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

  • Doctor of what? Or should I say, "what does he doctor?" (apart from the historical records)
    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 Apologiaphoenix View Post
      No. He actually really is a doctor and really not a teenager.
      Sorry Nick....for the sake of physicians everywhere not buying it unless well....theres direct eyewitness testimony.

      and I am not maintaining this to be insulting but in all my years I have never met a Doctor that thinks that poorly. Atheist, skeptic or christian they all make better arguments

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
        Really? He don't act like a very good doctor.
        He is. Unfortunately, having knowledge in one field does not extend to all fields and that's the problem. It's really a lack of humility.

        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.

          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??
          And here is something else about the "Early Creed" mentioned in First Corinthians 15: Why did the early Church stop using it?? Can you name the three great creeds of Christianity? Here they are:

          The Apostles' Creed
          The Nicene Creed
          The Athanasian (sp) Creed

          Where is the Early Creed? For those of you who attend RCC, EOC, Anglican, or Lutheran churches, how often have you heard the "Early Creed" as part of the liturgy?

          Why did the "Early Creed" disappear in the early Christian Church? Why did none of the Gospel writers use the same list of witnesses as did the Early Creed. Why do Matthew, Luke, and John (and the scribal addition to the ending of Mark) give elaborate details for Jesus appearance to the women and the Eleven, but completely omit any mention of an appearance to James, Jesus' brother and the leader of the Christian Church in Palestine, and omit mention of the "five hundred", the eyewitnesses so often used by Christian apologists today (as can be seen on this thread) as proof of the Resurrection?

          Isn't it obvious: This early Creed was abandoned by early Christians sometime after Paul (a non-eyewitness to the immediate post-resurrection appearances) wrote First Corinthians, most likely because this early Creed was considered unreliable/inaccurate.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
            He is. Unfortunately, having knowledge in one field does not extend to all fields and that's the problem. It's really a lack of humility.

            Its much more than that. Its a matter of logic skills. Its far from rare to meet an extremely arrogant atheist but Gary makes some of the most illogical arguments I have heard where they don't . Anyone can be duped by someone they only casually know of so I am still skeptical of your assurance but I'll leave it there. Suffice to say its not a matter of his skepticism. I can think of a few christian apologists that if I heard they were doctors I would not wish to be treated by them because of the lack of logic and balance they have shown.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
              And here is something else about the "Early Creed" mentioned in First Corinthians 15: Why did the early Church stop using it?? Can you name the three great creeds of Christianity? Here they are:

              The Apostles' Creed
              The Nicene Creed
              The Athanasian (sp) Creed

              Where is the Early Creed? For those of you who attend RCC, EOC, Anglican, or Lutheran churches, how often have you heard the "Early Creed" as part of the liturgy?

              Why did the "Early Creed" disappear in the early Christian Church? Why did none of the Gospel writers use the same list of witnesses as did the Early Creed. Why do Matthew, Luke, and John (and the scribal addition to the ending of Mark) give elaborate details for Jesus appearance to the women and the Eleven, but completely omit any mention of an appearance to James, Jesus' brother and the leader of the Christian Church in Palestine, and omit mention of the "five hundred", the eyewitnesses so often used by Christian apologists today (as can be seen on this thread) as proof of the Resurrection?

              Isn't it obvious: This early Creed was abandoned by early Christians sometime after Paul (a non-eyewitness to the immediate post-resurrection appearances) wrote First Corinthians, most likely because this early Creed was considered unreliable/inaccurate.
              No. Look up what a high context society is. Background information need not be repeated.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                No Gary - Prove that they were lying. Prove their claim to have seen and spoken with the risen lord was a lie. If the Christian God exists, then the (at least) occasional miracle is inevitable. Don't try to pass the buck - it is you making the extraordinary claim that even if the Christian God existed, he would not have the power to raise the dead. Front up with the evidence commensurate with the extraordinary claim.
                Tabby. Listen. I DO NOT THINK THAT THE EARLY CHRISTIANS WERE LYING!

                I believe that based on the very, very low probability of a resurrection that the early Christians were MISTAKEN, not lying. Again, do you have any statement by any alleged eyewitness to the actual resurrection/reanimation of the dead body of Jesus? You don't and you know it. All you have is second hand (hearsay) testimony that a number of persons living in the first century believed that a resurrected Jesus had appeared to them. That's it. You have ZERO testimony of a witnessed resurrection.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                  And here is something else about the "Early Creed" mentioned in First Corinthians 15: Why did the early Church stop using it?? Can you name the three great creeds of Christianity? Here they are:

                  The Apostles' Creed
                  The Nicene Creed
                  The Athanasian (sp) Creed

                  Where is the Early Creed? For those of you who attend RCC, EOC, Anglican, or Lutheran churches, how often have you heard the "Early Creed" as part of the liturgy?

                  You are desperately trying to beg the creed aspect and creating a strawman entirely of your own making. Paul nowhere pronounces I cor 15 as some kind of creed to be used in the ages to come. He is relating a defense of future resurrections. You have not a drop of evidence in the text that Paul was relating an official creed. There has been some discussion that Paul may have drawn from a creed here but to claim this in fact was a creed abandoned is just your usual straw.

