Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

Already have Gary. You don't interact with scholarship. You dodge everything that tthey say and when I put up links to leading scholars I've interviewed, you don't bother listening and insist we listen to your guys.

That is not the issue Nick. You have accused me of being uninformed, and due to being uninformed, having positions contrary to the overwhelming majority of scholars. I am asking you to back up this accusation by giving me ONE position that I have stated that contradicts the position of the overwhelming majority of scholars. You can't and you damn well know it. That means that you lied. That means that you bore false witness against me.

Just because I have a position that you disagree with doesn't make my position out of the mainstream of scholarship. I can point to scholars who hold a differing view than you on every issue we have discussed. What you really want is for me to read ALL scholars who agree with your position, and only then will you feel that I am qualified to challenge your position.

This is nonsense. Imagine if I you were debating a Mormon and told him that he has no good evidence that an angel appeared to Joseph Smith and gave him Golden Tablets. The Mormon responds that you are uninformed because you have not read all the books by Mormon scholars on the subject. You don't need to read dozens of books by Mormon scholars to NOT believe in Joseph Smith's supernatural claim, and, you don't need to read dozens of books by Christian scholars to NOT believe in a first century reanimation.

[Gary]

Let's see what a neutral source says about slavery in the Roman Empire:

Slavery in ancient Rome differed from its modern forms in that it was not based on race.

But like modern slavery, it was an abusive and degrading institution. Cruelty was commonplace.

A common practice

Slavery had a long history in the ancient world and was practiced in Ancient Egypt and Greece, as well as Rome. Most slaves during the Roman Empire were foreigners and, unlike in modern times, Roman slavery was not based on race.

Slaves in Rome might include prisoners of war, sailors captured and sold by pirates, or slaves bought outside Roman territory. In hard times, it was not uncommon for desperate Roman citizens to raise money by selling their children into slavery.

Life as a slave
Essential laborManumission Free at last?http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/em...s_freemen.html

[Apologiaphoenix]

That is not the issue Nick. You have accused me of being uninformed, and due to being uninformed, having positions contrary to the overwhelming majority of scholars. I am asking you to back up this accusation by giving me ONE position that I have stated that contradicts the position of the overwhelming majority of scholars. You can't and you damn well know it. That means that you lied. That means that you bore false witness against me.

Just because I have a position that you disagree with doesn't make my position out of the mainstream of scholarship. I can point to scholars who hold a differing view than you on every issue we have discussed. What you really want is for me to read ALL scholars who agree with your position, and only then will you feel that I am qualified to challenge your position.

This is nonsense. Imagine if I you were debating a Mormon and told him that he has no good evidence that an angel appeared to Joseph Smith and gave him Golden Tablets. The Mormon responds that you are uninformed because you have not read all the books by Mormon scholars on the subject. You don't need to read dozens of books by Mormon scholars to NOT believe in Joseph Smith's supernatural claim, and, you don't need to read dozens of books by Christian scholars to NOT believe in a first century reanimation.

No. I said you're uninformed because you don't argue with scholarship. You argue from your own opinion and treat that as fact. You do not read what disagrees with you. Your inability to even interact with a podcast makes the case.

As for Mormonism, I guarantee you if I was going to go argue with Mormons regularly, I would be reading Mormon scholarship on the issue. I'd want to read the best I could. That's why I've in fact read a number of works by Mormons and their Scriptures.

[Gary]

Yup - that he did.

But of course, the argument presented in the video will undoubtedly be careful to ignore Deuteronomy 23:15-16
So - a slave who was mistreated had recourse to safe refuge.

Slaves in the South could not be brutally beaten so that they were dismembered or mamed, or killed. The owner would face stiff penalties for committing these acts.

Are you saying that the Bible did not allow the taking of slaves from other nations and keeping them and their offspring as property for life??

[tabibito]

And Roman slavery is related to slavery in Israel? What you have there is a worst case scenario.
In particular - the slave in Israel was to be given refuge if he found being in his master's household too burdensome.
You look at the whole issue of slave ownership by Christians in a vacuum. You don't even begin to understand that the requirement of treating other people equitably is a foundational precept of Christianity. And the piece you just posted shows what kind of future a manumitted slave might expect - in Rome.
Rome - where the law of Pater Familias was in effect, and a slave's life expectancy was something less than 18 years.
What makes you think that Christians of the first century conformed to Roman or Hellenistic customs, or for that matter, Hebrew? Nothing more than your own blind prejudice.

Of course the law permitted that a foreign slave could be kept for life (unless he escaped and sought refuge) - you think I needed some lame video to make the fact known?

[Gary]

No. I said you're uninformed because you don't argue with scholarship. You argue from your own opinion and treat that as fact. You do not read what disagrees with you. Your inability to even interact with a podcast makes the case.

As for Mormonism, I guarantee you if I was going to go argue with Mormons regularly, I would be reading Mormon scholarship on the issue. I'd want to read the best I could. That's why I've in fact read a number of works by Mormons and their Scriptures.

There is no scholarship for reanimations, Nick. How many times must I point this out to you???

I do not disagree with the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars regarding ANY issue related to the early Christian BELIEF in a reanimation. However, I strongly disagree with you that being a scholar regarding the supernatural beliefs of ancient peoples somehow makes you an expert on the supernatural event alleged. NONE of your scholars have any expertise in reanimations of dead bodies. NONE. I as a physician have more expertise on this question than all of your NT scholars combined.

THAT is why I do not need to quote scholarship regarding the claim of a first century reanimation, because there is no scholarship for the event itself. NO ONE claims to have witnessed the reanimation itself!

