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 Apologiaphoenix View Post
    "With impressive erudition, Licona marshals all possible evidence of Jesus' resurrection and considers its significance in a careful, methodical way. He then compares several alternative explanations of the disciples' faith in the resurrection, judging them according to important criteria, and concludes that Jesus' bodily resurrection provides the best explanation of their conviction, and so is worthy of belief. This is an astonishing achievement and a major contribution to the ongoing debate. It is clearly written and full of fresh insights and arguments that will enrich discussion for years to come."
    —C. Behan McCullagh,
    author of The Logic of History


    Here's another review found on SBL about Licona's book.

    Now let's look to what else you've said.



    Bzzz. Wrong answer. Jesus had already given plenty of signs.

    For one thing, why would the Pharisees be wanting a sign from Jesus to show His identity unless there was already some discussion of His identity, some reason for people to think He was the Messiah and/or Son of God? The Pharisees did not go up to random strangers asking for signs. They went to people that were being talked about and were developing a high honor reputation and would be threatening their own honor. In fact, this was AFTER Jesus had sent out messengers in His name in Matthew 10 and AFTER Jesus showed He was claiming to be the Messiah by the answer given to the disciples of John the Baptist and directly before this passage, the Pharisees had been saying that Jesus cast out devils by the hand of Beelzebub. Jesus had given them more than enough signs. Their problem was not wanting evidence, but rejecting the evidence they'd already been given.



    No. Small children act in trust. That's the difference. I've already addressed the question of what is meant by faith here. Furthermore, you could consider what Pilch and Malina say here:

    Faith/Faithfulness

    "These terms refer to the value of reliability. The value is ascribed to persons as well as to objects and qualities. Relative to persons, faith is reliability in interpersonal relations: it thus takes on the value of enduring personal loyalty, of personal faithfulness. The nouns 'faith', 'belief', 'fidelity', 'faithfulness,' as well as the verbs 'to have faith' and 'to believe,' refers to the social glue that binds one person to another. This bond is the social, externally manifested, emotionally rooted behavior of loyalty, commitment, and solidarity. As a social bond, it works with the value of (personal and group) attachment (translated 'love') and the value of (personal and group) allegiance or trust (translated 'hope.') p. 72 Pilch and Malina Handbook of Biblical Social Values.


    But let's consider what you said. Small children do not need to read the peer-reviewed research of Christian apologists and theologians. (Never mind that we also here read atheists and liberals and other such people.) Let's see. Who was it who said they do not need to read?

    Dear friend: You do NOT need to read the books of Christian apologists, theologians, and pastors to determine if these assertions of ancient, middle eastern facts are true. No. All you have to do is use your brain. And what does your brain tell you: It is all superstitious nonsense.


    Why yes. This is you. You are the one advocating then thinking like a child. Well it also shows that you think like a child. If I did not know better, I would think I was reading the rant of a high schooler from you. The rest of us here are reading and bringing forward evidence for our positions.



    So are you still trying to follow Jesus because you stopped evaluating a long time ago.



    Looks like you stopped doing this too.



    So we can think more like the person who says you don't need to read and study?



    Oh the irony....



    You mean like how you've gone from completely believing Christian claims to completely believing atheist claims?



    No. That is your way.



    Nope. I follow in the footsteps of Jesus. I believe in evidence.

    Let us know when you switch to a position based on evidence instead of one based on faith.

    If you want to believe in Jesus, believe in him as Jesus himself taught: empty your brain of any education and adult intelligence and simply believe what you are told, just as a small child would.
    Keep convincing yourself that you are highly educated on this subject, Nick, but in reality you are peddling a first century equivalent of a modern science fiction flick. You can study science fiction until you are the world's expert, but you will still be operating outside the realm of reality.

    Educated people who did not grow up in your belief system are not buying this ancient story anymore, and many educated people who did grow up in it don't buy it anymore, such as yours truly. Christianity is in decline in the entire western world. Blame materialism, blame poor preaching, but I blame the internet. The internet is the doom of all religious superstitions, including the superstition of the reanimation of dead human flesh.
    Last edited by Gary; 07-30-2015, 09:34 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      JPH does it best in The Impossible Faith, but it's the idea that Christianity broke all the social rules of the time and would have been low honor and should have died out, and yet it survived against all odds.

      I find it so fascinating that when I get to the Ph.D. level, I plan to do a Ph.D. thesis on the approach.
      If someone could show you another shameful belief that originated and thrived in an honor-shame society, would that change your mind about the strength of this evidence?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
        Who said anything about punishment? You'll get what you want. Which is not the same as what you need.
        please explain "what I want".

