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

  • Think about this, Christians: There are hundreds, maybe even thousand of people living TODAY who believe that they have seen alien spacecraft flying through the night sky. And there are dozens, if not hundreds, of people alive TODAY who claim to have had a personal encounter with alien space beings. These thousands of people are available to us TODAY to interview. There are several self-described UFO experts or scholars. Check out their "research" on the internet.

    But how many of us believe in the existence of Martians and other space aliens, or lay awake at night worrying about flying alien spacecraft?

    Could they exist? Possibly. Do they exist? Very, very probably not. That is why rational, educated people in the 21st century do not worry about space aliens.

    Comment


    • And again, he doesn't deal with the case presented but instead prefers to make another case.

      Think about this. Intelligent rational educated people in the 21st century read the best scholarship they can before arguing on a topic they don't know about.

      Think about that.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
        Okay. What evidence would it take to convince you of the resurrection?
        This is difficult to answer. I grew up in a devout, fundamental household. "obeyed the gospel" at age 10 and took it seriously. Some things I took for granted, and focused my efforts on bettering myself according the bible, and never spent much time trying to read up on historical support. I was around 30 before i just couldnt believe it anymore, but until then, i taught classes, gave talks and small sermons, and of course read and prayed daily.

        while I believed in the Bible's claims completely then, i was skeptical of many other things outside of the bible. even historical accounts in general I took as "based on a true story," knowing that things are left out, embellished, watered down and told from a certain perspective. I had not treated the bible as fairly as I had treated everything else, I gave it a special pass.

        I do not even trust memories 100%. They just dont remain static. subtle changes creep in overtime.

        Something like the resurrection? It may take me seeing it for myself. It may take me seeing jesus die, buried and then raised again days later, up close and personal. I dont think this is crazy either. All the apostles supposedly didnt believe until they saw the same. But written accounts? claims of other witnesses, in lieu if the witnesses themselves? Such might be mostly convincing for something natural and more plausible, but even then there are limits. Perfectly natural stories still have a tendency to be embellished.

        I was arrested when I was in high school. A friend and I made a plastic coke bottle comb and threw into an acquaintance's yard as some stupid prank... my friend wrecked his car after throwing it out the window. The car rolled over on one side, and the noise of the crash drew everyone outside. Once they were all out to check on us, victims of a car accident, the "bomb" blew up. It was harmless, but the police were on their way and were arrested.

        The next day there was a local newspaper article that said we bombed a neighbors house and wrecked our car in the get away, rolling the car several times. The car never rolled and we weren't really trying to make a get away.

        That same day, i went to my high school coach to tell him what happened, thinking it was best that he heard it from me. It was a Friday -some 3 day weekend. The following monday, my coach comes to me and said, "it was a good thing you came straight out of jail to tell me what happened." his daughter had been spending the night with some friends in the same neighborhood on the night I was arrested. She did not witness the events, but went home and told her dad that "it was crazy, there were nails everywhere." There were no nails. The bomb was harmless. she had not seen anything, but was telling it as if she had.

        So in as little as 1 to 3 days removed, several important facts were altered and spread and believed. a few years later, some friends of mine, who werent there either, brought it up and adamantly argued with me that it had taken place during the day. It did not, it happened around 11PM on a Thursday night, but for some reason, they were so sure about the time frame of something they hadn't even witnessed, that they actually argued with me, an actual witness, as if I were mistaken... I was the one who was there and the one who was arrested, lol...

        but misinformation happens quickly. Natural events arent always believable or true. So these supernatural, larger than life claims, written much later than a few nights after the fact, are just too hard for me to accept at face value, especially when considering the other issues I see in the bible. and God doesnt seem content with, "the Resurrection likely happened," or "may have happened," but demands certainty of it. I dont know that i am certain of many non-miraculous claims...

        what would it take for you to believe that Zeus is real? I imagine that's what it would take to convince me of the Resurrection.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
          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.
          I didn't make that as a claim. But rather the resurrection claim has a real historical place in history. The Christian NT documents are in fact portraying the claim as a real event in history.
          . . . 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 again, he doesn't deal with the case presented but instead prefers to make another case.

            Think about this. Intelligent rational educated people in the 21st century read the best scholarship they can before arguing on a topic they don't know about.

            Think about that.
            it would be nice, but people dont have endless amounts of time or even care. One could say that rational people dont make a decision until they've laid out all possible choices and examined them all closely - which I guess would involve the scholarly work surrounding all of them - but who has done that? who's read through all the religious texts and associated scholarly works?

            Your point is right, but just not complete maybe? I feel like I've researched the topic more than most Christians I know and I feel like it's adequate. I am sure it's far less than what you've read up on, but i am sure there are devout Muslims who've read up more on the Koran and scholarly works surrounding that - should you believe him just because he's read more?

            I am not trying to be argumentative, but i did want to make this point. I think it's valid.

            and that said, I'm still willing to read more and allow that i could be mistaken, even though I dont think I am.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by William View Post
              it would be nice, but people dont have endless amounts of time or even care. One could say that rational people dont make a decision until they've laid out all possible choices and examined them all closely - which I guess would involve the scholarly work surrounding all of them - but who has done that? who's read through all the religious texts and associated scholarly works?
              Then this is a problem with our society. We all think we have enough information to make informed decisions on many areas we don't really know about.

              Your point is right, but just not complete maybe? I feel like I've researched the topic more than most Christians I know and I feel like it's adequate. I am sure it's far less than what you've read up on, but i am sure there are devout Muslims who've read up more on the Koran and scholarly works surrounding that - should you believe him just because he's read more?
              No, but we discuss the data and quite frankly, Muslim apologetics is some of the worst of the worst. I recommend a book like "The Closing of the Muslim Mind."

              I am not trying to be argumentative, but i did want to make this point. I think it's valid.

              and that said, I'm still willing to read more and allow that i could be mistaken, even though I dont think I am.
              Licona and Wright are the people to go to for now. As for what you would require, isn't it a bit unfair to ask that history repeat itself just for you? Isn't that kind of saying whatever evidence I present, it will not be enough?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                Licona and Wright are the people to go to for now. As for what you would require, isn't it a bit unfair to ask that history repeat itself just for you? Isn't that kind of saying whatever evidence I present, it will not be enough?
                Thanks for the suggestions. I will add them to my list.

                I think it's no more unfair than demanding i believe in these outlandish claims, from a poorly written book, delivered by men, and then placing that as being more significant than actually living morally. that's even more unfair, i think.

                I just want something that I find convincing before I believe it. I don't think belief is a choice - it's a result, an eventuality, right? it may not take history replaying itself, but it'll take something more than i have now. God did special signs for Paul and the other apostles, as well as countless others in the bible - but he cant do it for those who don't find this convincing now?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post

                  No, but we discuss the data and quite frankly, Muslim apologetics is some of the worst of the worst.
                  yeah, that's kinda how I feel about Christian Apologetics - wink.
                  Last edited by William; 07-31-2015, 02:40 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by William View Post
                    it may not take history replaying itself, but it'll take something more than i have now. God did special signs for Paul and the other apostles, as well as countless others in the bible - but he cant do it for those who don't find this convincing now?
                    According to many recent Muslim converts who've claimed to be converted because of visions and dreams they've had, he is still doing things like this.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      According to many recent Muslim converts who've claimed to be converted because of visions and dreams they've had, he is still doing things like this.
                      that is cool. But since I cant see their visions, I may have to wait for one of my own.

                      According to lots of religious people from all other religions, their gods or spirits visit in visions and are capable of miracle too. I could believe that stuff is real, but i just cant seem to.

                      I dont believe this one either. Do you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by William View Post
                        yeah, that's kinda how I feel about Christian Apologetics - wink.
                        The reason why he's saying that is because, in many ways, it's objectively true. Thanks to the freedom that the church afforded intellectuals and philosophers very early on, and the refinement of theology and apologetics in the light of the Reformation, Enlightenment, and Modern/Postmodern 19th-20th century Biblical Criticism, Christian Apologetics have really been thoroughly articulated and refined. Islam, on the other hand, while enjoying a period of deep philosophy and intellectualism, has never faced the refining fire of Koranic Criticism. At least, not in the way the Bible has. It's only been very recently, and under a great deal of backlash, that scholars have begun to examine the Koran critically.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by William View Post
                          that is cool. But since I cant see their visions, I may have to wait for one of my own.

                          According to lots of religious people from all other religions, their gods or spirits visit in visions and are capable of miracle too. I could believe that stuff is real, but i just cant seem to.

                          I dont believe this one either. Do you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun
                          That's fine. I was simply replying to your question, "but he cant do it for those who don't find this convincing now?" He apparently he can...and or at least, many people believe that he does.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            That's fine. I was simply replying to your question, "but he cant do it for those who don't find this convincing now?" He apparently he can...and or at least, many people believe that he does.
                            and maybe he does. Perhaps my number just hasn't been pulled. I guess the questions now are:

                            1) did they believe the evidence of the Resurrection, or were they only converted after witnessing their visions/miracles?
                            2) are converts from Christianity to Islam convincing?
                            3) can we trust accounts of visions/miracles that are outside of Christianity?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              That's fine. I was simply replying to your question, "but he cant do it for those who don't find this convincing now?" He apparently he can...and or at least, many people believe that he does.
                              also, if God were real, I am sure he could all that he liked. But if he's real, he obviously doesn't want to, for whatever reason.

                              and then, what if God, or at least the God of the Bible, is not real?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                                70 A.D. would definitely have that effect. Keep in mind you had three groups. You had the Romans, the opponents of Jesus, and the followers of Jesus. All of them would have an interest in where the grave was.
                                I'd say it's a possibility. You would need some evidence that the graves were messed with to say anything more definite.

                                I stand with what Adrift said.
                                I think it's safe to say that both cases are still possibilities given all of the ancient quotes including what Adrift added. Either the body was released as an exception because someone requested it, or it was buried with other crucified criminals. We have this later account from an anonymous writer that there is a request for the body which is granted. This could be true or it could have been added as a means of achieving the powerful story of an empty tomb.

                                Adrift is right. This is about the oral Gospel. --- Adrift wrote: "It wouldn't have to have been actual copies of the gospel, but of the oral tradition in the early Jewish-Christian community that mentioned a lone member of the Sanhedrin making this request (perhaps with Nicodemus' help). "
                                Okay, so it's possible that the story had an early basis and could have made it's rounds to someone in the Sanhedrin who could have made the effort to try and correct it if it was in fact false. I can accept that. I think it's also possible that the story was a later invention (perhaps author of Mark wrote it in Rome in 72 AD) and that this was not distributed to whomever was possibly left from the Jerusalem Sanhedrin of 30 AD. So I don't think we can say with certainty that it would have been shot down by opponents if it were not true.

                                This would imply that shame would evoke sympathy but that needs to be argued for and not just asserted. They could make up a painful story for that, but a shameful one would not get the job done.
                                I think it's because the readers are being told how righteous Jesus is, how he had done nothing wrong to deserve death and that he was being unjustly and horrifically punished. The injustice is what would evoke sympathy. It was shameful to be crucified, mocked, whipped, stripped naked and then to add insult to injury he is buried without any mourning. Why would so much shame and rejection be brought upon a righteous man?

                                Another reason to not put mourners at the tomb is that it could ruin the story. You can't have an empty tomb discovered if everyone is already there. If they are already there when Jesus emerges then those mourners become the first eyewitnesses. If the oral tradition that was already in place states that he appeared first to Peter and then to the twelve, but somewhere other than a grave site, this would not pan out.

                                Let's ask another question. Could there be a reasonable motive for the author of Mark (or his source) to add an empty tomb story? I think so. #1 There is a gap here in the timeline that is waiting to be filled and #2 a physical resurrection with an empty tomb is more impressive then just appearing to people after you've been dead for a few days. Consider that there could already be many appearance stories in circulation at this time. The crucifixion story was also in circulation and thus the gap. To fill this gap you can't use the key players because they already have appearance stories in circulation (seeing Jesus on the beach, seeing him on the road to Emmaus, seeing him on a hill, etc.). You would have to use someone nobody knew (Joseph) from a town no one has heard of (Arimathea). Then you need a reason for someone to discover the tomb empty (anoint Jesus with spices) and someone to perform this task (women). I know this might sound way off base to you, but I think it makes for a good story and does not require any basis in early traditions.

                                Even in our day and age, if my wife and I are driving down the road together and a song comes on the radio, many of them we can both sing along to. (And my wife has short-term memory loss by the way.) This is in an age where we don't use our memories as much. Memorization was far better back then. Some Jews had the whole Torah memorized. Today in the Middle East you can find blind men that have the entire Koran memorized. There were Rhapsodes in ancient Greece who had the writings of Homer memorized.
                                I guess I see things like the sayings of Jesus or the creeds of the early church to be things that endure for a long time and eventually get written down. But dialogue between two people is not something I would think of as being memorized. However, I will accept that it's a possibility.

                                Which Mark never tells us about and frankly, I have no firm opinion on that matter. I don't think Mark 16:9-20 is part of the original document, but did Mark intend to end the document there? Did we somehow lose an ending? Did something happen to keep Mark from finishing? There are dissertations that will argue for all of these. But still, the women could have been avoided easily, or even just replaced, but they weren't.
                                I think the original ending was lost, but there's no way to know.

                                Comment

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