Originally posted by Christianbookworm
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 PostNo Gary. It's both a historical and religious claim. If the historical claim is true, it has religious implications.
If you want to evaluate the claim, you look at the claim and evaluate it.
You remind me right now of Lucy telling Schroeder "If Beethoven was so great, wouldn't they have put him on bubble gum cards?"
don't most historians automatically toss out supernatural claims in old literature, even though they may see some details as likely true? If not, are there other miracles, extra-biblical miracles, recorded in history that historians think likely occurred?
and then, do you believe in them as well?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostGo talk to the professional historians, friend. I am not the one who decides what gets into a history book as fact and what gets in as a belief. The fact is: The Resurrection of Jesus is not listed as an historical fact in any pubic university history textbook on the planet; if it is listed at all, it is listed as a belief.. . . 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 PostAnd you demonstrated this by your great inability to handle it. Instead, you played to analogies over and over without dealing with the scholarship and then even tried to treat it like it doesn't matter.
Which is trying to avoid your intellectual responsibility to answer a question or make a case. I take it as a tacit confession that you don't have one.
My 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
-
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.
Precious.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostYes, they are intellectually justified in their presentation of the evidence for the early Christian BELIEF in a bodily resurrection, not evidence of the event itself. Get real, Nick. You may fool a few Christians on this site who treat you as an expert just because you attended seminary for a few semesters but if you don't know how to distinguish evidence of a belief, and evidence for the historicity of the actual event, you need to take a few more semesters.
Deal with the case presented. Not the case you want to deal with.
Then try seeing what some real historians say, such as C. Benan McCullogh's endorsement of Licona's book on the resurrection.
Comment
-
Originally posted by William View PostI 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 William View Postdon't most historians automatically toss out supernatural claims in old literature, even though they may see some details as likely true? If not, are there other miracles, extra-biblical miracles, recorded in history that historians think likely occurred?
and then, do you believe in them as well?
If you can show me a miracle with good evidence, I will believe in it. While I do believe in the miracles of the Bible, none is as well-attested as the resurrection. Not one. That doesn't surprise me. If this is to be the chief miracle, that's how it should be.
Also, with your other post, I think there's a common misnomer about God as a father. We often think of Him as a close parent wanting to have a deep and personal relationship with us. I've actually argued against that paradigm. I don't think it's got a biblical basis at all. I think God is there and He has not hidden Himself. The question is often are we really looking for Him. I'd really recommend starting with the main theistic arguments. My favorites are the five ways of Aquinas.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostI would think many would due to the popular zeitgeist of the day. Unfortunately, I don't really see a credible argument against events often deemed "supernatural." (A word I do not use myself.)
If you can show me a miracle with good evidence, I will believe in it. While I do believe in the miracles of the Bible, none is as well-attested as the resurrection. Not one. That doesn't surprise me. If this is to be the chief miracle, that's how it should be.
Also, with your other post, I think there's a common misnomer about God as a father. We often think of Him as a close parent wanting to have a deep and personal relationship with us. I've actually argued against that paradigm. I don't think it's got a biblical basis at all. I think God is there and He has not hidden Himself. The question is often are we really looking for Him. I'd really recommend starting with the main theistic arguments. My favorites are the five ways of Aquinas.
and the God the Father thing - I waffle on that one. the Bible itself has God supposedly making that analogy, as being our father and us his children, so maybe it's not far off the mark. while these sort of things didn't bother me when I was a believer, and had no reason for my departure, i do think on them now. It seems that the things God does in the bible often mirror what we have villains doing in our movies and literature (killing David's baby to punish David, slaughtering women and children in Canaan while saving the young virgin girls, etc). These points add nothing to our present discussion, so I apologize for the tangent.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostFathers back then were not sentimental guys that spoiled you rotten.
With God and Jesus, the bulk of our relationships are what we imagine. they are very one sided. the Invisible does look a lot like the imaginary - and their hugs feel the same.
so I dont think this is as easily explained as "Fathers back then were not sentimental guys that spoiled you rotten."
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostThat's why I presented the evidence for the history. Your response is to abdicate your intellectual responsibility and run to others to do your thinking for you.
Deal with the case presented. Not the case you want to deal with.
Then try seeing what some real historians say, such as C. Benan McCullogh's endorsement of Licona's book on the resurrection.
Comment
-
here's a lecture on the subject from Richard Carrier.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/r...n/lecture.html
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment