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 Mikeenders View Post
    Ahem......Yesterday


    I admit it: I am addicted to this thread. The only way to stop me is for the moderators to ban me or kill the thread.



    Ahem....Today



    Well just as long as he is not adding to a list of lies....oh wait


    I admit it: I am addicted to this thread. The only way to stop me is for the moderators to ban me or kill the thread.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      No. It's a high-context society. Acts is not written to show what early Christians believed but to show how Christianity spread. It's for the same reason there's no account of the resurrection even though Luke definitely held to it. You won't find a treatise on soteriology or eschatology in there.
      So your scholars tell you.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
        So your scholars tell you.
        Not mine. Maurice Casey says the same thing about a high context society in his book on Jesus mythicism. Last I checked, he wasn't an evangelical Christian. This isn't exactly a debated point.

        But do tell us Gary how you know better than the scholars in the field who study the original languages, the original culture, get Ph.D.'s etc.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
          Here is something else that I wanted to share with you:

          Why did later Christians abandon Paul's "Witness Creed" in First Corinthians 15? Do we see this Creed in the Book of Acts? Do we see it in the Gospels? No. Nowhere.

          James the brother of Jesus was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, yet none of the authors of the Gospels nor the Book of Acts mentions an appearance by Jesus to James. Isn't that concerning for you? If Jesus had really appeared to his brother, the first bishop of Jerusalem, why did the Gospel authors not mention this? And the same thing about the "Five Hundred". Why is Paul spreading the word about "five hundred witnesses, most of them still alive" and yet only 10-20 years later and thereafter, no author of the Bible mentions this amazing "fact" to substantiate the greatest miracle in the history of mankind!

          Doesn't the evidence strongly suggest that later Christian authors did not trust the reliability of this early Witness Creed?
          No Gary - provide the proof that the writers of the New Testament were lying.
          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 tabibito View Post
            No Gary - provide the proof that the writers of the New Testament were lying.
            Come now. Have some patience. Gary has to Google to see what he's supposed to say to that.

            Comment


            • The wee little dear can't help but to continue posting even as we facepalm at his lack of understanding. So, Gary is okay with deism, but not theism? I don't see why an entity that can create an entire universe would never interfere at all with said creation.
              If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

              Comment


              • It's amazing that we're told to think from a non-Christian perspective.

                I think every Christian in this thread has done that multiple times. That's why we read the books that disagree with us. We don't just use Google.

                Well let's sit back and wait and see what Gary's Google search comes up with this time.

                Comment


                • Why did later Christians abandon Paul's "Witness Creed" in First Corinthians 15? Do we see this Creed in the Book of Acts? Do we see it in the Gospels? No. Nowhere.
                  What for the love of God is this poor soul talking about? Acts abandoned a witness creed? what this?

                  Acts 4:33 (KJV)
                  33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

                  and how come the very first Pentecost message appeals to what they people had seen and heard themselves

                  Acts 2:22 (KJV)
                  22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

                  and for the love of basic common sense. how can the gospels have given up on an eye witness creed when they relate eyewitness stories and say things like this

                  John 21:24 (KJV)
                  24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.


                  James the brother of Jesus was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, yet none of the authors of the Gospels nor the Book of Acts mentions an appearance by Jesus to James. Isn't that concerning for you?
                  uhhh? why would it be? you make no sense whatsoever. The church ran on apostolic authority so why do we need to hear especially about James the brother of Jesus. Should we bothered that Mary his mother isn't consulted as well? Wow you make no sense whatsoever smh


                  Why is Paul spreading the word about "five hundred witnesses, most of them still alive" and yet only 10-20 years later and thereafter, no author of the Bible

                  More drop down silliness. First you have misread the text. Paul did not say there were five hundred witnessess to the resurrection total. He states that there was a instance when 500 saw him at one time. SO there is no requirement to spread the word about the 500. Thats just one appearance. Second there are references to eyewitnesses ALL THROUGHOUT THE NT.

                  Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all indicate this. Peter in his epistles indicates this. Acts in the verse I just quoted indicate this. Hebrews refer to witnesses.

                  In short once again you have demonstrated you know nothing of what you are talking about

                  Nada


                  literally zip

                  If you were ever a real Christian I was a real pope (well I would have if would not have abstained)
                  Last edited by Mikeenders; 09-17-2015, 11:20 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                    No. It's a high-context society. Acts is not written to show what early Christians believed but to show how Christianity spread. It's for the same reason there's no account of the resurrection even though Luke definitely held to it. You won't find a treatise on soteriology or eschatology in there.
                    Let's assume that Nick is right on this issue. Luke the Physician, or whoever wrote Luke/Acts, did not include the appearances of Jesus to James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, or to the Five Hundred all at once, in the Book of Acts, because it did not fit with his soteriology and eschatology for that particular piece of literature.

