Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix
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 PostI've read it, along with the Analycts, the Tao Te Ching, and all of the Mormon Scriptures. I find reading other "Scriptures" a revealing exercise.
Comment
-
Originally posted by William View Postand out of more curiosity, when reading those, do you read as you would the bible? what I mean is, do you read the bible looking for God's Word, while the others you look for some enlighetening things, but never once trying to Find God's truth in them... My question could be worded better, but i think you see what I'm getting at.
Part of good thinking is not looking at just the conclusion and deciding how the argument is based on the conclusion. There can be bad arguments for good conclusions. There can be good arguments for bad conclusions.
However, in all my reading, I keep coming back to Christianity. It's just totally set apart by the data and the logic of it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostThat didn't really contradict anything I said as being untrue.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostSeriously? Scientology is just getting started and it's got a big following for only forty years old.
But even still, is this seriously your argument? Most Christians today have no clue about Christianities origins or the arguments for and against it, so this idea is pretty dead in the water.
All we really have for Christianities early days is two passages from historians that confirm Jesus had some sort of ministry and nothing else outside of that. We have no idea how the Romans and Jews really responded to claims of Jesus being the messiah, or the idea of him being resurrected.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostNot really. When I interviewed Tim McGrew on my show we actually talked about that some. His own wife did an experiment in her kitchen on the Hindu milk drinking and found out the cause of it.
What I would tell you is I think these can be answered, but these points are aspects that we don't understand at first about a person. When I married my wife, I knew there were some things about her that weren't perfect, but I was willing to pursue it still for the good that I saw. I would just ask one question. "Did Jesus rise?" If not, the others don't matter. If so, then the others can be answered.
there are things the bible we can verify, by history, archaeology, or science. Some of it comes up wrong.
Hares chewing cuds. they dont. I know, i know, the scientific term wasn't around back then, so we're applying modern terms to ancient points, but I think that statement is just an attempt to sweep this under the rug. All the other animals chewed on regurgitated food - the cud. Hares, while they look like they're chewing, do not chew on regurgitated food, but they eat their own poop. "Well that's close enough," except that pigs do the same thing and are said in the bible to not chew the cud...
Jesus said that a seed must die before it can grow. that's false.
Read Gen 1 closely. It's scientifically incorrect regarding the solar system and earth, and looks so much like ignorant ancient people trying to make sense of their world.
this is just a sample.
and then contradictions in various places.
and so I can see where somethings are off out of things that I can verify, so why would I believe the larger than life claims of the things I cant verify, when every other claim in superstition that can be verified is shown to be quite natural?
Comment
-
Originally posted by William View PostI am certain that the statues drinking milk has a natural explanation. Out of the things we are able to test, they all come out that way. With the bible, so much of it are things we cannot test or verify, but have to take the claims at face value if we're to believe them.
there are things the bible we can verify, by history, archaeology, or science. Some of it comes up wrong.
Hares chewing cuds. they dont. I know, i know, the scientific term wasn't around back then, so we're applying modern terms to ancient points, but I think that statement is just an attempt to sweep this under the rug. All the other animals chewed on regurgitated food - the cud. Hares, while they look like they're chewing, do not chew on regurgitated food, but they eat their own poop. "Well that's close enough," except that pigs do the same thing and are said in the bible to not chew the cud...
Jesus said that a seed must die before it can grow. that's false.
Read Gen 1 closely. It's scientifically incorrect regarding the solar system and earth, and looks so much like ignorant ancient people trying to make sense of their world.
this is just a sample.
and then contradictions in various places.
and so I can see where somethings are off out of things that I can verify, so why would I believe the larger than life claims of the things I cant verify, when every other claim in superstition that can be verified is shown to be quite natural?
One problem is we read the text with our modern lenses on. I think Genesis 1 is a fine example of this. You're reading it as a scientific account. I contend that it isn't. The text has zip to say about science. It's a functional account where God is creating sacred space for Him to dwell in and naming the function of everything that is in the creation.
Comment
-
In the link you provide, the refuter seems more argumentative than he actually seems to be addressingt the points with stuff like, "Well actually, we do have some physical evidence. We do in fact have documents. We have the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, Acts, and of course the rest of the New Testament. We also have writings outside of the NT such as Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, etc."
Carrier said that those things were there. He also said why The Rubicon crossing was better since actual contemporaries of Jesus wrote about it. There are none of jesus, at least none that wrote about it until much later down the line.
BUt also, while I feel fairly certain that Jesus was at ;eats a real man, and that the Rubicon was crossed, I would not say I have 100% certainty. I trust expert scientists in their field too, but i do not have 100% certainty that the leading scientific understandings are the end all be all - and that level of certainly fluctuates depending on what we're discussing. I can say that, "yeah, it looks like this is case with the info we have right now..." I think it's this way for most people and I wouldnt be surprised if you were the same. But with the Resurrection, not only are expected to believe this otherwise unrealistic event based on the claims of superstitious men who recorded their testimonies decades after the fact, but we're to feel certain about it.
but with jesus' Resurrection, it wasnt carrier's point that no contemporary enemies wrote of a belief in Jesus ressurection, as appears to be the claim in your link, it was that no contemporaries of jesus even wrote about the claim or that others believed it. All the sources there are come from believers, who wrote much much later. And the closest author, Paul, didnt claim many of the things that the others did, who wrote much later than he did.
and let's not forget, an army crossing a river is not unique. It isn't supernatural or miraculous. While it may be a feet of engineering and determination, it is completely plausible. While everyone may feel very certain that Caesar's own account of the event is mostly accurate, i doubt that anyone feels 100% that all of it perfectly accurate. and even if they did, if you toss in a single miraculous claim, then the majority of people would not believe that claim, while still likely finding the other stuff plausible and likely.
and some people dont believe socrates was real (from your link). Does that matter? Is there any consequence to a belief or disbelief in Socrates being real or not? as far as teachers writing stuff, Pluto wrote. Aristotle wrote. Paul wrote. Some teachers may not, but some do and did.
your link also said this, "Carrier also says Paul saw Jesus in a vision. Evidence of this given? None." except Carrier did give evidence and it was christian evidence from the book of acts. This was discussed in the link I provided.
Again, i cannot comment in much detail about Carrier, but his lecture seemed well thought out and presented to me, while the rebuttal you provided didnt touch on everything and things it did touch on were skewed, and seemed to be addressing something other than what was actually stated. if the mention of Carrier brings out laughter without reading his stuff, then that rebuttal certainly should.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostHonestly, I've found many of these don't really effect me the more I look at them. I haven't seen anything that overcomes the resurrection and that is something I think can be verified by studying the accounts and the leading scholars.
One problem is we read the text with our modern lenses on. I think Genesis 1 is a fine example of this. You're reading it as a scientific account. I contend that it isn't. The text has zip to say about science. It's a functional account where God is creating sacred space for Him to dwell in and naming the function of everything that is in the creation.
I suppose different translations could read differently. But i'm not a hebrew scholar, so i am somewhat forced to trust the translators.
but just as you see nothing to overturn the Resurrection, i just still do not find anything compelling in support of it. and i dont really think our failure to see eye to eye is that tragic. I think it's okay, and human.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View Post
On a scale of 0-10, with 0 being completely unbelievable and 10 being almost certainly an historical fact, how would you rate the following historical claims:
1, Hitler invaded Poland to start WWII: 10
2. Martin Luther was a theologian and priest in Wittenberg in the sixteenth century: 10
3. Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River/creek to seize control of Rome: 9
4. Hannibal attempted to cross the Alps with elephants: 5
5. Mohammad was a real, historical person: 9
6. Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse: 0
7. Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person: 7
8. The dead body of Jesus of Nazareth was reanimated by the Hebrew god, Yahweh, and bodily appeared to numerous of his followers after his death: 0
And as a reminder, you were willing to answer Cow Poke's question about 7 before you required him to answer them all for himself, and I'd appreciate the same treatment. Thanks.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 William View PostI dont know Carrier personally, so I cannot comment on him specifically, but in the article his points seemed sound.
In the link you provide, the refuter seems more argumentative than he actually seems to be addressingt the points with stuff like, "Well actually, we do have some physical evidence. We do in fact have documents. We have the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, Acts, and of course the rest of the New Testament. We also have writings outside of the NT such as Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, etc."
Carrier said that those things were there. He also said why The Rubicon crossing was better since actual contemporaries of Jesus wrote about it. There are none of jesus, at least none that wrote about it until much later down the line.
BUt also, while I feel fairly certain that Jesus was at ;eats a real man, and that the Rubicon was crossed, I would not say I have 100% certainty. I trust expert scientists in their field too, but i do not have 100% certainty that the leading scientific understandings are the end all be all - and that level of certainly fluctuates depending on what we're discussing. I can say that, "yeah, it looks like this is case with the info we have right now..." I think it's this way for most people and I wouldnt be surprised if you were the same. But with the Resurrection, not only are expected to believe this otherwise unrealistic event based on the claims of superstitious men who recorded their testimonies decades after the fact, but we're to feel certain about it.
but with jesus' Resurrection, it wasnt carrier's point that no contemporary enemies wrote of a belief in Jesus ressurection, as appears to be the claim in your link, it was that no contemporaries of jesus even wrote about the claim or that others believed it. All the sources there are come from believers, who wrote much much later. And the closest author, Paul, didnt claim many of the things that the others did, who wrote much later than he did.
and let's not forget, an army crossing a river is not unique. It isn't supernatural or miraculous. While it may be a feet of engineering and determination, it is completely plausible. While everyone may feel very certain that Caesar's own account of the event is mostly accurate, i doubt that anyone feels 100% that all of it perfectly accurate. and even if they did, if you toss in a single miraculous claim, then the majority of people would not believe that claim, while still likely finding the other stuff plausible and likely.
and some people dont believe socrates was real (from your link). Does that matter? Is there any consequence to a belief or disbelief in Socrates being real or not? as far as teachers writing stuff, Pluto wrote. Aristotle wrote. Paul wrote. Some teachers may not, but some do and did.
your link also said this, "Carrier also says Paul saw Jesus in a vision. Evidence of this given? None." except Carrier did give evidence and it was christian evidence from the book of acts. This was discussed in the link I provided.
Again, i cannot comment in much detail about Carrier, but his lecture seemed well thought out and presented to me, while the rebuttal you provided didnt touch on everything and things it did touch on were skewed, and seemed to be addressing something other than what was actually stated. if the mention of Carrier brings out laughter without reading his stuff, then that rebuttal certainly should.
Comment
-
Originally posted by William View PostI dont know, Gen 1 couldnt be a scientific account if it were true, as it has some questionable things in it. I mean, just look at it again. God divides the waters above from the waters below and places the firmament between them. He then puts birds in the firmament to rule it, so it's the sky. We have lakes and rivers and oceans, which are the waters below and then the big blue sky, where rain (water) comes from above. He then sets the moon and sun in the firmament. That makes sense since you can see them both in the sky, with blue (water) still behind them, just as ancient man would have seen it.
I suppose different translations could read differently. But i'm not a hebrew scholar, so i am somewhat forced to trust the translators.
but just as you see nothing to overturn the Resurrection, i just still do not find anything compelling in support of it. and i dont really think our failure to see eye to eye is that tragic. I think it's okay, and human.
Also, with regard to Genesis, I recommend John Walton's "The Lost World of Genesis One."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostThat still doesn't account for the survival and growth of Christianity during the first few centuries of it's existence.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment