew? How is this a big deal? All kinds of cult members became victim to their leaders lies and died horrible deaths. Marshall Applewhite convinced the members of heavens gate that he was Jesus and that he would take them to heaven if they castrated themselves and poison. You can go down a list of cults that get their members to break laws, hurt/kill themselves, or even get put into prison, and nobody looks at that as a sign of the claims being true.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        Female testimony was considered unreliable in the ancient near East. Most NT scholars, even critical ones like Geza Vermes, hold that this detail would have been very unlikely for 1st century writers to make up, because adding that fact would have done nothing to promote the writer's agenda. In fact, it would have harmed their immediate agenda. The so-called Criterion of Embarrassment is one of the methods that modern scholars use to identify passages that are more likely to be factual than not. You are correct that the remark about female witnesses does not "prove" anything one way or the other, but that's not the point. Historians don't prove history. What it does is add cumulative evidence for the case for the empty tomb, which isn't as controversial as you might imagine, even, again, among critical scholars.
                        I hear this all the time that even critical accept an empty tomb and yet, I only ever get like one or two non-Christians that ever fit this bill. The empty tomb probably isn't historical at all - if Jesus even got one. Most criminals got a common burial, which was part of the deterrent in committing a high crime, and to my knowledge it never happened to a criminal during that time outside the NT. The fact that Paul uses the word buried instead of tomb and lacks any of the gospel resurrection elements to me - and other experts - implies it may not have existed yet.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          There is a lot more to it. And you need to understand the society they live in.

                          The witnesses were the apostles, their followers, and even the jews and romans who killed Jesus but never refuted that he rose from the dead. The parts of the gospels that can be checked out historically check out, the archeology, place names, people and their positions, etc. Showing that those who wrote the gospel not only lived during that time, but were meticulous in getting the details correct. It makes their accounts that much more trustworthy. If you are expecting some sort of video taped account of the resurrection before you will believe, then you might as well toss out everything we know about history. Most historical accounts were written hundreds of years later by people who never knew the people involved and yet we accept them as fact. The gospels and Paul's letters were written within about 20-30 years of the event, and there were probably earlier versions that were lost, or notes that no longer exist taken at the time of the events. The last gospel written was by the Apostle John in the 90's. Mark was a disciple of Peter, Luke of Paul, Matthew was an apostle. Mark and Matthew are the earliest accounts. Probably written in the early 50's

                          And you are wrong about the scholars. Sure there are some that deny the events, but they are in the minority.
                          I find it strange that you're dating Mark so early when (as you would say) most scholars put him about 70 A.D and others thereafter. It's like this early dating is done to get the gospels closer to the apostles as possible. I mean, it would have been difficult to write a gospel if you were in jail and being martyred. Plus, it's unlikely people like John lived to be ninety years old when that was such a rare age to live to back then. I understand it's possible but considering the others factor in play here, it sure seems to be a charitable stretch.

                          I do think a fellow name Jesus lived, was killed for his practices, and his follows proclaimed God. The stories that come after that in the gospels seem to be influenced by a little bit of Hellenistic, Buddhist, Hindu, and Jewish traditions that are centered around Jesus. It's good literature when we stop trying to think of everything in the gospels as history, and instead appreciate the power of good mythology and literature.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Ok, so the debate thread has been closed, so I assume that means I can now comment here on the comment thread.

                            I first want to say that I missed seeing that Nick had posted his final comment this morning (it was on the next page which I did not see). So, sorry if my statement about jumping ahead of Nick in making my final, final comment seemed strange.

                            Secondly, I do NOT believe that all Christians are stupid. However, very educated, very intelligent people can still believe some really stupid things. Sorry for my bluntness, but it is my personal opinion that believing in virgin-impregnating ghosts and reanimated dead Jewish prophets who crave broiled fish after three nights in the tomb, and, who at times travel by levitation into outer space, is really dumb. The sooner people realize that these claims and similar claims in other religions are nonsense, the better off we will all be. For example, it is reported that the shooter in Chattanooga committed his despicable act for the purpose of convincing his particular god to forgive him for doing drugs and driving under the influence. Ridiculous, tragic superstition.

