Originally posted by Christianbookworm
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Mikeenders View PostGary 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 Mikeenders View PostTake 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
ROFLLast edited by Gary; 09-17-2015, 04:23 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostNope. Impossible for you to understand I know, but there's no way I'm guessing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostNo Gary - (and admittedly, I got the order wrong earlier)
2/ Demonstrate that there are sufficient grounds to believe that the founding apostles and others involved in the promulgation of the Biblical texts were bare faced liars. It is not possible that they were misguided. Either their claims were factual, or they were lies. Demonstrate that there is sufficient cause to believe that the founding apostles (among others) were liars.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostJesus appearing to James - not a particularly significant event ... appearing to women now - that makes a statement.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostNo. Look up what a high context society is. Background information need not be repeated.
Possibly true, but it is also possible that the claim of an appearance to James and the Five Hundred was not credible and this is why no one in later Christian writings mentions these two claims.
You can say "implausible" but you cannot say "impossible", Nick. This is just one of the many dozens of assumptions that hold together the orthodox/conservative Christian belief system.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostThen why do Christians today use the Creed in First Corinthians 15 as one of the main pieces of evidence for their supernatural claim of a resurrection/reanimation?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostSad. Very sad.
I had hoped that at least Stein would begin to see just how preposterous this claim is and just how weak the evidence for it is.
On skeptic blogs, which are populated mostly with ex-Christians, we discuss just how bizarre it is that at one time we too held to your positions and how now that we have left Christianity we see just how nonsensical these arguments and positions really are. How can it be that two groups of intelligent, educated people can see the "evidence" so very, very differently? I think that there are only two possible explanations:
1. An evil demon or devil really has blinded non-believers to the real Truth.
or
2. Christians are thoroughly (and in many cases hopelessly) brainwashed.
I know that many of you consider me a troll, here just to stir up a fight. It is true that I do enjoy a good "brawl in the mud", but I also do really care about the truth. I really do care that others see the truth. I really do care that each of YOU sees the truth.
And, I really do believe that conservative Christianity is a cult because it uses mankind's fear of death and what happens after death as a billy club to control people. No loving deity would threaten people he loves with punishment for not loving him back.
Please use your brains, folks. Please ignore the "experts" and use good ol' common sense: dead bodies do not walk out of their graves with new superhero, immortal bodies to fly off into outer space. It's science fiction. It's a tall tale and nothing more.Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostInteresting
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostAlready 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mikeenders View PostI'd venture to say most Christians today do not identify a creed in 1 cor 15 nor do they care. Meanwhile why shouldn't they use a historical narrative from Paul in the bible even if its not a creed. Bottom line is any CREED that stated that people were alive that were all dead would have to be changed. If its a historical statement then its fine and fine to use. You have no point
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostTypical Garian false dichotomy.
No, you don't. You desperately want people to follow you in your folly in order to validate it.
Then perhaps you need to better investigate "conservative" Christianity and why "conservative Christians" believe what they do.
Please explain how ignoring the experts is using our brains.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment