Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

No. It's not. Do you think secular institutions that peer review this material are ran by evangelical Christians?

Take off the tin-foil hat dude. You're becoming more and more of a train wreck.

Ok, Nick. Let's see you put your money where your mouth is: I dare you to show me and the readers of this thread even ONE non-Christian (secular), peer-reviewed journal that believes that the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus is sufficient to include this event as an historical fact in all high school and college, general world history text books.

[Apologiaphoenix]

P.S. I see you complaining on blogs that you don't know how to formally debate. It literally takes a google search to figure out to do a formal debate. You don't need to be formally trained on the subject.

You must mean like right here: http://danielbwallace.com/2014/03/24...#comment-44355



That was totally hysterical. Yep. The Christians on this site sure interfered. I mean, they only apologized when they made a mistake in the debate format. And Gary actually thinks he's refuting something point by point.

Dunning-Kruger anyone?

[Cerebrum123]

so you agree there are errors, but just not big ones? I'm not talking about spelling or translation either.

In copies, yes I agree that there are errors.

I dont really mean to get off on a tangent, but Matthew has jesus riding two donkey at the triumphal entry as if he misunderstood redundancy in text, he credited Jeremiah with something Zechariah said, he said that Isaiah said that a Virgin would conceive and that that referenced Jesus and Mary while Isaiah really said "young woman" and and young woman happened to give birth in Isaiah Ch 8.

Matt and Lukes genealogies both say through Joseph but are horribly wrong - people usually say that Luke meant Mary, but this is really just wishful thinking. I mean, what discrepancy cant be "explained" in such a way?

on the limited commission, were they to take their sandles or staffs or not?

at jesus birth, each has a different story. which is right? if they're all right, how do you make it work with all the details?

ezekiel's prophecy of Tyre... Tyre isnt desolate and was rebuilt and is populated today, contrary to what Ezekiel said.

Jeremiah said that a levite will always be at the alter in Jerusalem and that a decedent of david would always be on the thrown. Jesus is the descendant of David, but he's from Judah, and priest after melcizedec not after Levi.

I mean there's more. and I've heard the excuses, so since this is a tangent, I'll just acknowledge that you likely have "explanations" for them - but keep this in mind, all religions have explanations for their issues (Islam as well) and Like them, these excuses dont eliminate the issue, as the text says what it says not matter how much we plead for it to mean something else. You'll believe it regardless and I just do not.

But saying that the Koran has textual issues but that the bible does not is not fair or accurate. you just make and believe excuses for the bible and dont want to hear or accept the excuses made and believed for the Koran.

I may, or may not come back to this thread, for now I'll say this. The textual issues I was referring to in my response to Gary has to do specifically with manuscript evidence. Such things as when things were written, by whom, and other things. For the most part, we know what the NT said in it's original form. We have very early manuscript evidence, and we are finding more stuff all the time(more recently they found stuff on the inside of Egyptian masks IIRC).

I know that all religions have their apologetics and explanations. I've researched those of Islam. I've spent years studying the claims made, and doing my best to look to the texts in their contexts.
Because of the nature of the Quran, we don't have much context unless you involve the Hadith. Something that seems to be rejected by Muslims more and more*. Without that context, you have a rather hollow shell of Islam. With that context, and you get other problems.

There was time when I tried asking a Muslim apologetics site how they reconcile certain things. You want to know what they did? They cut off the conversation(it was a live text chat). They hung up on me. Either the person could not answer, or was not knowledgeable enough to give an answer. Either of those reflects badly on said site. Especially since they didn't just admit they didn't have an answer, and try sending me to someone else.

*Quran Onlyists seem to be on the rise. This is based on my personal experience with Muslims. Those that don't outright deny the Hadith, will pick and choose when to accept specific traditions. If it helps their current argument they will accept it, if it doesn't, they will deny it.

[Irate Canadian]

He literally can PM every other atheist on the site, and find out no moderation is generally done.

[Gary]

You must mean like right here: http://danielbwallace.com/2014/03/24...#comment-44355



That was totally hysterical. Yep. The Christians on this site sure interfered. I mean, they only apologized when they made a mistake in the debate format. And Gary actually thinks he's refuting something point by point.

Dunning-Kruger anyone?

Care to take my textbook challenge, Nicky?

[Irate Canadian]

Why don't you answer my question first?

Was the ANE culture a honour/shame based culture?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Ok, Nick. Let's see you put your money where your mouth is: I dare you to show me and the readers of this thread even ONE non-Christian (secular), peer-reviewed journal that believes that the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus is sufficient to include this event as an historical fact in all high school and college, general world history text books.

goalposts.jpg

Sorry, but my claim isn't that this would be taught in world history text books which would try to remain neutral, but that this stuff passes peer review at secular universities.

Case in point. Gary Habermas did his Ph.D. on the resurrection of Jesus. It passed peer-review at a secular institution.

Mike Licona did the same thing.

Peer-review doesn't mean that they agree. IT means that you've put forward the necessary research and you're capable of defending your position before a scholarly board of critics.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Let's look at the University of Michigan.

http://www.msu.edu/about/

ANd their "Mission statement"

http://president.msu.edu/mission/#sthash.cgOyCGWT.dpuf

Clearly, this is a bastion of evangelicalism.