                            Lastly, Nick assumes I have not investigated the Christians claims. I have. Maybe not to Nick's satisfaction, but I have. First, I read all 800+ pages of NT Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God", and I have read articles by the following Christian authors and apologists:

                            1. Gary Habermas
                            2. Larry Esposito
                            3. Peter Kreeft
                            4. Mike Licona
                            5. Josh McDowell
                            6. Matt Slick
                            7. Richard Swineburne

                            Why didn't I quote any of them in my debate? Answer: They all use the same, unconvincing, weak evidence: assumptions about the behavior of people twenty centuries ago, biased expert opinion on the behavior of peoples living twenty centuries ago, and second century hearsay.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Gary View Post
                              Ok, so the debate thread has been closed, so I assume that means I can now comment here on the comment thread.

                              I first want to say that I missed seeing that Nick had posted his final comment this morning (it was on the next page which I did not see). So, sorry if my statement about jumping ahead of Nick in making my final, final comment seemed strange.

                              Secondly, I do NOT believe that all Christians are stupid. However, very educated, very intelligent people can still believe some really stupid things. Sorry for my bluntness, but it is my personal opinion that believing in virgin-impregnating ghosts and reanimated dead Jewish prophets who crave broiled fish after three nights in the tomb, and, who at times travel by levitation into outer space, is really dumb. The sooner people realize that these claims and similar claims in other religions are nonsense, the better off we will all be. For example, it is reported that the shooter in Chattanooga committed his despicable act for the purpose of convincing his particular god to forgive him for doing drugs and driving under the influence. Ridiculous, tragic superstition.
                              Are in in a contest, to string together as many ad hominems and nonsense as you can, into a paragraph? When you're done stringing together a bunch of adjectives, to insult anybody who dares to disagree with you, perhaps you'll actually get to proving a word they said, is inaccurate or wrong. Does that work for you?

                              Lastly, Nick assumes I have not investigated the Christians claims. I have. Maybe not to Nick's satisfaction, but I have. First, I read all 800+ pages of NT Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God", and I have read articles by the following Christian authors and apologists:

                              1. Gary Habermas
                              2. Larry Esposito
                              3. Peter Kreeft
                              4. Mike Licona
                              5. Josh McDowell
                              6. Matt Slick
                              7. Richard Swineburne

                              Why didn't I quote any of them in my debate? Answer: They all use the same, unconvincing, weak evidence: assumptions about the behavior of people twenty centuries ago, biased expert opinion on the behavior of peoples living twenty centuries ago, and second century hearsay.

                              Got to love the chronological snobbery arguments. My math classes often used concepts of math that were discovered thousands of years ago. Guess they are all worthless too. Darn. When you're done with this ad hominem, how about you try to actually prove they are wrong. Deal?
                              Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 07-22-2015, 07:26 PM.
                              "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                              GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Gary View Post
                                Ok, so the debate thread has been closed, so I assume that means I can now comment here on the comment thread.

                                I first want to say that I missed seeing that Nick had posted his final comment this morning (it was on the next page which I did not see). So, sorry if my statement about jumping ahead of Nick in making my final, final comment seemed strange.

                                Secondly, I do NOT believe that all Christians are stupid. However, very educated, very intelligent people can still believe some really stupid things. Sorry for my bluntness, but it is my personal opinion that believing in virgin-impregnating ghosts and reanimated dead Jewish prophets who crave broiled fish after three nights in the tomb, and, who at times travel by levitation into outer space, is really dumb. The sooner people realize that these claims and similar claims in other religions are nonsense, the better off we will all be. For example, it is reported that the shooter in Chattanooga committed his despicable act for the purpose of convincing his particular god to forgive him for doing drugs and driving under the influence. Ridiculous, tragic superstition.

                                Lastly, Nick assumes I have not investigated the Christians claims. I have. Maybe not to Nick's satisfaction, but I have. First, I read all 800+ pages of NT Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God", and I have read articles by the following Christian authors and apologists:

                                1. Gary Habermas
                                2. Larry Esposito
                                3. Peter Kreeft
                                4. Mike Licona
                                5. Josh McDowell
                                6. Matt Slick
                                7. Richard Swineburne

                                Why didn't I quote any of them in my debate? Answer: They all use the same, unconvincing, weak evidence: assumptions about the behavior of people twenty centuries ago, biased expert opinion on the behavior of peoples living twenty centuries ago, and second century hearsay.
                                I don't think many people take Slick or McDowell seriously.

                                Yeah, they use arguments that have been repeated countless times before but that doesn't mean you don't have to interact with them. That's the problem - you didn't talk about the history (or lack thereof) of Jesus.

                                Comment

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