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 tabibito View Post
    meh - Gary made it clear long since that he is here to parade his superior intellect and to proselytise: he has no interest in honest debate.
    For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

    Of course! Donchaknow? Fundy nontheists are REALLY smarter than us stoopid Christians. Even though fundy atheists think the Resurrection is equivalent to the undead. I guess anyone who's been brought back from clinical death is a zombie now! Fictional characters that get brought back from the dead are zombies!

    Seriously. Has Gary ever heard of Dunning-Kruger syndrome?
    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      What imaginary audience do you think you're talking to when you go into these diatribes? There aren't hundreds of people reading this thread. At this point there are maybe half a dozen of us who are subscribed, and maybe skimming through most of it. If they're anything like me, they're skipping most of your larger diatribes altogether. Trust me, this great lurker presence you think you're preaching to when you do one of these soapbox posts is mostly in your head.
      If I rescue just one person from this ancient cult, it is worth it.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        Some of the contradictions exist to be sure. But the core of the story: death, burial, and resurrection are not in conflict. The records are also in agreement regarding the dawn visit on the Sunday to the tomb by Mary (whether or not among others), and her subsequent report to the apostles. Likewise, the accounts of the burial cloths are not in conflict.
        Some of the discrepancies can be logically attributed to a matter of focus by the author. One refers to events here, another to events "meanwhile, back at the ranch."
        Moreover, Jesus' ability to perform miracles and his death, and the teachings of the early church, are attested in extra-Biblical sources both hostile and sympathetic.

        So, what we have are records of a series of singularly emotion laden events, recorded at least a few decades after the event (in the case of Luke's gospel*). The records agree as to core issues, but are at odds in the background detail. That detail is so confused that determining the facts is an all but impossible task. There are undeniable errors.

        * Unless Luke accidentally referred to his record of the Acts of the Apostles as the second letter to Theophilus when it was really the first, the Gospel of Luke was written prior to AD80 - the commonly held date for the writing of Acts. While there is dissent regarding the date of Acts, it is very much dissent by a fringe group of scholars. Paul's death is (to my satisfaction) reliably recorded as AD 65 +- a few years: ergo, nothing written by Paul can have a late date.
        If you read the Synoptics the entire story of Jesus reads pretty similarly, until you get to the women arriving to an empty tomb. Why? Because the original version of "Mark" ends there, and Matthew and Mark (and possibly, John) are heavily dependent on Mark for their stories. The rest of the story had to be invented, and that is why there are so many wildly different details.

        And as I mentioned in one of the posts above, how did Matthew know details that no human could know? God told him? Well, if a perfect, all-knowing God can tell him details no human could know, the same perfect, all-knowing god could keep the rest of the story straight. That fact that the rest of the story is such a garbled mess points to the most likely explanation for Matthew's details that no human could know: He made them up.
        Last edited by Gary; 08-14-2015, 10:23 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          It was? Not necessarily. In the OT, the sexual rituals were a way of gaining the favor of the deity one sought. What does that translate to? Honor. It was shameful to not seek the favor of these deities and Jews in the OT before being sent to Babylon were tempted to hedge their bets by going with everyone in the local pantheon.

          Those who believed YHWH alone was God would be mortified by the ritual prostitution. Those who thought there were other deities would not be. The same happened in the NT. The Jews were granted tolerance instead of affirmation. If they would not sacrifice to the emperor, they should at least sacrifice FOR the emperor. The Christians didn't get that pass when it was seen they were a new belief and not just a Jewish sect. Everyone else back then knew you needed to seek the blessings of the gods lest they judge us. Christians refused considering the honor of Christ greater than the honor of other deities or even the honor of their fellow man. Some did fall away, and why? Hebrews tells us. It was honor. After all, the writer says they had not yet shed their blood in persecution, but they were being shamed.
          Heck no. Nowhere was it said his resurrection is true because he was crucified. There were several who were crucified. What's being said is that if they believed the stigma of crucifixion had been reversed, it would take a powerful belief to do that. Bodily resurrection is necessary.
          Are you suggesting that that no one who believed in YHWH at that time would have been a whore or a whoremonger? Are you also suggesting that no one at that time deviated from motivations in honor/shame?

          You have given examples that what was honorable or shameful to one, would not necessarily have been to another, and that’s my point with the crucifixion. It doesn’t take an actual resurrection; it takes a belief in one.
          It’s not like the majority of people became Christians in the 1st century. They had no way of ascending the economic or social ladder, they were already looked down upon, and here they had a man who was for the common man, critical of the ruling classes, and promised them eternity in heavenly mansions while rich men were tormented in Hell.

          But he died on a cross. That’s bad, except he was wrongly convicted. They were as outraged as David was when Nathan told him the story of the rich man killing the poor man’s lamb, because people don’t care for unfairness and injustice. And not only was he wrongly convicted, he willing allowed himself to be because he loved us so much that he was willing to die so that each and every one us lowly people might be saved… You can’t sit here, with a straight face and act as no one back then felt sympathy for that when Acts 2 shows then falling just such a story. The 3000 souls saved on the day of Pentecost there hadn’t seen jesus after he died, if they had ever seen him.





          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          If you think there were people who did not think in terms of honor and shame in the ancient Mediterranean, produce some evidence of these people.
          I don’t think that, I just don’t think people are robots who only succumb to one type of motivation. And as you’ve pointed out, what is honorable and shameful to one may not be honorable and shameful to another.




          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          At this point, I wonder what would be convincing.
          A miracle maybe. It is claimed that God once did them all the time to help people believe.



          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          No. I'm interested in beliefs you said we used to think were based on the gods and now we don't.
          Like typhoons and lighting? Like when Newton said that God held the planets in orbit?



          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          I've never seen a miracle myself either. So what? Yet I think the research is in and yes, someone like Keener has provided numerous numerous accounts. For your worldview to be true, all of those accounts have to be false in some way. If even one is true, there is a problem. It could be shown for me meanwhile that all are false and that would not demonstrate they cannot or do not happen.
          Lol. What does it mean to be as wise as serpents but harmless as doves? Someone once told me that God told her to do something. It was a good deed, truly, but I don’t think God told her to do it. I have also seen, read about and seen video tape of alleged miracles that were shown to be false.

          It seems like you’re saying that claims of miracles should be disproven in order not to believe they were real. You and I are different. I think that’s a gullible approach. I may be wrong, I am just not convinced by a claim of a miracle. But if God can do anything, then ai am sure he can do miracles if he were real. If he created the universe and raised men from the dead, little miracles should be easy for, and I’d think it would be easy to even do one for me so that I know which man’s claim to believe.

          God hasn’t told me anything. Everything I know about God comes from other men. A faith in that God seems like it is first a faith in man. This doesn’t seem good to me. How can I know that I can trust these men who claim to speak for God? Oh yeah, some other guys claim there were miracles…

          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          Actually, it doesn't. I agree with the perfection of God, but that means He lacks nothing in His being. As for Him desiring nothing more than all of mankind to be saved, that's false. God desires His glory the most. You say what He's done does not support the claimed characteristic, but while you speak against the honor-shame idea, how much of this is coming from your modern Western individualism? Are you treating the NT documents like ancient documents from their time or imposing modern standards on them?
          Semantics. Does God want all men to be saved? Are you saying he doesn’t or are you just trying to quibble of exact phraseology?
          How much time have you spent in the Middle East, or are you mainly speaking from what you’re read in a book? I am not knocking academics, I have been to other places on earth that are very different from the USA and people are people.

          I am not disputing an honor/shame culture (see above).


          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          And I suspect most of this comes from modern Western individualism.
          This could be true. Maybe the bible was only intended to be read by first century people in Palestine, so maybe I’m exempt, since God didn’t wrote it with 21st century Americans in mind.


          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          So with Keener, that's done.
          Is it? Keener doesn’t prove any miracles. Or are you saying it’s done for Keener because he believes there were other miracles? Either way, it wasn’t done for me or many others, so still – more miracles would be one way.


          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          And with Romans 1, that's done.
          I don’t follow. The Romans 1 is the book we’re discussing. I mentioned God revealing himself in some other way might be helpful in convincing those who don’t currently believe, and you point to chapter in the bible we’re discussing and saying, “done.” Are you not taking this seriously?


          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          With the sun standing still, I think a large number of us see that as more metaphorical language in the text and it's not because a literal interpretation is difficult. Many of those are addressed here: http://christianthinktank.com/5felled.html
          For the resurrection of the dead, I think you might be intrigued by Licona's hypothesis in his book that treats it the same way. Greco-Roman Bioi could contain apocalyptic imagery when someone died to show it was a great king who died. Frankly, we don't have enough information on what happened. For those buried in tombs, it would have been a minimal amount quite likely. What happened? Did these people stick around or did they go after Jesus ascended? This would help with the decision and we don't know. What I do find to be true is that there was no need for any historian in Rome to take the account seriously. They scoffed at resurrection as it was. Why should they begin to think people had been raised from the dead, especially at a crucifixion?
          Well, they either didn’t happen, or it was metaphor for something else, or all the other people who used to log such things just didn’t find it noteworthy.

