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 Christianbookworm View Post
    The claim that more Christians deconvert to atheism. Anyways, just because developed countries mightt be becoming more secular does not mean Christianity is disappearing globally.
    oh yeah, i dont think it's disappearing. I dont even think the numbers argument means anything when it comes to truth, do you? Most people could be wrong, right? Like once upon a time most people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth - most people were wrong.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      No 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 Post
        Go 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.
        So the year of that Passover isn't in any history book?
        . . . 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 Post
          And 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.
          Yes, 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.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Islam 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.
            Haaaa! So the opinion of billions of people is NOT good evidence if, in your personal opinion, their evidence is bad!

            Precious.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
              Yes, 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.
              That'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


              • Originally posted by William View Post
                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?
                Thousands of Hindus witnessed, in person, and on television, multiple Hindu gods (idols) drinking milk from spoons. You can google it. If I have time I will provide a link.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by William View Post
                  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?
                  I 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.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                    I 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.
                    yeah, i will see what i can dig up regarding other miracles. although Gary is right, there is a lot out there on milk drinking Hindu idols... so maybe it's true?

                    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


                    • Fathers back then were not sentimental guys that spoiled you rotten.
                      If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                        Fathers back then were not sentimental guys that spoiled you rotten.
                        I had a very firm handed father. I was not spoiled. I knew he was real without question though. I never wondered if he were real. I can hug my father. Speak to him. I didnt have to wonder if a messenger, claiming to speak for my father, was really speaking for my father, using the words he actually wanted used, or whether the messenger was just making it up.

                        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 37818 View Post
                          So the year of that Passover isn't in any history book?
                          Sure. But even if it can be shown that the Passover that year coincided with the claims in the Bible, that in no way proves that dead flesh was reanimated several days later.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                            That'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.
                            Why don't you provide everyone a quote?

                            Comment


                            • Any personal interaction would result in a scared human.
                              If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                              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.
                                Working...
                                X