Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gary View Post
    What evidence did Saul need to examine? He EXPERIENCED the evidence:

    1. Earthquakes.
    2. Three hours of darkness.
    3. Dead saints roaming the streets.
    4. Christians running up and down the streets of Jerusalem preaching that "The tomb is empty! The tomb is empty! The tomb guarded 24/7 by Roman guards is empty!"
    5. Christians dying for a claim which they were asserting they had seen with their own eyes (appearances)= Would they die for a lie??
    6. Thousands of Jews converting to a new, shameful, Faith that taught the Resurrection of an executed Messiah, something "no first century Jew would ever believe if it were not true".

    What is there to examine??
    I argued that Saul would ignore the evidence therefore he would not believe the Resurrection. You listed the evidence without saying why Saul would pay attention to it. Earthquakes are a natural event, darkness is an astrological event, liars are to be ignored, and heretics are to be killed. Those excuses could help someone ignore the evidence. In short, you didn't make a meaningful response to me after inviting Christians to address your argument.

    In any case this still suffers from the Historian's Fallacy because you are trying to demonstrate what was reasonable 2,000 years ago is equivalent to what's reasonable now without citing any experts, and even more to the point, this is still a Red Herring. It is a throw away argument, not about the reasonableness of the Ressurection, but instead whether it was reasonable 2,000 years ago. If you have a point you're making by pursuing it, you should say so, because I frankly do not trust you to understand how informal debate works after having read your formal debate.

    If you insist to continue this line of discussion about Saul, then I will excuse my self.
    Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Irate Canadian View Post
      lol.

      er, on what moral standard are you judging God? You would agree there would be no absolute morals, right?
      My statement is based on my personal moral standards, which reflect the moral standards of the majority of people in western civilization, today. Your god's behavior is immoral by any modern standard of any civilized nation. Your god is not loving, just, and merciful. He is immoral. If he exists as you claim, we should all tremble on our knees before him. But call him just and moral? No way! Let's call him what he is: a Monster.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post




        That seems unlikely since it was the Jews themselves that desired the execution while Pilate washed his hands of it. The Tractate Semahot states that "No rites whatsoever should be denied those who were executed by the state" (2.9), meaning the Roman government.
        Many scholars, especially Jewish scholars, say that this passage about blame being on the Jews is ahistorical. It is blatant anti-Semitic hate speech, written by early Christians to lessen any Roman suspicion that Christians were blaming Pilate and the Romans for their god's death. Jews were made the scapegoats.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
          I argued that Saul would ignore the evidence therefore he would not believe the Resurrection. You listed the evidence without saying why Saul would pay attention to it. Earthquakes are a natural event, darkness is an astrological event, liars are to be ignored, and heretics are to be killed. Those excuses could help someone ignore the evidence. In short, you didn't make a meaningful response to me after inviting Christians to address your argument.

          In any case this still suffers from the Historian's Fallacy because you are trying to demonstrate what was reasonable 2,000 years ago is equivalent to what's reasonable now without citing any experts, and even more to the point, this is still a Red Herring. It is a throw away argument, not about the reasonableness of the Ressurection, but instead whether it was reasonable 2,000 years ago. If you have a point you're making by pursuing it, you should say so, because I frankly do not trust you to understand how informal debate works after having read your formal debate.

          If you insist to continue this line of discussion about Saul, then I will excuse my self.


          Sir: If you cannot see my point that based on probabilities, it is very likely that Saul did not believe the Christian resurrection claim because he thought the evidence was pathetic...as most non-Christians today agree, then, yes, you should make your exit. But remember what they say about the screen door as you leave...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by fm93 View Post
            Er...it's fairly clear that the sign above Jesus' head was intended to be sarcastic. That is, Pilate wasn't really evincing a lofty respect for the Jews. The joke behind the sign was that this whipped, crucified man who was being punished in the most shameful manner was still by comparison the most honorable man among the Jews--thereby indicating how lowly the Jews were held to be.

            ETA: Basically, he didn't really believe it and couldn't have cared less about them after the crucifixion.
            And the evidence for this is?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary View Post


              Sir: If you cannot see my point that based on probabilities, it is very likely that Saul did not believe the Christian resurrection claim because he thought the evidence was pathetic...as most non-Christians today agree, then, yes, you should make your exit. But remember what they say about the screen door as you leave...
              Of course that's the point you want to make. The fact that you've failed to and your use of fallacious thought (still no denial) if you claim you've made a point simply by stating your point and ending there, I believe that is called begging the question.

