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
See more
See less

Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Just to clarify, quote mining is taking what someone says out of context in order to make it look like they hold a view that they don't.
    I've always taken quote mining to be a bit broader, that is, quoting stuff one clearly doesn't understand.
    So you can have people arguing a technical point (throwing expert quotes at one another) with neither party really understanding the material.
    Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
      I've always taken quote mining to be a bit broader, that is, quoting stuff one clearly doesn't understand.
      So you can have people arguing a technical point (throwing expert quotes at one another) with neither party really understanding the material.
      Probably a different term for that but I can certainly see how not understanding the material one quotes could lead to unintentional quote mining.

      I just see the accusation of quote mining hurled about a lot. Often it is legitimate, but occasionally the person making the accusation just doesn't like the quote and seeks to delegitimize it. I've experienced the latter a few times so I ask the accuser to explain how I took what was said out of context. So far this has always led to silence as a response.

      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


      • Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
        Rhinestone,

        Also, what you wrote about visions struck me as a bit odd.
        I probably don't understand your point so I'll throw my question into the ring.

        It seems that you are making the claim that 'vision' implies 'non-corporeal' which is a line of reasoning I don't follow.
        I saw George Clooney in Oceans 11 (1) the other day. George Clooney wasn't physically in the room with me at the time but I did see him. That said, the vision was of his corporeal body and wouldn't have been possible unless he had one (2). In short, a vision can be a moving picture show of a real corporeal thing. I don't think there is anything in the concept of a vision that regulates the images to immaterial or spiritual.
        The main problem I'm trying to get at is if you read 1 Cor 15:5-8 *without any knowledge of the gospel accounts* then it's pretty straightforward that Paul is equating the appearances without distinction. However, most people don't do this but are instead reading in the later gospel empty tomb doctrine into Paul and assume the appearances to the others were different as in they physically touched Jesus' body - Luke and John. This later view, is nowhere found in Paul's doctrine. Paul only speaks of spiritual encounters with a Christ who's experienced through visions in heaven, not earthly physical encounters.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          No. There was nothing rational about Gary's deconversion. He based his faith on a shallow foundation, and then was irrationally surprised when that weak foundation eventually came loose underneath his feet.
          I think your characterization of his deconversion is unfair.
          Statements of that sort have a wicked way of coming back around to bite one in the hind quarters.
          Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            Probably a different term for that but I can certainly see how not understanding the material one quotes could lead to unintentional quote mining.

            I just see the accusation of quote mining hurled about a lot. Often it is legitimate, but occasionally the person making the accusation just doesn't like the quote and seeks to delegitimize it. I've experienced the latter a few times so I ask the accuser to explain how I took what was said out of context. So far this has always led to silence as a response.
            I'll use the TWEB definition of the term going forward.
            Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
              That's what I'd be doing as I don't have a knowledge of the context of most of this nonsense.
              Then why assume that it actually is quote mining when you don't have knowledge of the context?

              While I don't doubt any of that I'm a little perplexed that you can prove the importance of a physical resurrection to people of that time and then simultaneously cast Paul as unaware of that importance and even contrary to it. If a physical resurrection was important for 'vindication' wouldn't it make sense for Paul to claim that for the prophet he was selling?
              The "physicality" of the resurrection was only important to later Gentile Christians. To Paul and the earliest Christians, a physically resurrected corpse was not what was envisioned.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                The main problem I'm trying to get at is if you read 1 Cor 15:5-8 *without any knowledge of the gospel accounts* then it's pretty straightforward that Paul is equating the appearances without distinction. However, most people don't do this but are instead reading in the later gospel empty tomb doctrine into Paul and assume the appearances to the others were different as in they physically touched Jesus' body - Luke and John. This later view, is nowhere found in Paul's doctrine. Paul only speaks of spiritual encounters with a Christ who's experienced through visions in heaven, not earthly physical encounters.
                Yes, if you exclude the gospel accounts you could characterize the visions as incorporeal.
                However, is it fair to remove that passage from the context in which it was written?

                Given the context:
                1: He lived in a society where a physical resurrection was vindication of a prophet.
                2: He had contact with the disciples who held to a physical resurrection.
                3: He was a central figure in the early church.

                Given the context of those verses which makes more sense?
                A: Paul didn't believe in the physical resurrection of Christ.
                B: Paul was writing to people who held to the physical resurrection; therefore, spelling it out in clear scientific terms wasn't necessary.

                I think if you divorce Paul's writings from context that your claim is interesting but I don't see the merit in the claim given that Paul met with the disciples of Jesus and I should think he'd be well aware of the bodily resurrection claims.
                Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                Comment


                • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                  The "physicality" of the resurrection was only important to later Gentile Christians. To Paul and the earliest Christians, a physically resurrected corpse was not what was envisioned.
                  How can you say this when a physical resurrection was an important sign of vindication to the Jews?
                  Also, the gospels make the claim of a physical resurrection rather early on do they not?
                  Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                    Yes, if you exclude the gospel accounts you could characterize the visions as incorporeal.
                    I'm not excluding them. I'm using them to demonstrate the apparent legendary growth.

                    1. Paul c. 50 CE- visions only, no empty tomb, heavenly resurrection/exaltation instead of being "raised to earth", the interpretation of 1 Cor 15:35-54 is disputed but a plausible case can be made for a spiritual "two body" exchange view.
                    2. Mark c. 70 - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearances in the earliest manuscripts.
                    3. Matthew c. 80 CE - has appearances which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. The exact nature of Jesus' resurrection body is not made clear.
                    4. Luke/Acts 85-95 CE - first explicit mention of a "flesh and bone" Jesus that eats fish, is touched and physically ascends to heaven while the disciples watch. Acts says that Jesus was on earth for 40 days providing "many proofs." (How did these amazing events go unnoticed/unmentioned by the earlier sources if they're actual history?)
                    5. John 90-110 CE - has the Doubting Thomas story and puts forth the view that Jesus is basically God - a view nowhere found in the synoptics.

                    Given the context:
                    1: He lived in a society where a physical resurrection was vindication of a prophet.
                    Huh? I've already demonstrated that resurrection views in this time period were diverse. There was no necessary connection between being "raised from the dead" and leaving an empty tomb behind. Spiritual resurrection was just as commonplace as physical resurrection or at least the sources are too few and too ambiguous to make a distinction.

                    2: He had contact with the disciples who held to a physical resurrection.
                    How do you know that? Only Paul's account is firsthand and the appearance to him was a vision. We don't have firsthand accounts from the other disciples. Since Paul equates the appearances then we have every reason to believe that the disciples experienced visions as well.

                    Given the context of those verses which makes more sense?
                    A: Paul didn't believe in the physical resurrection of Christ.
                    B: Paul was writing to people who held to the physical resurrection; therefore, spelling it out in clear scientific terms wasn't necessary.
                    A does not contradict B. Paul held the view A as he clearly argues against a physical corpse revival resurrection in 1 Cor 15:35-54. He says that physical resurrection is impossible in 1 Cor 15:50 and calls them "foolish" for believing it so - 1 Cor 15:36.

                    I think if you divorce Paul's writings from context that your claim is interesting but I don't see the merit in the claim given that Paul met with the disciples of Jesus and I should think he'd be well aware of the bodily resurrection claims.
                    We don't have firsthand reports from Peter, James, or the other apostles. Paul equates the appearances without distinction so that leaves us in the position to conclude that the earliest beliefs were that of a spiritual/mystical Christ in heaven.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                      How can you say this when a physical resurrection was an important sign of vindication to the Jews?
                      Also, the gospels make the claim of a physical resurrection rather early on do they not?
                      The gospels come later and read the sources about the diversity of resurrection belief pages 31-40 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false

                      Comment


                      • RhinestoneCowboy,
                        Thanks for the explanation.
                        That was a very clear presentation of your position.

                        -Meh Gerbil
                        Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                          I think your characterization of his deconversion is unfair.
                          Statements of that sort have a wicked way of coming back around to bite one in the hind quarters.
                          That is kind for you to come to my defense, but Adrift's reaction is very typical, and not just for my deconversion. Ask anyone who has deconverted from Christianity and they will tell you that Christians will often tell them, "If you had only understood TRUE Christianity, you wouldn't have deconverted." They then hand you a stack of books by NT scholars and expect you to read them. If you do not, you are told you are being obstinate and that your deconversion is obviously not based on evidence but based on your anger against God or a desire to lead a life of sin. Christians like Adrift just cannot accept that someone thoroughly investigated the evidence for Christianity and found it wanting.