                  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.
                    Literally everybody who teaches or has a degree in NT or Christian Origins knows this. Luke's project is historical and theological, hence his attempts to portray a unified Peter and Paul.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                      That might happen yet especially if we are given a vote. Here's your real problem Gary. There is not an argument you bring up that you do not claim is killer that when looked at does not DEMONSTRABLY fall apart upon examination. You then suggest to us an alleged brilliant blog poster (who obviously thinks he is brilliant as well) who makes obvious gaffes in logic and deduction.

                      these communications are like the fable of the emperor with the new clothes. "Look at us we are brilliant observe our fine linen" but then we look and we see the weakness in logic,the fallacious appeals to authority, affirming the consequent and strawmen premises.....and well sorry but you blew your credibility. It doesn't matter how much you then try to convince us the emperor's new clothes are really fancy, once everyone is giggling that all you have on is underwear, no speech or beg makse them then see fancy clothing.

                      You went to the well too many times claiming great arguments and came up with nothing or even anything new. It just gets more hilarious with each passing post you claim to have a great point and they just always fizzle.
                      So you are stating that because Christians have explanations/harmonizations for every alleged error, contradiction, and discrepancy in their supernatural story that this proves it to be true?

                      Please, Mike, apply that logic to any other religion's supernatural claims. Mormons can do the very same thing with their supernatural tale, as can the Muslims, as can the Hindus, as can every other supernatural-based religion on the planet. Now, you won't believe that their explanations/harmonizations are good, and you will feel that you are very justified in rejecting their explanations/harmonizations, but then how is that different from the many, many skeptics of Christian supernatural claims who see your "evidence" as just as weak as that of the Mormons, Muslims, and Hindus.

                      Mike, there must be one standard for evaluating an historical claim. (Most) Christians reject the supernatural claims of other religions based on the same rules of evidence that we skeptics reject Christian claims, but when we reject YOUR evidence based on these rules, these same Christians cry foul. If we must accept the Resurrection based soley on hearsay and assumed patterns of behavior for people living 20 centuries ago, then we are obligated in believing in flying horses, talking water buffalo, and Golden Tablets delivered by an angel to Mormon prophets.
                      Last edited by Gary; 09-17-2015, 12:18 PM.

                      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.
                        Luke doesn't care. He's showing how the early church spread, which is why there are things like a united Peter and Paul, when Paul's epistles tell a different story. The same is true of Peter's "speeches," which have a combination of Petrine preaching (at the core) and a large amount of later addition.

                        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?
                        Again, Luke refers to this implicitly, saying that Jesus appeared and presented many convincing proofs (Acts 1:1-4?). Luke doesn't care about appearances in Acts. His project is showing the spread of early Christianity. It's not meant to be a tape recording.

                        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.
                        Almost everyone thinks Luke is referring implicitly to Mark and Q (two-source hypothesis) if not Mark and Matthew (Farrer hypothesis). The Pauline Epistles do not provide the type of information Luke would want. Luke is writing a) a biography of Jesus and b) a history of the spread of the early church. Assuming he even has copies of Paul's letters, how would any of them be useful to his project? Paul states very little explicitly about Jesus as a man. He's more focused on Jesus' divine aspects and addressing specific issues within churches.

                        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, it isn't. The creed doesn't serve Luke's purposes. There's no reason for him to include it.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                          You are desperately trying to beg the creed aspect and creating a strawman entirely of your own making. Paul nowhere pronounces I cor 15 as some kind of creed to be used in the ages to come. He is relating a defense of future resurrections. You have not a drop of evidence in the text that Paul was relating an official creed. There has been some discussion that Paul may have drawn from a creed here but to claim this in fact was a creed abandoned is just your usual straw.
                          The 1 Cor. 15 creed is meant as part of an oral tradition. In the Greek, it's abundantly clear due to its structure (almost rhyming). It's not meant as a confessional creed.

                          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.
                            Let's concede you are correct for the Book of Acts. What about the omission of the appearances of Jesus to James and the Five Hundred in the Gospels?

                            Comment


                            • Interesting

                              1 Corinthians 15, 3–7 includes an early creed about Jesus' death and resurrection which was probably received by Paul. The antiquity of the creed has been located by most biblical scholars to no more than five years after Jesus' death, probably originating from the Jerusalem apostolic community.

                              I haven't found anything showing a contrary claim, beyond that some expand the time frame to seven years.

                              So - Within 5 to 7 years of Jesus' death, the story regarding his resurrection is in circulation - and yet, we have no record showing any gain-sayers challenging the story - not Christian, nor Jew, nor Roman. Seems kind of odd that the governing authorities of the time (not so much the Romans, because the Jews and their internecine squabbles weren't anything particularly significant) should have made no response to the circulation of a rumour that they could easily have demonstrated false.

                              So the problem remains for Gary - how is he going to show that the early writers were lying? If he can't do that, he's got no case.
                              Last edited by tabibito; 09-17-2015, 12:25 PM.
                              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
                                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.




                                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





                                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)
                                Strawman.

                                I never said that no one else mentions the resurrection or the appearances to the apostles. What I said is that this Creed, if it ever was a Creed, was abandoned by the early Church and the writers of the Gospels and Acts do not use the witness list in First Corinthians and omit two key groups of eyewitnesses.

                                Comment

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