              Speaking bluntly sir, the accusation of fallacious thought should be readily defended against. Why? Because both times I've brought it up, I've been accusing you of either intellectual dishonesty or incompetence (your choice) which you should know if you've taken grade 12 English.

              I bid you a good day. I now take my leave.
              Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
                Of course that's the point you want to make. The fact that you've failed to and your use of fallacious thought (still no denial) if you claim you've made a point simply by stating your point and ending there, I believe that is called begging the question.

                Speaking bluntly sir, the accusation of fallacious thought should be readily defended against. Why? Because both times I've brought it up, I've been accusing you of either intellectual dishonesty or incompetence (your choice) which you should know if you've taken grade 12 English.

                I bid you a good day. I now take my leave.
                Aufwiedersehen!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                  Jesus was executed for high treason, for claiming to be the King of the Jews, when Caesar was the king of the Jews. The Romans did not execute Jesus for claiming to be the Messiah, or a god. History tells us that Pilate was so ruthless to the Jews that the Roman emperor eventually replaced him. Yet, Christians want us to believe the Gospel accounts of a hesitant Pilate shaking in his sandals for fear of a Jewish mob demanding the crucifixion of a man that Pilate could find no fault with. Preposterous.
                  Actually, the account if anything indicates that Pilate is a highly intelligent and manipulative ruler who plays the Jewish leaders on a string. It must be kept in mind that the Jews and Romans weren't particularly fond of each other at the time, as the Jews detested being under the rule of the Romans; they certainly wouldn't have nonchalantly engaged in any sort of diplomatic relations with them. Under Roman rule, the Sanhedrin generally didn't have the right to perform executions, so they tried to depict Jesus' words and ministry as sedition, a charge that a Roman procurator like Pilate would actually care about (unlike allegations of blasphemy).

                  But Pilate realized that Jesus, who (as it turned out) had only a small band of disciples (who fled when the troops arrived) and meekly surrendered was no serious seditious threat. So he initially refused to sentence Jesus and instead forced the leaders and crowd to choose between Jesus and Barabbas, the man who was arrested for actually being a serious seditious threat. He also dares them to crucify Jesus themselves, knowing full well that they aren't allowed to and that if they do, Rome would inflict punishment. Ultimately, the leaders and mob are forced to essentially ally themselves with a known seditionist, with the risk of being viewed as supportive of sedition. Additionally, by constantly referring to Jesus as "their king," Pilate manipulates them into pledging allegiance to Caesar, knowing full well that they must've been dying inside when they said that.
                  Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                  I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                    And the evidence for this is?
                    I think it's been established that crucifixion had a deeply shameful stigma back then, and a king occupies the highest honor position on the human hierarchy. So there's a clear irony in calling a person currently being crucified "the king." Additionally, when Pilate orders that Jesus be flogged, the Roman soldiers also slap him and say "Hail, king of the Jews!" I think it stands to reason that the use of honorable terms like "king" is clearly sarcastic in that context. And it's after the flogging that Pilate brings out Jesus--beaten to a pulp--and says "Here is your king!" It's not a stretch to surmise that Pilate is engaging in gleeful mockery here.
                    Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                    I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                      Ok, here is one counter scenario which I believe explains all the evidence:

                      Jesus is crucified. His body is left to rot on the cross for days, as was the Roman custom, as a warning to other trouble-makers. After a few days, what was left of his body was tossed into an unmarked hole in the ground with the bodies of other executed criminals, as was the Roman custom. Jesus disciples were devastated. He had told them he was the Messiah. They had made plans, even telling family and friends, that they were going to rule on thrones with Jesus in the New Kingdom. But now he is dead. All their hopes and dreams are dashed to smithereens.

                      They return to Galilee to take up fishing again.

                      Then, several weeks or months or years later, a group of female disciples are walking down a road and see a man in the distance standing on a hill. He looks familiar. "It's JESUS!" they shout with joy. "He DID rise again!" But before they reach the man, he has disappeared behind the hill and can't be found. The women return to the Eleven and tell them that they have seen Jesus. They doubt at first, but soon the disciples and others, desperate to believe that there is still hope in Jesus' claims, are "seeing" Jesus...and the legend of the resurrected Jesus begins.

                      At the beginning what are the central "facts" of the story:

                      1. Jesus has been first seen alive after his death, by women disciples.
                      2. The women rushed back to tell the male disciples who at first did not believe...but so wanted to believe it was true.
                      3. The male disciples start "seeing" Jesus in false sightings and in visions.
                      4. The belief in the resurrected Jesus so changes the disciples and Jesus' family that they begin to boldly preach his resurrection as fact.

                      Fast forward 20-25 years to Paul. All Paul says is that Jesus died, was buried, and rose on the third day. He then gives a list of witnesses, not in order, and not with any details. This is perfectly consistent with my counter-scenario. And, my counter-scenario is much, much more probable to be the explanation of the Resurrection belief than that an ancient middle eastern god reanimated a dead prophet in a never heard of before and never heard of since supernatural act.

                      Fast forward to circa 70 AD. We are now FORTY years after the crucifixion of Jesus. The average life span in first century Palestine has been estimated by experts to have been forty years. So how many of the witnesses would still be alive just calculating normal life span? Now take into account the persecution that Christians had faced in Palestine by Saul and the high priest. How many more eyewitnesses were killed prior to circa 70 AD? Then we have the Roman-Jewish wars in the mid 60's. How many more witnesses were killed during these wars? Then, in 70, the Romans destroy Jerusalem and kill tens of thousands of more people.

                      So when "Mark" writes his first gospel talking about an empty tomb, writing his gospel in Antioch or Rome as most scholars believe, NOT in Palestine, how soon does a copy of this gospel, containing claims of an empty tomb, make it to Palestine, where any possible surviving witness could refute the gospel's claims??
                      Though your account carries all sorts of inconsistencies. For instance Paul was a Pharisee who believed in bodily resurrection so him saying someone had 'risen' would have been meant as the reanimation of their fleshly body.

                      If, say, your grandmother dies does that mean someone can come along and suddenly rewrite your family history. Only if there was no one around who knew your grandmother or knew of her through the oral accounts of her passed down as family and friends do. We know this was not the case with Jesus since people knew Him and told others about Him. Also things are often written down long before they are officially published. Add to that the fact not all Jews lived in Palestine. Look at accounts in early Acts which speak about the Synagogue of Freedmen, their ties with other places in the empire clearly listed. Also the accounts of people coming up to Jerusalem from all over the place to celebrate feasts.

                      You, or/and William are quick to say that you believe the disciples saw something but were mistaken, but then you basically say that the stories about what they saw really bore no resemblance to what they actually saw and how the events around the crucifixion unfolded. Again if people were interested in being truthful witnesses this is a problem since a person interested in saying what he believes is a true account of something will not say something wildly at odds from what actually happened.

                      I doubt the disciples would have been motivated to do what they did on account that they thought they saw Jesus (but every time they wanted to make sure they woke up, or when out in the city the fleeting figure disappeared into the crowd.) Again you then have to explain Paul, the pharisee, away and the clear hope the early church had of being physically resurrected, all of which seem to have been clear in Paul's writings.

                      It is said that many people suspected Pliny's (younger) account of Vesuvius' eruption in particular the pyroclastic flow until they saw something similar. Pliny the elder was a naturalist and helped raise and educate his nephew so the odds are that he would have recorded what was actually observed rather than fanciful stuff on account of being an ignorant ancient. We observe before we understand. You don't have to understand something to record what your observations are.
                      Last edited by Abigail; 07-25-2015, 04:59 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                        None of us can know for sure what happened that night, so we are left dealing in probabilities and improbabilities based on whatever evidence we have, evidence which in this case, are four anonymous books written decades after the event. So which is more probable:

                        1. Someone (Jew/Roman/pagan/non-disciple/disciple) steals the body of the "King of the Jews" on the Jewish Passover.
                        2. An ancient middle-eastern god reanimates the dead and decomposing flesh of a first century Jewish prophet.
                        The evidence of Christ's supernatural bodily resurrection is the claim presented in the NT documents ascribed to authors by the names in which said documents were handed down. You did not answer what I asked. So either that Sabbath night one supposes that the body was removed, or the Creator of all things indeed raised up the one being called the Son of God.

                        Originally posted by Gary View Post
                        Do you think Saul knew of an empty tomb claim?
                        That can only be supposed. We are told this in the documents.
                        Last edited by 37818; 07-25-2015, 07:49 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


                        • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                          The resurrection. Please make it better than Strobel or McDowell.
                          At SBL, the two books that have been said to be the best I understand are Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God" and Licona's "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                            At SBL, the two books that have been said to be the best I understand are Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God" and Licona's "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach."
                            I think I'm going to go with Wright on an in depth work due to the fact that I've heard it's standard in your circles. For now, I have a book called The Jesus Legend and the other obviously being Richard Bauckmans: Jesus and the Eyewitness's. So far so good?

                            Comment


                            • TJL is an awesome read.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                . . . We are told this in the documents.
                                It should have read, "We are not told this in the documents."
                                . . . 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

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