          If it was metaphor, it is still written very much like it’s real, and then makes me wonder what else that was written as if it were real, really is not – maybe the death and resurrection of Jesus?

          And had someone skeptical of resurrected bodies seen dead people walking around, they might have been impacted buy that – and that’s sort of the point. No one seems to have seen it but Matthew.


          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          And again then, what does count as sufficient evidence?
          Depends on what’s being discussed. A claim about an airplane in the sky can be taken at someone’s word. A claim about a fleet of alien aircraft takes something more, right?


          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          It would be something worth looking into however. I don't just outright dismiss claims. My claim is that the testimony of these kinds of people was apparently enough to convince even outsiders who had the most to lose and would be the ones most prone to check the facts. Why?
          This is half the story. Most people didn’t believe it. We have today examples of some people believing things that the rest of find foolhardy. “well someone believed, so I should too,” isn’t a good way to live your life, Especially when those people lived in a time largely devoid of science and prone to believe in superstition.



          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          Apples and oranges. I find the claims quite radically different.
          Radically different? Apples and oranges aren’t radically different - they’re both fruit. But I think the analogy is more like oranges and grapefruit.


          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          Then again I still say, give the better explanation that explains the data. Don't just say there is one but we just don't know. Give it.
          You mean like the one where Jesus was real, had a real following of some lower class individuals who thought he was the messiah, but then died?

          His disciples were distraught and confused (a bit of truth that made it to the final cut), and struggled to understand how they could have gotten it wrong. They went back to their scriptures, reading and searching for understanding. They were true believers, and had been so certain that he was their messiah… little by little they begin to pluck parts and pieces from the OT and began “figuring it out”, inventing a “solution.”

          “So, jesus died just like the Passover lamb… maybe his kingdom is a spiritual kingdom and not one on earth…”

          “Matthew reads the Greek translation of Isaiah 7 and writes that Jesus was born of a Virgin to add credibility to their claim that Jesus was the messiah. “

          “..and he was God too. The Son of God and God…”

          I think it just grew and grew. I don’t think it’s hard for people with no real hope in life, who are oppressed, to find comfort in an afterlife of bliss, where they can see their patriarchs. The greeks were all about gods, so why not.

          As far as the tomb? Maybe it was stolen. Maybe it was just misidentified. Maybe they had one set aside for him but it was never delivered there. There really are a number of possibilities, all of which are more plausible than “came back to life and flew away.”

          I think Gary and both have gone into more detail on this very thread. I feel certain a google search could provide even more detailed and elaborate explanations.

          You believe he came back to life and ascended into heaven. Okay. But it shouldn’t be hard to see why some people find that hard to swallow.




          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          I can pretend?
          I don’t see why not? And that’s not all I wrote about the scholars before or after the excerpt you posted. And that particular quote was in regard to the 500 witness Paul claims, not about Scholars in general. So you say the scholars (although all of them do not) believe there were 500 witness, but they only have Paul’s word for that – just like us.
          I must admit that it strikes me as pretty disingenuous to post that particular quote and then act as if I said the scholars really don’t know any more than the rest of us.

          Again, I am not looking for points. I don’t care for debates. If we can’t speak honestly, then there is little point in speaking.


          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          Also, read everything? No. Always actively reading? Yep. Always searching and reading the best material that I can get my hands on. When a new Ehrman book comes out, I can't wait to read it.
          Great. I agree with that. Doesn’t mean we must have the same books in the same order of priority.


          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          This is simply false. These are people who have not just the Bible, but understand better the culture and language of the Bible and the best scholarly works on the Bible.
          Fair enough. But you still don’t buy all of what the scholars say. And you still don’t buy all what the experts in a field say, so I think the point still stands overall.

          So you think the scholars largely agree that there was a resurrection? I don’t know that I would say “largely,” and I don’t believe that there was a resurrection.


          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          Do you see me arguing against these other belief systems? I think they're wrong because a positive claim of Christianity has been established. If you could establish a positive claim that miracles cannot occur, then there would be no need to argue against Christianity since it would be ipso facto false. When I encounter people of other faiths, I seek to build up the NT instead as that is my area.
          I am not sure what you’re talking about. “a positive claim that miracles cannot occur?”

          Regardless, that’s what I thought. You don’t keep searching in other religions once you think they’re wrong. You still think Christianity is correct. I no longer hold that view – yet I still look.


          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          I have not pointed to my belief. I have pointed to the best scholarship that i can find. I can say the more I've read both sides, the more I've been amazed by the reliability of the Christian account.
          Ah. My experiences have been different. The more I have read of the bible and about the bible, the more it seems like a product of man.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            William, why is it every time I cut through Gary's crap, you rush to his defence? Why aren't you condemning Gary for not being helpful? Why aren't you pointing out that almost all of his posts appear to be voiced in frustration and add nothing to the discussion?

            You're a fool if you think Gary is here for an open and honest discussion. People who spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to reason with attention trolls like Gary are throwing pearls before swine. And you can think whatever it is you want about me, what you think I can defend or cannot defend. I'm honestly not posting here to impress you. I'd like to think that the people who's opinions I think count already know what I'm capable over the last decade or so.
            I would hope no one is here to impress anyone else. I am not.

            I do see hostility from Gray, but then several of you rush to combat that. I have no need to. Who rushes to help Gary when unfair and useless things are thrown at him?

            I step in for whom I wish when i see fit as I am sure you do.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
              Agreed. Just because someone agrees with your conclusions on many matters does not mean you must rush to their defense. I have many people come to me with talk about what other Christians are believing or doing as if I'm somehow responsible or have to defend it on every count. No. Christians can be idiots just like anyone else can be. I will defend Christianity, but I will not defend something because a Christian does or believes it.
              I wouldnt say that I rush to anyone's defense. I commented on somethig Adrift said that I thought was worth commenting on. and instead of rebutting what I said, the reply has been, "why take his side?"

              I am not worried about sides. While I could be very mistaken, I try to stay inline with justice, fairness and right.

              was my comment wrong in any way? if so, point it out and we can address that.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                meh - Gary made it clear long since that he is here to parade his superior intellect and to proselytise: he has no interest in honest debate.
                What are you talking about, Tabby? I have engaged you extensively on the contradictions in Luke. I am ignoring Nick and Adrift because I don't like their pompous, condescending, know-it-all attitudes. They have closed minds. They aren't interesting in evaluating the evidence with an open mind. They will say the same about me, but I have demonstrated in the past that if presented with good evidence I will change my position. Nick's position is based entirely on the opinions of biased experts of an ancient holy book and silly, out-of-date philosophical arguments. My position is based on science, reason, and the probabilities of events in our common human experience. Therefore debating Nick is a waste of time as our references for truth-finding share no commonality.
                Last edited by Gary; 08-14-2015, 10:25 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  meh - Gary made it clear long since that he is here to parade his superior intellect and to proselytise: he has no interest in honest debate.
                  is the only one guilty of that?

                  I dont get that vibe from you, but I do see it in some of the others here, do you not?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by William View Post
                    I would hope no one is here to impress anyone else. I am not.

                    I do see hostility from Gray, but then several of you rush to combat that. I have no need to. Who rushes to help Gary when unfair and useless things are thrown at him?

                    I step in for whom I wish when i see fit as I am sure you do.
                    Point taken - however, in Post Post 1187 he himself admits his intentions.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                      If I rescue just one person from this ancient cult, it is worth it.
                      You ain't rescuing anyone from Christianity.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by William View Post
                        is the only one guilty of that?

                        I dont get that vibe from you, but I do see it in some of the others here, do you not?
                        OOOOOOH yeah. Was on the receiving end of that kind of thing often enough in the pre-crash TWeb.
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          You ain't rescuing anyone from Christianity.
                          Are you an all-knowing god? You can only hope you are correct, but unless you have supernatural powers, similar to the people in your ancient superstition, there is no way for you to know this.

                          Comment


                          • this is a small thing maybe, but I try to remind myself that i am looking for truth, instead of trying to show that what i currently believe is truth. I know we differ on our understands of truth now, and may always, but i still think it's a valid point.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by William View Post
                              i dont know whether what Gary said was true or not, but it seemed like the point that Christian apologists make as to why Egypt records didnt match the claims in Genesis and Exodus.
                              My reaction to conspiracy nut reasoning is the same, whether it's coming from skeptics, or Christians. If a Christian apologist claimed that "Egypt records" do not match the claims in Genesis and Exodus because people had destroyed these record and had no evidence to back that claim up I would facepalm as well.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by William View Post
                                I commented on somethig Adrift said that I thought was worth commenting on. and instead of rebutting what I said, the reply has been, "why take his side?"
                                Oh stop. What's there to rebut? Your point was nonsense, and I told you why it was. Gary isn't here for open and honest discussion. And asking you why you're defending someone who is acting obviously trollish is a legitimate question. You want me to have an open and honest discussion, but you don't seem nearly as concerned with Gary having one. If you did, you would've jumped on his case a long time ago.

                                Comment

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