How about Pretoria?



Obviously, the place is ran by maniacal fundies.

[Dave]

Okay. Let's ask a few questions. Does Mrs. Jones live in an honor-shame society where deviant beliefs are looked down on and shunned or does she live in an individualistic society where having an unusual belief can even be a badge of honor?

Is Mrs. Jones living in a community where her claims will be welcomed without serious question or is she living in a community where she will face shaming and persecution for her questions?

Does Mrs. Jones belief involve acknowledging someone who was just recently put to death by the ruling authorities and thus challenging them in her face?

Does the event involve skeptics of her worldview entirely coming to embrace her worldview?

If there are appearances of a being to a large number of people, how is this explained since it can't be a hallucination?

Sorry to jump in, but I'd like to add some thoughts. I enjoy these discussions if they can be civil and I want to outline another possible scenario. (Sorry in advance if I don't reply very frequently)

If we said hypothetically that the first person to see Jesus was Peter, then the first group of people he would have told would have been the other disciples, right? I don't think this would be a shameful confession, but rather he would have been viewed as a hero. A few days may pass and then another disciple may think that he's seen Jesus too. It's not long before most of the disciples have "seen" Jesus, perhaps in a dream or just vaguely seeing someone who looks like Jesus. Now the followers are getting excited and realizing that Jesus may have been the messiah after all and is coming back to usher in a new kingdom. Nick, do you have any evidence that the local authorities were challenged at this point? And do we know that Saul was a skeptic? Perhaps he was just following orders. I don't think large numbers of people can all hallucinate at the same time, but I do think they can all be mistaken at the same time by the power of suggestion. The Virgin Mary Apparition in Zeitoun, Egypt is one example.

[Gary]

No. It's not. Do you think secular institutions that peer review this material are ran by evangelical Christians?

Take off the tin-foil hat dude. You're becoming more and more of a train wreck.

Which secular university has peer reviewed the claim of first century dead tissue reanimation??

[Gary]

So you don't think ANE culture was a honour/shame based culture?

If so, then you're not worth the time. You can't even be bothered researching basic facts.

P.S. I see you complaining on blogs that you don't know how to formally debate. It literally takes a google search to figure out to do a formal debate. You don't need to be formally trained on the subject.

I never had any intention to do a formal debate. I wanted to continue the informal debate that Nick and I were having on Dr. Wallace's blog. Nick did not tell me it would be formal, have moderators, or that the moderators were Christian until after I had already gone through the registration procedures for Theology Web. It's ok, though. It gave me a larger audience with whom to share the truth: Superstitions are not reality.

[Irate Canadian]

I never had any intention to do a formal debate. I wanted to continue the informal debate that Nick and I were having on Dr. Wallace's blog. Nick did not tell me it would be formal, have moderators, or that the moderators were Christian until after I had already gone through the registration procedures for Theology Web. It's ok, though. It gave me a larger audience with whom to share the truth: Superstitions are not reality.

1. The moderators being Christians, and interacting in the comment thread, in no way influenced your posts. You keep making it sound as if the mods were going to delete your content.
2. Formal Debates are not hard, and make sure the debate is structured. For someone who claims to be "rational", I expect a lot better logic then most.
3. Where the hell have you been on the internet that didn't have moderators? Almost every site has them, even if they are not pronounced.
4. You still haven't answered my question: Was the ANE culture a honour/shame based culture?

[Gary]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]8287[/ATTACH]

Sorry, but my claim isn't that this would be taught in world history text books which would try to remain neutral, but that this stuff passes peer review at secular universities.

Case in point. Gary Habermas did his Ph.D. on the resurrection of Jesus. It passed peer-review at a secular institution.

Mike Licona did the same thing.

Peer-review doesn't mean that they agree. IT means that you've put forward the necessary research and you're capable of defending your position before a scholarly board of critics.

So what! Someone could do a peer reviewed article on the human-sacrifice practices of the ancient Mayans! That doesn't mean that members of the peer review board believe that human sacrifices really appease Mayan gods.


Just admit it Nick. The "evidence" for your supernatural, first century • Edited by a Moderator • story is pathetic. It isn't even good enough to make it into a high school history textbook.

[Irate Canadian]

So what! Someone could do a peer reviewed article on the human-sacrifice practices of the ancient Mayans! That doesn't mean that members of the peer review board believe that human sacrifices really appease Mayan gods.


Just admit it Nick. The "evidence" for your supernatural, first century • Edited by a Moderator • story is pathetic. It isn't even good enough to make it into a high school history book.

1. Yes, someone could do a report on the Mayans. And yes, it doesn't mean that the human sacrifices appease the gods. But that wouldn't be the thesis of the article, would it? It would be a report extrapolating data from Mayan records to find historical events that occurred.
2.Name calling much?

ETA: Still dodging the question.

[Cow Poke]

Moderated By: CP

Attention Gary....

Tweb is a very lightly moderated site. That being said, it is, indeed, a Christian run site, and we really don't need the blasphemy you have been using. (See prior posts) You are a guest here, just as I am. Please tone down the offensive language, and take some time to familiarize yourself with the rules of this forum.

Thanks,

CP

Oh, and please pay particular attention to the message below.....

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.