Originally posted by Doug Shaver
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View PostIt's just an important point that needs to be made in regards to transparency. It reminded me of the same dishonest tactic that WLC uses in his debates. "According to the esteemed German scholar and skeptic Gerd Ludemann, it can be taken as historically certain that the disciples had experiences of Jesus after his death."
Not so fast, Billy. Doesn't Ludemann think those "experiences" were based on bereavement hallucinations that didn't necessarily have anything to do with reality?
WLC: "Uh.....well....yes....but I didn't want the people that I'm pandering to to know that."
If Craig made Ludemann's actual view known to the audience then the argument loses its force. He's banking on most people not being familiar with critical scholarship and that's how I originally took your quote. Sorry if I was mistaken.
I'm an academic historian in real life. When I write articles/reviews/whatever, I cite people I disagree with. Just because I'll cite Kloppenborg on Q doesn't mean I agree with him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostYou think a creed that began within the first few years of Jesus' death, that lists the number of people that he was supposedly seen by after the fact, was compiled so that Christians could tell other Christians how to be real Christians? That's a really strange take.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doug Shaver View PostYou have your epistemology, I have mine. When someone tells me I should believe something, I don't need evidence that it's false. Without evidence that it's true, I think I'm justified in withholding belief. And if it also seems prima facie unlikely, I think I'm justified in suspecting that it's false.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
-
The creed also emphasizes the importance of revelation from the scriptures. So it seems "dying for everyone's sins" and "being raised on the third day" wasn't actually based on evidence. It was based on a certain understanding and interpretation of scripture. I actually think the belief in Jesus' resurrection started before the appearances.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View PostThe creed also emphasizes the importance of revelation from the scriptures. So it seems "dying for everyone's sins" and "being raised on the third day" wasn't actually based on evidence. It was based on a certain understanding and interpretation of scripture. I actually think the belief in Jesus' resurrection started before the appearances.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 RhinestoneCowboy View Post... I actually think the belief in Jesus' resurrection started before the appearances.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
It's not that odd. The concept of being "raised from the dead" was applied to other single prophet figures who had been recently executed in Jesus' day i.e. John the Baptist. So that establishes that the concept existed and was applied by followers of apocalyptic sects. It didn't necessarily rely on empirical evidence. The earliest Christians could have seen Jesus' death as a martyr like in 2 Macc and applied the concept of resurrection to him without having any such "appearances." They just believed he must have been vindicated in heaven. The tradition of appearances just came later and were added to the creed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostThere are counter-claims, mostly from Messianic Christians, that the testimony of women was deemed unsatisfactory only in particular circumstances (evidence in a criminal trial, for example),
Originally posted by tabibito View Postand that the exclusion did not extend to matters such as the resurrection. On this matter I'm agnostic - there doesn't seem to be a wealth of supportive evidence either way.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doug Shaver View PostThe standard apologetic claim that, in that time and place, women had no credibility period is inconsistent with human nature.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostIt isn't a standard apologetic claim. It's one accepted by a wide diversity of New Testament scholars, including more than a few non-Christians.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doug Shaver View PostI've seen the kinds of arguments used by a wide diversity of New Testament scholars to defend their claims. With rare exceptions, I've not been impressed by the logical rigor of those arguments, especially when they're pretending to be like secular historians.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostNo one's really that impressed with your brand of super-skepticism Doug. It certainly wasn't "logical rigor" that led to your current mythicist beliefs about Jesus and the early church that runs contrary to almost all New Testament scholarship.
I think RC paraphrased him without attribution somewhere in the last 20 pages.Last edited by psstein; 07-26-2017, 02:17 PM.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
100 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
392 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
161 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
126 responses
683 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-30-2024, 09:12 AM | ||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
252 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
Comment