                    However, the same author, in the Gospel of Luke, does give a list of witnesses of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus which does NOT include James or the Five Hundred. "Luke" gives quite a bit of detail about Jesus appearance to Mary Magdalene and some other women, but fails to mention Jesus appearance to his brother, the Bishop of Jerusalem, and Jesus' appearance to five hundred eyewitnesses all at once?? Why would Luke expend so much "ink" on Jesus appearance to women but not give one sentence to the "five hundred" or to James?

                    This is especially curious as the author of the Gospel of Luke states that he carefully researched the previous writings about Jesus so that he could give an "accurate" account. Wouldn't that include the writings of Paul? Wouldn't that include the Creed in First Corinthians 15 (let's call it The Early Creed)? Yet Luke fails to mention these key witnesses to the post-resurrection appearances; key witnesses used by every modern Christian apologist as the best proof for the resurrection of Jesus.

                    Isn't it much more probable, friends, that Luke was aware of this Creed, but did not find it credible/trustworthy, and therefore ignored it??
                    Last edited by Gary; 09-17-2015, 11:47 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                      Not mine. Maurice Casey says the same thing about a high context society in his book on Jesus mythicism. Last I checked, he wasn't an evangelical Christian. This isn't exactly a debated point.

                      But do tell us Gary how you know better than the scholars in the field who study the original languages, the original culture, get Ph.D.'s etc.
                      I am not even sure why there needs to be an extended discussion about scholars on this. Are the opening verses of Acts in dispute? I've never heard much about that. Acts says clearly the issue of eyewitness testimony has been dealt with in depth already by whoever the writer is. So why would he go extensively into it again?

                      Acts 1:1-3 (KJV)
                      1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
                      2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
                      3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

                      which is yet another passage that shows how dreadfully silly gary's point that Acts says nothing of a witness creed is. What's verse 3????

                      I'm beginning to think this alleged Doctor is a teenager thats barely read the NT at all.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                        Let's assume that Nick is right on this issue. Luke the Physician, or whoever wrote Luke/Acts, did not include the appearances of Jesus to James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, or to the Five Hundred all at once, in the Book of Acts, because it did not fit with his soteriology and eschatology for that particular piece of literature.
                        No. That's not my position at all. Good grief.

                        However, the same author, in the Gospel of Luke, does give a list of witnesses of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus which does NOT include James or the Five Hundred. "Luke" gives quite a bit of detail about Jesus appearance to Mary Magdalene and some other women, but fails to mention Jesus appearance to his brother, the Bishop of Jerusalem, and Jesus' appearance to five hundred eyewitnesses all at once?? Why would Luke expend so much "ink" on Jesus appearance to women but not give one sentence to the "five hundred" or to James?
                        Because the ones he gave were enough. For a Jewish system, it was quality over quantity and Luke in listing named people is giving his sources.

                        This is especially curious as the author of the Gospel of Luke states that he carefully researched the previous writings about Jesus so that he could give an "accurate" account. Wouldn't that include the writings of Paul? Wouldn't that include the Creed in First Corinthians 15 (let's call it The Early Creed)? Yet Luke fails to mention these key witnesses to the post-resurrection appearances; key witnesses used by every modern Christian apologist as the best proof for the resurrection of Jesus.
                        He has an appearance to the apostles. That's all he needs.

                        Isn't it much more probable, friends, that Luke was aware of this Creed, but did not find it credible/trustworthy, and therefore ignored it??
                        No.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                          Let's assume that Nick is right on this issue. Luke the Physician, or whoever wrote Luke/Acts, did not include the appearances of Jesus to James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, or to the Five Hundred all at once, in the Book of Acts, because it did not fit with his soteriology and eschatology for that particular piece of literature.
                          Good night. The kid can't even read. Nick said nothing about "because". He said you won't find soteriology or eschatology in there either.

                          Comment


                          • Jesus appearing to James - not a particularly significant event ... appearing to women now - that makes a statement.
                            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 Mikeenders View Post
                              I'm beginning to think this alleged Doctor is a teenager thats barely read the NT at all.
                              No. He actually really is a doctor and really not a teenager.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                                No. He actually really is a doctor and really not a teenager.
                                Really? He don't act like a very good doctor.
                                If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                                Comment

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