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 Adrift View Post
    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.
    But an argument from authority is logically rigorous?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
      But an argument from authority is logically rigorous?
      Absolutely. Check your fallacies. An argument from an authority is perfectly valid when the authorities are recognized for having expertise in the subject. It seems I have to remind one of you skeptics about this every few months. You'd figure you'd stop appealing to it eventually. But more to the point, I've read those authorities, and the evidence for the historical Jesus is airtight. That's why its the consensus view. You might as well be arguing that man didn't go to the moon, or that evolution is false.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
        The quotations I have seen from the relevant literature of the period seem to support that. I have never seen a quotation supporting the claim that women's testimony had no credibility in any situation at all.
        Thankee. You wouldn't off hand have a suitable scholar's name that I could cite?


        The standard apologetic claim that, in that time and place, women had no credibility period is inconsistent with human nature. The modern feminist notion that there is no limit to how sexist a society can be is not plausible.
        hmmm ... from the displays of sexism I've seen from some feminists, I'm kind of inclined to believe them.
        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 Adrift View Post
          Check your fallacies. An argument from an authority is perfectly valid when the authorities are recognized for having expertise in the subject.
          That is not what the Wikipedia article says.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            Thankee. You wouldn't off hand have a suitable scholar's name that I could cite?
            No, I'm sorry. It was a few years ago, and I wasn't taking notes. But, I'll do some brief googling and see what I can rediscover.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              But more to the point, I've read those authorities, and the evidence for the historical Jesus is airtight.
              The authorities say so. They don't prove it. Their arguments assume their conclusion.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                Thankee. You wouldn't off hand have a suitable scholar's name that I could cite?
                Richard Carrier discussed the relevant scholarship, with citations, in an article he published in 2006 on the Secular Web: https://infidels.org/library/modern/...e/women.html#8.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                  That is not what the Wikipedia article says.
                  It does say that: "It avoids being fallacious when arguers agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.".

                  The above doesn't apply in this case though, since you disagree with Adrift about the reliability of NT scholars and their arguments.
                  Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                  MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                  MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                  seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                    It does say that: "It avoids being fallacious when arguers agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.".

                    The above doesn't apply in this case though, since you disagree with Adrift about the reliability of NT scholars and their arguments.

                    Eh, the footnotes for the context for that sentence seem to be making the case that "reliable", in this instance (a word that neither source uses), means that both parties agree that the authority/authorities in question are actual authorities on the subject, and that their authority is recognized as pertinent to the discussion. But I suppose even that may not be the case with Doug who believes that every single one of the thousands of New Testament scholars, no matter their background, no matter how qualified and reputable they are, no matter if they be Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, or agnostic, no matter how much they've written on the historical Jesus, that they all of them (barring perhaps three Mythicists), are wrong about the historicity of Jesus.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      Thankee. You wouldn't off hand have a suitable scholar's name that I could cite?
                      Maurice Casey argued something similar in his Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                        The above doesn't apply in this case though, since you disagree with Adrift about the reliability of NT scholars and their arguments.
                        Yes. But I was also letting Wikipedia get away with their comment just for the sake of argument. It is not true that the validity of any argument may depend on what the disputants in a debate agree on. The argument from authority is a fallacy, period.

                        Later in the article, the editors say this:
                        Source: Wikipedia

                        The valid form of argument is one in which a recognized and knowledgeable authority on the relevant subject is appealed to by citing a statement by that authority. This is a form of inductive reasoning in that the conclusion is not logically certain, but likely. Examples include following the treatments prescribed by a medical doctor, or citing a respected author to establish claims of fact in a written work.

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        Yes, an argument from authority is a form of inductive reasoning, but in the logicians’ lexicon, an inductive argument is by definition invalid. An inductive argument that does what it is supposed to do is not called valid. It is called strong. There are philosophers, with whom I happen to agree, who claim that a strong inductive argument is valid in some relevant sense, but this position has not been generally accepted within the philosophical community. Most logicians, so far as I have been able to determine, still insist on there being a distinction between deductive validity and inductive strength.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                          Actually, Paul affirms the physical Resurrection.
                          Wrong. He only says Jesus was experienced through "visions," "revelations" and that he "appeared" - ὤφθη (Greek - ōphthē) which is the aorist passive form of the word horaó ὁράω. This word didn't necessarily denote a "physical" seeing with the eyes.

                          horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).

                          So contrary to what apologists claim, the evidence in Paul for a physical resurrection is severely lacking.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                            Wrong. He only says Jesus was experienced through "visions," "revelations" and that he "appeared" - ὤφθη (Greek - ōphthē) which is the aorist passive form of the word horaó ὁράω. This word didn't necessarily denote a "physical" seeing with the eyes.

                            horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).

                            So contrary to what apologists claim, the evidence in Paul for a physical resurrection is severely lacking.
                            Wrong passage - you can't refute a point when you are guessing incorrectly. Paul's affirmation isn't in the Damascus recount.

                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Quill Sword

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                              Wrong passage - you can't refute a point when you are guessing incorrectly. Paul's affirmation isn't in the Damascus recount.

                              I'm referring to 1 Cor 15:5-8 where he says Jesus "appeared" and uses a verb with the spiritual connotation while placing his vision in the same list as the other "appearances" without distinction. Have you discovered a passage in Paul's firsthand material where he says the Risen Jesus was experienced in a way that wasn't a vision? You'd be the first.

                              Paul says his experience was an "inner revelation" in Gal. 1:12-16, tells us that the Risen Jesus was experienced through "visions and revelations" in 2 Cor 12:1, was "known through revelation and the scriptures" in Rom. 16:25-26, and his "mystery was made known through revelation" in Eph. 3:3-5. Paul's notion of the Risen Jesus seems to be purely spiritual/mystical. "Visions" and "revelations" are the only ways Paul says the Risen Jesus was experienced. The later author of Acts calls Paul's experience a "vision from heaven" involving a bright light and a voice - Acts 26:19.
                              Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 01-24-2018, 11:58 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                                Wrong. He only says Jesus was experienced through "visions," "revelations" and that he "appeared" - ὤφθη (Greek - ōphthē) which is the aorist passive form of the word horaó ὁράω. This word didn't necessarily denote a "physical" seeing with the eyes.

                                horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).

                                So contrary to what apologists claim, the evidence in Paul for a physical resurrection is severely lacking.
                                That nonsense has been dealt with before, months since.
                                Romans 10:9 uses "egeiro" with regard to Jesus' resurrection - the same word that is used of Lazarus' resurrection by Jesus. 1 Cor 6:14 uses exegeiro - which with regard to illness or death indicates recovery. anastasis (stand again) is used in 1 Cor 15:13, and is shown to be interchangeable with egeiro.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                186 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