Originally posted by Gary
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostTJL is an awesome read.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostThis will take some to get through all of it but when I'm done with Bauckham and TJL I will have a better idea of where I stand on the history aspect of the gospels. Right now though, I've got a lot of heavy lifting to do as I resume my doctorate.
Comment
-
"When it comes to studying if Caesar crossed the Rubicon, there is no right or wrong answer."
"When it comes to Columbus sailing the ocean blue in 1492, there is no right or wrong answer."
"When it comes to if in World War II Hitler butchered millions of Jews, there is no right or wrong answer."
You as an individual CANNOT have 100% certitude of ANY historical claim unless you personally witnessed it with your own two eyes. We as individuals must believe the veracity of ALL historical claims based on the probability that the second, third, fourth, etc-- hand information that we have is accurate.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View Post"When it comes to studying if Caesar crossed the Rubicon, there is no right or wrong answer."
"When it comes to Columbus sailing the ocean blue in 1492, there is no right or wrong answer."
"When it comes to if in World War II Hitler butchered millions of Jews, there is no right or wrong answer."
You as an individual CANNOT have 100% certitude of ANY historical claim unless you personally witnessed it with your own two eyes. We as individuals must believe the veracity of ALL historical claims based on the probability that the second, third, fourth, etc-- hand information that we have is accurate.
Comment
-
The Gospel of Peter is dated by most scholars as being written in the second half of the second century. However, it was not universally condemned as non-canonical until centuries later. Therefore, if the "Gospel of Peter" was in circulation in the second half of the second century when Irenaeus and other Christian leaders were trying to establish a uniform canon, they might have wanted to avoid labeling the gospel we know call "Mark" as "Peter" to avoid confusion. If "Peter" has already been condemned by the entire Church, there wouldn't have been an issue in naming "Mark" the Gospel of Peter.
Bottom line: There are reasonable explanations for why the Church leaders of the late second century would want to name "Mark" the "Gospel of Mark" without necessitating that John Mark wrote it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostThe Gospel of Peter is dated by most scholars as being written in the second half of the second century. However, it was not universally condemned as non-canonical until centuries later. Therefore, if the "Gospel of Peter" was in circulation in the second half of the second century when Irenaeus and other Christian leaders were trying to establish a uniform canon, they might have wanted to avoid labeling the gospel we know call "Mark" as "Peter" to avoid confusion. If "Peter" has already been condemned by the entire Church, there wouldn't have been an issue in naming "Mark" the Gospel of Peter.
Bottom line: There are reasonable explanations for why the Church leaders of the late second century would want to name "Mark" the "Gospel of Mark" without necessitating that John Mark wrote it.
Color me thoroughly unconvinced.
Comment
-
"Yes, and in fact if I heard the same about a Muslim service, I could believe it as well. I have believed such things before as well. I can believe these claims because these are claims that I have heard also from people I deem to be highly reliable who don't believe claims lightly. Also Keener documents several such cases in Miracles."
If a Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or Hindu friend asked me to look at evidence for their miracle claim, I would. The point I am making is that I would not spend my time investigating every miracle claim in the world. I would reject them all until someone presented me with good evidence to believe any specific miracle claim. There are THOUSANDS of miracle claims and some miracle claims are based on the belief that if you do not believe that miracle claim to be true, that you are going to experience some terrible consequence, be that the Christian hell, the Muslim hell, reincarnating as a rat, or having severe pain rack your body as the witch doctor pokes needles into a doll made to look like you!
I cannot investigate all miracle claims!
I will believe a miracle claim when its proponents provide GOOD evidence. So far, I have not seen any good evidence for ME to believe any miracle has occurred.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View Post"Yes, and in fact if I heard the same about a Muslim service, I could believe it as well. I have believed such things before as well. I can believe these claims because these are claims that I have heard also from people I deem to be highly reliable who don't believe claims lightly. Also Keener documents several such cases in Miracles."
If a Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or Hindu friend asked me to look at evidence for their miracle claim, I would. The point I am making is that I would not spend my time investigating every miracle claim in the world. I would reject them all until someone presented me with good evidence to believe any specific miracle claim. There are THOUSANDS of miracle claims and some miracle claims are based on the belief that if you do not believe that miracle claim to be true, that you are going to experience some terrible consequence, be that the Christian hell, the Muslim hell, reincarnating as a rat, or having severe pain rack your body as the witch doctor pokes needles into a doll made to look like you!
I cannot investigate all miracle claims!
I will believe a miracle claim when its proponents provide GOOD evidence. So far, I have not seen any good evidence for ME to believe any miracle has occurred.
You said here you wouldn't.
What's the title of that post? Oh yeah!
Why don't skeptics need to investigate the Evidence for the Christian Claim of a Resurrected, Dead, First Century, Jewish Prophet?
And how does it end?
Answer: Because the claim itself is stupid.
Comment
-
Let me give you an idea of what kind of evidence would make me seriously consider the historicity of the Resurrection claim:
1. Roman and Jewish sources that state that the tomb was guarded 24/7 by crack Roman guards from the minute Jesus' body was placed in the tomb.
2. Roman and Jewish sources that state that on Sunday morning, despite the presence of the guards, the tomb was empty.
3. Roman and Jewish sources that state that multiple non-Christian Romans and non-Christian Jews swore, at the risk of death, that they saw, touched, and ate with the resurrected Jesus.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostLet me give you an idea of what kind of evidence would make me seriously consider the historicity of the Resurrection claim:
1. Roman and Jewish sources that state that the tomb was guarded 24/7 by crack Roman guards from the minute Jesus' body was placed in the tomb.
2. Roman and Jewish sources that state that on Sunday morning, despite the presence of the guards, the tomb was empty.
3. Roman and Jewish sources that state that multiple non-Christian Romans and non-Christian Jews swore, at the risk of death, that they saw, touched, and ate with the resurrected Jesus."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
"Now why is a claim of a miracle itself stupid?"
I never said that all miracle claims are stupid. What I said was that a claim of a literal Tooth Fairy is stupid, and that the claim of a reanimated dead first century Jewish prophet is silly.
Comment
-
"You assume Matthew was written then, but you give no evidence of that."
You are the NT scholar. If the majority of NT scholars (50.1 percent or greater) do not believe that Matthew was not written circa 80 AD, please advise me. Maybe I should widen my time period and say, 70 AD-90 AD. That would not hurt my argument any. Would you agree with that?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View Post"Now why is a claim of a miracle itself stupid?"
I never said that all miracle claims are stupid. What I said was that a claim of a literal Tooth Fairy is stupid, and that the claim of a reanimated dead first century Jewish prophet is silly.
But you gave no reason why that should be the case.
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostWhy should we realistically believe this would be enough for you and that the goalposts would not simply shift were this the case?
I wonder if this is what he will require for Caesar crossing the Rubicon since we go by the "same standard."
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment