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
-
Hi Gray,
The the resurrection evidence, that being the Christian NT documents, which make supernatural claims in its regard.
The genuine Christian faith has two elements to its claims. Historical, and supernatural.
What have you got thus far histroical that you can substantiate? And what truth claim has been presented that can help you accept it?. . . 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 Apologiaphoenix View PostHere's what I recommend.
Deal with the case that was presented. Your wanting to turn to someone else to do your thinking for you is evidence enough you can't deal with the evidence.
The evidence has been enough to pass peer-review at secular institutions.
When you're ready to deal with the real case, let me know. Until then, Dave and William are providing intelligent conversation and not cowardly dodges.
In addition, I challenge you to prove that the peer review boards agreed that the "evidence" they reviewed supported a real, literal, bodily resurrection of a dead man. A secular university peer review board might endorse the evidence of early Christian BELIEF in a resurrection, but not that there is good evidence to believe it really happened. Please show me ONE secular review board which has stated that they believe that the evidence presented by Christian apologists is sufficient to classify the Resurrection as an historical fact.
You can't and you know it, Nick.
You are just blowing smoke to cover your retreat.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postno. I am saying that the evidence is good enough so that a heck of a lot of people over the centuries have turned to Christ, compared to those who choose to ignore the evidence like yourself.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostHi Gray,
The the resurrection evidence, that being the Christian NT documents, which make supernatural claims in its regard.
The genuine Christian faith has two elements to its claims. Historical, and supernatural.
What have you got thus far histroical that you can substantiate? And what truth claim has been presented that can help you accept it?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostAgain, I never said that there is ZERO evidence for your claim, Nick I just said that your evidence isn't good, strong evidence;
not good or strong enough to convince the average, educated, 21st century person that it is a historical fact, and that is why it is not listed as an historical fact in ANY public university history text book on planet earth.
In addition, I challenge you to prove that the peer review boards agreed that the "evidence" they reviewed supported a real, literal, bodily resurrection of a dead man. A secular university peer review board might endorse the evidence of early Christian BELIEF in a resurrection, but not that there is good evidence to believe it really happened. Please show me ONE secular review board which has stated that they believe that the evidence presented by Christian apologists is sufficient to classify the Resurrection as an historical fact.
You can't and you know it, Nick.
You are just blowing smoke to cover your retreat.
Good night. You actually think you're a threat to someone? Dunning-Kruger strikes again.
Peer-review boards don't necessarily agree with what they peer-review that is submitted. It simply means that the person who made the case is intellectually justified in their position and have thoroughly made a case that they can make a defense of the proposition. Licona's Ph.D. did that. So did Habermas's.
Stop being a coward and deal with the arguments.
Comment
-
Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostA heck of a lot of people have turned to Allah over the centuries. So what is your point?
If the evidence for Christianity is not good enough for the average educated 21st century person to accept (as you put it) then why do they believe in overwhelming numbers compared to atheism?
And it is apparent to everyone reading this thread that Nick is far more educated than you are. So maybe you are the ignorant one.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThe evidence is good enough so that millions of people have accepted it since Christ walked the earth. Compare that to atheists (sure you are an agnostic LOL) like you who only want to mock Christianity and God. You have historically only made up a few measly percent of the population. So that seems to indicate that the evidence is pretty good. Go ahead and write your letter.
Are you related to skepticbud by any chance? Or do all new atheists just act the same way?
I think those who do not believe in Christianity far outnumber those who do, but the number of who believe and who do not believe don't really get at the question of whether it's actually true or whether there is substantial evidence for believing in the Resurrection. In some ways this is weird question as there are both those who obviously believe it as well as those who obviously do not - so i suppose the answer is yes and no.
I am curious though about another test. Is there any other supernatural claim in history that has similar historic backing as the Resurrection? If so, what, and do those who believe in the Resurrection also believe in this other miraculous tale of an extra-Judaeo-christian miracle, since it has comparable historical evidence?
Gary/Dave, do you guys know of any that could be compared?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostIslam is not based on historical evidence, so that doesn't count. Your knowledge of other religions seems as poor as your knowledge of Christianity.
If the evidence for Christianity is not good enough for the average educated 21st century person to accept (as you put it) then why do they believe in overwhelming numbers compared to atheism?
And it is apparent to everyone reading this thread that Nick is far more educated than you are. So maybe you are the ignorant one.
Comment
-
Originally posted by William View Postwhat was this in response to?If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostMind explaining for the peanut gallery why it would be counterproductive for Jesus to appear to everyone?
And then we have Elijah's test to the prophets of Baal. Would the biblical God pass that test today or fail like Baal did? Is he sleeping or too busy? Appearing to all of creation (your children) should be easy for an all powerful God and it it would people make a more informed decision.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment