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
    I dunno. I have met quite a few people who take strong "emotional reason" objection to being seen as a sinner and rejected Christianity (most atheist males I have encountered get particularly emotional about sexual prohibitions in the Bible ) . I wasn't thrilled with the idea myself. The idea that coming to Christ is this all butterfly and warm fuzzies event with little distress doesn't match all conversion experiences and thats not to speak of countries and times when doing so meant you were drastically reducing your life expectancy and had to be ready to face your mortality in the near future.
    Christianity is not a religion for people who simply want to feel good. That's what our churches unfortunately spread, and now they're wondering why people are walking away.

    Not to be too cliched, but I found Christ in one of the darkest parts of my life.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
      Gary for once analyze your own logic. You are essentially claiming that any statement or statements not made in the NT more than once is evidence that it was denied by the other writers of the NT.

      You are supposedly educated enough. How can you not see how inane that logic is?

      No. I never claimed it as fact, just as a strong possibility.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
        Already answered when the naming of witnesses is mentioned. You're expecting the Gospels to be exhaustive. They're not. If anything, this could serve as greater testimony of the creed since the writers could include the other witnesses that were not cited in the Creed.
        You very well could be right, Nick, but isn't it also possible that the reason why the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke/Acts, and John don't mention these alleged witnesses is that they either did not believe these claims to be credible...or had never heard of them in the first place.

        Bottom line: Neither of us can know which it is. My point is that there are so many, many other possible, much more probable, explanations for the scant Christian evidence for this supernatural claim.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
          I am taking Gary's reference to creed within the context of the other creeds he has mentioned - confessional creeds.

          I would be interested on a side note to know how we determine a church wide oral tradition based on a rhyming text. Why can that not be a Pauline teaching device or a convention in his churches without being an established oral tradition?
          I'm not totally sure what you're asking. However, there are a few reasons to suppose it's not (completely) a Pauline teaching device. If we're referring to 1 Cor 15, the use of Cephas, an Aramaism, suggests that the creed originated in Jerusalem or in Judea, more generally. The rhyming text seems to be indicative of an oral tradition, because (as almost everyone will attest) rhymes are easier to remember than simple sayings. This is why several parables are thought to be original.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
            Heres the problem Gary. Too many people including NT scholars assume things that they have not learnt from any established source because their training did not cover it. A classic one I point at?

            Whats a contradiction? Its pretty clear that a contradiction is when two facts are necessarily opposed to each other. Rather than demonstrating with some evidence that two different verses are necessarily opposed to each other Skeptic scholars and followers such as yourself change the meaning of a contradiction to what MIGHT be opposed to each other or to you APPEARS to be a contradiction. At that point rather than proving that there is a contradiction you assume the onus and burden of proof is on the believer to show otherwise but even if he does show precisely that you call that "harmonization". So in other words you have created an argument where tails you win heads they lose.

            What allows skeptics to have fun with the NT is its uniqueness in its numbers of writers/witnesses talking about the same event that long ago. you get a number of people giving witness to events there will always be differences in what they saw, how they saw and when they saw. Mix that in with culture, time, history and language not completely known to us and you can have even more fun which you would have with just about any other similar multiple witnessed ancient event. You have ample opportunities to claim what MIGHT or APPEARS to be a contradiction. However Thats not how a contradiction works.

            A charge of a contradiction is like a charge of lying. the onus of proof is on ME if I call you on lying and if I should merely assume that you are lying you would call that polemic and be offended. so no I don't think that because Christians have "harmonizations" (Aka proof that there is not a necessary logical incoherence) that proves it to be true but I think that your lack of proof of a true contradiction simply does not meet that requirement to distrust the testimony of the New Testament.



            Stop incessantly telling me what I would or would not do when you have no clue . I've told you point blank on at least three occasions that i do not find miracles by themselves to be compelling without context. Your claim that all religions have the same background and equality is nonsense. All you are doing is putting them all in the same box and claiming equivalence for all. Using that technique in regard to race and you would be considered a racist. I evaluate a religion on its own terms not some mass generalized discrimination that you are adhering to. I reject Mormon claims because they lack the very context i told you several times I require. If there were a previous context indicating a man was going to dig up something in the new world then I would have to consider it more carefully than I do.

            You assume too much and you are unaware of your assumptions swearing you are free from them. This is one of the things that alleged ex christians intoxicate themselves with. They swear they were solid christians and they had a solid basis so they know why other Christians believe what they do and why its wrong. Then when a skeptic attacks their wobble foundation they think it devastates the entire Christian faith because they think that was all that was behind everyone else's faith. You are wrong. Some of us have far more to be standing on that what you were.
            There are zero eyewitness testimonies of the event in question itself. No one, even in the Bible, claims to have witnessed the resurrection/reanimation of the dead body of Jesus, only of the alleged post-resurrection appearances, and these claims are based on, at best, second hand stories which is considered "hearsay". We have no solid evidence that we have any eyewitness testimony, only hearsay! The majority of NT scholars do not believe that any of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. All we have is Paul's statement that he "had seen the Christ" and if we believe the accuracy of the author of Acts in quoting Paul, Paul specifically says that this appearance occurred in a vision. Visions are not reality.

            Thousands of people each year, all over the world, claim to receive appearances from recently departed loved ones. We don't believe these very sincere people, so there is no reason to believe second hand, hearsay claims of the appearance of one dead person from people living 20 centuries ago.
            Last edited by Gary; 09-17-2015, 02:18 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
              The gospel stories finish with the ascension - or before. Why would they mention something that happened after the writing finished? Why do you think the destruction of the temple isn't mentioned in the gospels? In all probability, because when their narratives finish, the temple was still standing. Perhaps you think that there would be another reason for the fulfilment of a major prophecy by Christ to pass without mention.

              And yes, there is no obligation to believe anything that isn't written up at least twice, and by more than one author.
              You lost me.

              Do you believe that the appearance to James and the Five Hundred happened after the Ascension?? Is there any Church body or apologist that supports that idea?

              The destruction of the Temple IS mentioned in the Gospels. And if the Gospels were written when the majority of NT scholars believe they were written, the "prophecy" of the Temple's destruction was not a prophecy, but simply recording as prophecy a known historical event. Even if the Gospel of Mark was written in 65 AD, for the author of Mark to have Jesus saying that the Temple would be destroyed is not much different than someone in early September, 1939, predicting that most of Warsaw would be destroyed.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                No. I never claimed it as fact, just as a strong possibility.
                The issue was not about what you claim as fact or not fact. The issue is the logic you use to come to your conclusions or "strong possibility". this is why I can't take you seriously. Its just vastly silly logic. four people tell a story and one mentions a detail that no one else mentions so that means the other three are denying or abandoned the credibility of that detail? SO if four doctors mention a treatment to me and only one mentions a particular treatment X that means they are denying Treatment X? Problems is I had doctors who that happened with (over time) and when I go back to the other doctors they say....oh yeah that might work too (so they were not denying it just had not thought of it or mentioned it). Had I not gone back and asked according to you it would mean they were denying treatment X would be effective.

                Forget the conclusions, Your logic makes absolutely zero sense. Bad logic at no time equals strong possibility

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                  I dunno. I have met quite a few people who take strong "emotional reason" objection to being seen as a sinner and rejected Christianity (most atheist males I have encountered get particularly emotional about sexual prohibitions in the Bible ) . I wasn't thrilled with the idea myself. The idea that coming to Christ is this all butterfly and warm fuzzies event with little distress doesn't match all conversion experiences and thats not to speak of countries and times when doing so meant you were drastically reducing your life expectancy and had to be ready to face your mortality in the near future.
                  Christianity offers a life of bliss and happiness in the after life simply by believing in an invisible being and "following his will" as stated in the Bible. For emotionally desperate or fearful people, that is a pretty big draw.

                  There is no one reason why people choose to believe in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Mormonism, etc. Some convert out of fear, some convert because it gives them a social support network, and some convert because they honestly come to believe it is the Truth. But I would say that a large percentage of converts to Christianity do so for the following reasons:

                  1. The promise that an all-powerful God loves you and wants to protect you in this life and in the next.
                  2. The promise of happiness and existence after death.
                  3. The promise of a comforter in good times and bad that will never leave you or forsake you.
                  4. The promise of a caring and supportive social network.
                  5. The promise of forgiveness for anything bad you have done just by being truly remorseful.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                    Christianity is not a religion for people who simply want to feel good. That's what our churches unfortunately spread, and now they're wondering why people are walking away.

                    Not to be too cliched, but I found Christ in one of the darkest parts of my life.
                    That happens for many people. When life is bleak and depressing we are the most vulnerable to any offer of deliverance from that situation, and the idea that there is an all-powerful God who loves you personally and wants to help you and protect you is very, very powerful.

                    Comment


                    • Except that there is no promise of protection in this life. God won't save you from physical death. He can, but don't count on it.
                      If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                        Strawman.

                        There is no mention of an appearance to James or to "Five Hundred at once" in Acts (or the Gospels). If the "Early Creed" in First Corinthians really was a creed used in Christian worship from just a few years after Jesus' death and continuing until the time of Paul, the evidence strongly indicates that this Creed was abandoned thereafter, for some reason, as it is not repeated (in a creed form) in Acts, the Gospels, nor in the liturgy of the second and third century Church.
                        Gary your density is just to thick to get through. The idea that because in 1 Cor 15 there was (or was not ) a universal creed of the church in no way shape or form means that it must be mentioned in acts. Thats just stupid. The whole thing is stupid. If this were a universal creed of the church then it is OBVIOUS it would have to change.

                        What would be the point of having a creed where you said 500 witnessed the resurrection at once with most remaining alive in the second and third century church when they thenwould all be dead?

                        Do you ever THINK?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                          There are zero eyewitness testimonies of the event in question itself. No one, even in the Bible, claims to have witnessed the resurrection/reanimation of the dead body of Jesus, only of the alleged post-resurrection appearances, and these claims are based on, at best, second hand stories which is considered "hearsay".
                          Take Ferguson's claims and run with them. He impresses you not me - but his lofty arrogance that he thinks he can question Simon Greenleaf on the law is amusing. John claims to be a witness so your claim of "even in the Bible" is a lie.

                          NOTE TO ALL

                          We now have a new requirement. Unless a person was in the tomb when Jesus rose from the dead we have no eye witnesses of his ressurection. Being dead and then being seen alive is insufficient


                          ROFL
                          Last edited by Mikeenders; 09-17-2015, 03:02 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Jesus apparently should have had His Resurrection videotaped along with an EKG showing a flat-line and then showing a pulse. Along with an MRI proving brain death and then proving return of brain function. And then prove immortality by having a bullet fired at Him! And a DNA test!
                            If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                              But I am not asking you, Little Joe, to deny the existence of a God. I am asking you to consider that your conversion was based on emotional reasons and not because a God spoke to you in your heart, or moved you, or lead you, to him. How would you know for sure? Aren't you really just guessing that your conversion was due to Yahweh/Jesus and not some internal psychological need which was relieved/fulfilled by your psychological submission and belief in the religious equivalent of an all-powerful superhero as your personal body guide and all-knowing mentor for all of life's problems?
                              Nope. Impossible for you to understand I know, but there's no way I'm guessing.
                              "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                              "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                              Comment


                              • Jesus. Is. Not. Superman! He won't randomly save you from a sticky situation you put yourself in! Why bother? You'll die physically eventually unless the second coming happens first.
                                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