Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Christianbookworm]

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.

What do we need rescuing from? Okay, this ain't an argument, but I agree with Puddleglum.

Of course, I'm talking about Jesus, not Narnia.

[William]

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.

yeah, and why not?

[William]

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.

I'm afraid I just dont follow. You admitted to not even reading half of what gary writes, and now you're accusing him of not wanting honest discussion?

[Adrift]

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.

I don't what know this means. What is wrong with arguing for what you believe is true? People are obviously going to argue for what they believe is more likely to be true than not to be true. I don't know anyone who would argue for something they don't believe is true, unless they're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary or they're playing devil's advocate. You yourself have been attempting to show us that what you currently believe is true throughout this thread. I don't even have to dig that deep, your post #1189 is filled with points where you're showing Nick what you think is true.

[Adrift]

I'm afraid I just dont follow.

Sure you don't.

You admitted to not even reading half of what gary writes, and now you're accusing him of not wanting honest discussion?

How many posts of his do you have to read before you realize they're all garbage?

[tabibito]

One question, William - do you see anything materially different between your posts and Gary's?

[Gary]

[William]

I don't what know this means. What is wrong with arguing for what you believe is true? People are obviously going to argue for what they believe is more likely to be true than not to be true. I don't know anyone who would argue for something they don't believe is true, unless they're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary or they're playing devil's advocate. You yourself have been attempting to show us that what you currently believe is true throughout this thread. I don't even have to dig that deep, your post #1189 is filled with points where you're showing Nick what you think is true.

well of course. We all think we're right, so we present what we think is right. What i mean is more like when I was still a christian, I would pray, "Help me better understand the truth of your word," or something like that. But in that request, I presume to know what truth is. If we cannot fathom that we may be completely wrong, then are we really looking for the truth?

I then started praying something more like, "help me see teh truth and not believe a lie." And that's a sentiment I try to maintain still.

does that make more sense?

[William]

Sure you don't.



How many posts of his do you have to read before you realize they're all garbage?

Hm, I dont have an exact number. I mean, I've read enough of the bible to know it's not what's it's proclaimed to be, but i still read it too.

[William]

One question, William - do you see anything materially different between your posts and Gary's?

i think i do.

[tabibito]

When the angel appeared to Joseph in a dream (Matthew 2:13), the word translated as "appear" is φαινω
Herod asked the magi when the star had first appeared (Matthew 2:7): the word translated as "appear" is φαινω
When a vision appeared to Daniel, the second to appear (Daniel 8:1), in both occurrences of the word, "appear" is translated from φαινω
When a head of grain appears on a stalk, whether wheat or tare, (Matthew 13:26), the word translated as "appear" is φαινω


The word that conjugates to ωφθη is ειδαμεν and it is no more certain in usage than is φαινω

When Moses and Elijah appeared (Matthew 17:3) the word translated as "appear" is οπτανομαι
"He was seen by Cephas then of the twelve (1 Corinthians 15:5) - οπτανομαι
"He was seen by more than five hundred" - οπτανομαι
"he was seen by James, then by all of the apostles - οπτανομαι
"he was seen by me (Paul) also" - οπτανομαι

However, this is only a brief check of information - and it is possible that further information will show Gary's information to be less erroneous.

[William]

One question, William - do you see anything materially different between your posts and Gary's?

and also, just because someone can be jerk, doesn't mean that they are devoid of any sound points - although I would say it likely makes those points easier to miss.

I actually think Gary is making good points, although I wont deny that he could be gentler in his delivery. But I think it's also fair to acknowledge he gets as good as he gives here.

[Gary]

and also, just because someone can be jerk, doesn't mean that they are devoid of any sound points - although I would say it likely makes those points easier to miss.

I actually think Gary is making good points, although I wont deny that he could be gentler in his delivery. But I think it's also fair to acknowledge he gets as good as he gives here.

It is true that I can be a real jerk. I don't deny it. I am passionate about my campaign to debunk dangerous, discrimination-inciting, supernatural, superstitious beliefs, and in my passion, I can be blunt, condescending, and abrasive, especially if my opponents are equally as snarky. No Christian on this site other than Tabby and the person who asked me why I deconverted has behaved in a "Christ-like" manner in our discussions, but have repeatedly been just as eager and gleeful as myself, to get down in the mud and brawl. For Nick and Adrift (who defiles the temple of his god with tobacco smoking) to complain about my attitude is the pot calling the kettle black.

Nick and I first encountered each other on Daniel B. Wallace's blog. We were both blunt, abrasive, and condescending to one another. But instead of continuing to debate me there, he asked me to come here...and here I am. I am here at Nick's invitation. If Nick doesn't want me here, he is free to disinvite me. But until he does so, I will speak my mind as I please (while refraining from "excessive blasphemy", of course).

[tabibito]

Rats - ωφθη also conjugates οραω - which broader inspection shows to be the word used in most major manuscript groups - so on that count Gary is right. However .... οραω no more distinguishes between a vision and sighting a physical event, than does φαινω.

[William]

Rats - οφθη also conjugates οραω - which broader inspection shows to be the word used in most major manuscript groups - so on that count Gary is right. However .... οραω no more distinguishes between a vision and sighting a physical event, than does φαινω.

i sincerely find all of this interesting, but the tediousness nature of this minutia make me think the bible is even less likely from a god. The majority of people dont couldn't be expected to do this sort of leg work in order to make sense of this book.