I agree with you that there is much scholarship regarding early Christians believing that they interacted with a reanimated body, but this claim is not the same as claiming to have witnessed the reanimation itself. Tens of thousands of people have claimed to have interacted with the dead from the beginning of time. Scholarship for APPEARANCES and scholarship for reanimations are NOT the same.

This is what you have repeatedly failed to grasp.

[Gary]

And Roman slavery is related to slavery in Israel? What you have there is a worst case scenario.
In particular - the slave in Israel was to be given refuge if he found being in his master's household too burdensome.
You look at the whole issue of slave ownership by Christians in a vacuum. You don't even begin to understand that the requirement of treating other people equitably is a foundational precept of Christianity. And the piece you just posted shows what kind of future a manumitted slave might expect - in Rome.
Rome - where the law of Pater Familias was in effect, and a slave's life expectancy was something less than 18 years.
What makes you think that Christians of the first century conformed to Roman or Hellenistic customs, or for that matter, Hebrew? Nothing more than your own blind prejudice.

Of course the law permitted that a foreign slave could be kept for life (unless he escaped and sought refuge) - you think I needed some lame video to make the fact known?

You are hopelessly brainwashed on this issue, Tabby.

[tabibito]

Leviticus 25:45-46 for anyone who wants to check whether foreign slaves were owned for life.

[tabibito]

I agree with you that there is much scholarship regarding early Christians believing that they interacted with a reanimated body, but this claim is not the same as claiming to have witnessed the reanimation itself. Tens of thousands of people have claimed to have interacted with the dead from the beginning of time. Scholarship for APPEARANCES and scholarship for reanimations are NOT the same.

This is what you have repeatedly failed to grasp.

This child, Gary, is playing in the market place.

[Gary]

Leviticus 25:45-46 for anyone who wants to check whether foreign slaves were owned for life.

they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, https://rarebible.wordpress.com/2009...and-leviticus/

Tabby: Will you now admit that you were wrong about foreign slaves?

[Gary]

I know that many of you find it very insulting when I say that you are brainwashed and members of a cult. However, I know it is true because I was once a member of your belief system. I once looked down my nose at atheists and other non-believers as ignorant God-haters, pure and simple. "These people don't see the truth about God and the Bible for the simple reason that they don't want to. They are in a state of rebellion against God and therefore their rage blinds them to the truth."

It isn't true, dear Christians. This is what every cult tells you. Nick and others talk so much about "scholarship" but what about the massive scholarship that denies the reality of supernatural claims? What about the massive amount of scholarship that finds ZERO evidence for one to believe in supernatural phenomenon? The majority of scientists on planet earth do not believe in the powers of witchcraft and sorcery. But your belief system is based on sorcery. You may consider it a good form of sorcery, but it is still sorcery. Any male human being with magical powers is a sorcerer. Scientists don't believe in sorcery. It is imaginary. There is zero evidence for it. Science doesn't bother trying to disprove things for which there is no evidence to suggest it exists.

Please, please, please wake up from the spell that your cult has lulled you into. Please read the following . I know that while reading you will say to yourself, "I am not a fundamentalist Christian"---but by the definition of secular society, all of the Christians commenting on this thread are fundamentalists. Non-fundamentalist Christians do not believe that non-Christians are going to be punished for not being Christians. If you believe they will be punished, in any way, shape, or form, including being "shamed", you are a fundamentalist, like it or not.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Littlejoe

Gary, even in a link, that word (BS) is not allowed. You should know that by now. Since that word is not allowed, please do not link to or use that link as your source.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Christianbookworm]

Could AP please explain why Gary thinketh that we be brainwashed? Silly fundy atheist don't realize that one can be intellectually convinced of the truth of Christianity. And we are supposed to ask questions, not be like the creepy cult that prohibits questions.

[psstein]

Probably my last post for today; I have real-world responsibilities to deal with.

Calling Loftus and Sam Harris paragons of "reason" is almost comical. Harris is incompetent, to put it nicely, and Loftus is a fundamentalist who changed sides. He doesn't understand how to read the Bible in any way outside of a strictly literal sense. Ehrman is a good scholar, but a lousy popularizer. He's a manuscript specialist who trained under the legendary Bruce Metzger (probably the greatest American manuscript scholar of the 20th century, if not ever). He's not a life of Jesus researcher (like Crossan, Johnson, etc.), and his popular work is sensationalistic at best. He knows we know what the NT says. He gives the illusion we don't. When he talks about the historical Jesus, he is way outside of his depth, and it shows. Loftus is the best internet atheist, and his arguments aren't particularly good. His OTF is, by itself, problematic.

Using a site with the title Gary's reference site has is anything but an unbiased source. Most OT scholars are Jewish, not Christian. Among non-evangelical Christian scholars, almost all hold to either JEPD (the Documentary Hypothesis) or what R. N. Whybray believed, a compilation of sources by a later scribe.

I'll put it this way, I am fairly agnostic as to the historicity of much of the OT. I read K.A. Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament and found it wanting, although it did challenge my views on certain parts. You can't just read stuff that agrees with you if you want to actually know things.

[psstein]

Leviticus 25:45-46 for anyone who wants to check whether foreign slaves were owned for life.

I think I wrote a paper on that section for my Torah class... but remember, we're the deluded ones.

[JonathanL]

Yeah, no, I'm pretty sure that that particular word is not allowed and you better edit it yourself before you get a warning.


ETA: a few seconds too late.