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
          Keep convincing yourself that you are highly educated on this subject, Nick, but in reality you are peddling a first century equivalent of a modern science fiction flick. You can study science fiction until you are the world's expert, but you will still be operating outside the realm of reality.
          How anachronistic. What else? Time traveling Christians went back in time, took Jesus, made Him all better, and thus faked the Resurrection???
          If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
            How anachronistic. What else? Time traveling Christians went back in time, took Jesus, made Him all better, and thus faked the Resurrection???
            The claim of the reanimation of dead human tissue belongs to the realm of science fiction ("The Walking Dead"). It is not reality.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
              The claim of the reanimation of dead human tissue belongs to the realm of science fiction ("The Walking Dead"). It is not reality.
              Zombies??? NO! A glorified resurrection body is nothing like the undead. The undead still aren't alive. They would eventually break down.
              If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                Zombies??? NO! A glorified resurrection body is nothing like the undead. The undead still aren't alive. They would eventually break down.
                How would one know the difference between the two if you met either on the road in the middle of the night?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                  Nick has called me a "fundamentalist" several times on this thread. The interesting thing about that word is that it has many definitions. The most common definition of the term today is this: a religious person who believes that his belief system is the only true belief system, and that everyone who does not believe as he does, will be punished by his god, either in this world or in the next.

                  So Nick, do you believe that I and other non-Christians will be punished, either physically or psychologically, by your god for the thought crime (sin) of not believing in him as our Lord (master) and Savior (angry-god-appeasing human sacrifice)?
                  Yep. I've called you a fundamentalist because you are one, and unfortunately you just give the definition you think is common, but it really isn't.

                  As some of you know, I do not respect the demeanor of other mythicists (some of whom are atheist fundamentalists, as unpleasant as many Christian or Jewish or Muslim fundamentalists – or worst than most in their self-righteous vitriol).

                  http://ehrmanblog.org/debates-for-a-price-for-members/


                  Fundamentalism refers to a mindset and not to a belief system. There are fundamentalists on both sides. You're still a fundamentalist Gary. You believe everything about your worldview blindly and wholeheartedly, you don't produce evidence for its central claims, and you disdain any scholarship that disagrees with you and treat it like not worthy of reading.

                  Keep convincing yourself that you are highly educated on this subject, Nick, but in reality you are peddling a first century equivalent of a modern science fiction flick. You can study science fiction until you are the world's expert, but you will still be operating outside the realm of reality.
                  So I write out a long response addressing answers to the objections that you made and looking at the context and you have no response other than "Duh. Your worldview is stupid because science." That's not an argument. It's a tacit appeal that you have no argument. I also am not going around saying I'm educated. I leave that to others to decide and on this thread, even the atheists have spoken and said you're dealing with someone who is educated.

                  Educated people who did not grow up in your belief system are not buying this ancient story anymore, and many educated people who did grow up in it don't buy it anymore, such as yours truly. Christianity is in decline in the entire western world. Blame materialism, blame poor preaching, but I blame the internet. The internet is the doom of all religious superstitions, including the superstition of the reanimation of dead human flesh.
                  Really? They're not? People like John Polkinghorne or Alister McGrath or David Wood or many others? I could show you a long list of people who came to believe in Christianity in adulthood and these are people who take the life of the mind very seriously. All you have is an argument ad populum.

                  If someone could show you another shameful belief that originated and thrived in an honor-shame society, would that change your mind about the strength of this evidence?
                  It would definitely have an impact proportional to the evidence.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                    How would one know the difference between the two if you met either on the road in the middle of the night?
                    Namely, that the undead still look like a moving corpse crawled out of the uncanny valley. A resurrection body would look like a regular person. And be unkillable.
                    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                      It's hard for me to pick just one. I know Habermas places a lot on the appearances in "To Everyone An Answer" and frankly, he and Mike avoid the honor-shame motif which I think is a mistake and I said so in my critique of Mike's book. I really think that the whole of the honor-shame motif is what I find the most convincing. I don't think I could point to any one aspect.
                      Is your critique of his book online? does he respond to your critique? Just curious.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by William View Post
                        atheism is on the rise. I'd wager that more christians "convert" to atheism than the other way around. But if numbers counted as meaningful, one may have to divide Christianity into its denominations, but even if not, Islam is as large as Christianity and is growing faster, last stat I heard.
                        Islam grows by forced conversion, not personal choice based on evidence. Once a muslim government is in place everyone is pressured to become muslim or face dire consequences. It has been that way from the beginning, when Mohammad raided caravans and made them convert at the point of a sword. So you really can't compare Christianity to Islam. Christianity is a personal choice, and it makes historical claims based on actual events. If the evidence were not convincing, there would be no Christianity.

                        world religion.jpg

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by William View Post
                          what do you mean?
                          Mohammad merely claimed he was visited by an angel and given the Koran to write down. The Koran, if you have ever read it, is basically like the book of proverbs, full of sayings and advice but not really making a cohesive narrative based on historical events.

                          check it out yourself: http://www.wright-house.com/religions/islam/Quran.html

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Dave View Post
                            Is your critique of his book online? does he respond to your critique? Just curious.
                            http://www.amazon.com/review/RR9NW9L...SIN=0830827196

                            Mike took my criticism well. I don't think he's going to get into the honor-shame stuff, which is a shame, but he liked the review.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                              But this still assumes your premise. It assumes no one knew where Jesus was buried. Just because we are unsure does not mean that they did not know.
                              Yes, this is true. We don't know now and back then it is at least a possibility they did not know. The other possibility is that they knew, but lost the location at some point (perhaps the siege of Jerusalem affected grave sites).

                              Also, the custom in Judea was burial.
                              In the link you gave there are two related references from ancient writings: "Cicero, for example, mentions a governor in Sicily who released bodies to family members in return for a fee (In Verrem 2.5.45), and Philo writes that on the eve of Roman holidays in Egypt, crucified bodies were taken down and given to their families, "because it was thought well to give them burial and allow them ordinary rites" (In Flaccum 10.83-84)." These appear to be special circumstances (a Roman holiday and extortion) that would allow an exception, but otherwise the rule may have been to not release the body of crucified criminals (especially someone guilty of treason). Since there are no quotes that mention Pilate's custom regarding crucified bodies we can only speculate.

                              No. It's not. Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin which would meet in Jerusalem and thus would most likely have a residency near Jerusalem. Furthermore, all the Gospels refer to Him and it would be difficult to make up a figure like Joseph when opponents could call them out on it.
                              It seems unlikely that the gospel would have been distributed to opponents (if they were even still alive).

                              Joseph would because as Byron McCane points out.

                              http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sl...yronburial.htm

                              After all, if Joseph was hiding his position, he would have not come forward at all. No one thought suspiciously of Joseph because he came forward. He took a dishonorable burial and tried to bandage it.
                              I read this entire page. It is very interesting. I am going to have to revise my hypothesis because I do need to somehow explain why Mark gives Jesus a shameful burial with no mourners. Of course, the burial by Joseph story could just be true, but then we still have to wonder why there were no mourners.

                              What if Mark was trying to paint a very bleak picture to gain an emotional response from his readers? The crucifixion was horrifying, the burial was shameful and all hope was lost. Then miraculously everything goes from black to white which makes for a great story. The tomb is empty, an angel is there proclaiming the resurrection, Jesus appears to the disciples and then is taken up to heaven to sit at the right hand of God.

                              Why would dialogue make the story fictional? In fact, in a real account, this is what I would expect.
                              I guess I have a hard time believing that so much dialogue could be retained in oral traditions for all those years. Not to mention that many times the dialogue is done in private.

                              I can only suspect at this point that you have not talked to people in states of desperation. This is extremely common. These women had a man they deeply cared for and treasured and were just hoping against hope.
                              Good point, that is plausible.

                              And why on Earth would he do that? That would only make the account less believable. An author making a fictional account would more likely include the men going and being the heroes. Especially if Mark is the testimony of Peter, why would Peter not be the hero?
                              I guess because the reason to visit the tomb was to anoint the body. Perhaps this kind of chore was left for women. (Sorry ladies) Besides, in Mark's gospel the women don't get to see Jesus, just the angel in the tomb saying he was risen. The honor of the first appearance then is still given to the disciples.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                Islam grows by forced conversion, not personal choice based on evidence. Once a muslim government is in place everyone is pressured to become muslim or face dire consequences. It has been that way from the beginning, when Mohammad raided caravans and made them convert at the point of a sword. So you really can't compare Christianity to Islam. Christianity is a personal choice, and it makes historical claims based on actual events. If the evidence were not convincing, there would be no Christianity.

                                [ATTACH=CONFIG]8411[/ATTACH]
                                The same thing can be said about old school Christianity that was very authoritarian in it's early days after it became the dominate religion across Europe. There were many atrocities committed during it's early days - and especially when Islam started gaining followers. Religion spreads based on whether or not it's PR is able to convey a philosophy that is psychologically satisfying to the human mind, no different than Scientology in the twentieth century. Look at Judaism from your own list, it has practically no followers and is the father of both Christianity and Islam. The latter simply have philosophies and ideas about the afterlife, redemption, and such that Judaism just fell out of favor with the world.

                                We're just lucky enough that Islam is closer to us and we have more information about Mohammad and it's early days to know it's a complete fraud. Christianity is a little harder (though not impossible) to know it's complete origins. A lot of history was lost after Rome fell apart and we don't have a lot of access to early Christianities critics outside of quotes from the church fathers.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X