                          Notice I did not immediately deconvert when I found out about the scribal additions and deletions. I investigated them and discussed them with pastors. I was then able to accept them as insignificant. I did the same with the discrepancies in the Resurrection accounts. I found them disturbing but was able to accept that these discrepancies had no impact on the overall historicity of the crucifixion and the Resurrection. The problem was when the dominoes continued to fall.

                          --Hell was an invention of the ancient Egyptians, adopted by the Greeks, adopted by the Jews under Greek occupation, adopted by Christians.
                          --The Book of Daniel is very likely a work of fraud.
                          --only seven of the epistles attributed to Paul can be confirmed to have been written by him.
                          --the canon of the New Testament has a very shaky claim to being the "Word of God". Jesus nor any the eleven apostles authorized or "blessed" any of the 27 books.
                          --the first six or seven books of the Old Testament have no historical or archeological evidence supporting their historicity or veracity.
                          --We have no solid evidence that Paul saw anything more than a bright light on the Damascus Road. Hardly proof that he saw a resurrected body.
                          --Paul's statements in Galatians and his alleged statements in Acts regarding his activities in the Arabian desert and his visit to Jerusalem contain significant discrepancies.
                          --even if we accept Matthew's guards at the tomb, there was at least a short period of time when someone could have moved/stolen the body of Jesus from the tomb.
                          --there is strong evidence that the first five books of the Old Testament were written in the seventh or sixth century BCE.
                          --there is no evidence than any of the Eleven were alive when the first Gospel was written to verify its accuracy.
                          --vague statements by Papias are the only evidence the Church has to link the Gospels to the Eleven or their immediate disciples.
                          --why did Christians forget the location of the Empty Tomb if such a place existed?

                          and the list goes on and on. I have studied each of these issues. I spent four months studying these issues before I deconverted.

                          Adrift and many other Christians would not be satisfied that I had thoroughly investigated the Bible and Christian teaching even if I were to read every NT scholar and graduate from a Christian seminary with a divinity degree IF I still claimed that the Christian belief system is based on superstition.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                            That is kind for you to come to my defense, but Adrift's reaction is very typical, and not just for my deconversion.
                            I disagree with Adrift's assessment of your deconversion; however, I think he's done a fine job handling the scholarship.
                            I know you don't agree with all of that but I want to make it clear I'm not throwing him under the Gary bus.

                            Much to the consternation of my fellows I'm not a sola scriptura sort of guy.

                            The level of perfection reserved for scripture strikes me as odd given that the other witnesses to God's glory are quite obviously fallible/flawed/fallen.
                            Take Creation in that for every lovely Blue Jay there is a duckling being devoured by a cat.
                            Take Christ In Us where His image is marred by the failing of the believer.
                            Take Christ Himself where His image is marred by the evil of his time.

                            Consider that for the vast majority of human existence people have been finding their way to God, or perhaps more accurately, God has been finding his way to people without the existence of the thing we call the Bible. I think this whole thing is a bit messier than what your average fundamentalist whack job is willing to admit. Jesus comes to earth as God incarnate and has the crap beat out of Him (his image, reputation, etc) but somehow the Bible transcends Creation, Christ in Us, and Christ Himself as this glorious unadulterated thing that floats through history with nary a scratch.

                            Now I know you don't believe most of what I wrote there but the salient point is that I can count you as rational, even agree with some of what you say, but still find myself a Christian.

                            The best in your journey, Gary.
                            -Meh Gerbil
                            Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                            Comment


                            • BTW, Gary, you didn't 'Amen' my post where I defended you.
                              I'm not putting my neck out there for free.

                              Pay up.
                              Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                                Now I know you don't believe most of what I wrote there but the salient point is that I can count you as rational, even agree with some of what you say, but still find myself a Christian.

                                The best in your journey, Gary.
                                -Meh Gerbil
                                I disagree with your assessment that Gary's approach is rational, because his modus operandi tends heavily toward misrepresentation and logical fallacies galore. I could respect his deconversion if he could represent... well, anything fairly. This is why I have a difficult time buying his allegation that he studied carefully, then deconverted for rational reasons; it's totally at odds with the way he comports himself.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                185 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X