Wicca is an evil, demonic power thirsty faith.

[Durthorin]

Note that it was not the individual adherents of Wicca that I said was possibly anti-Christan, but the religion itself. A religion could be anti-Christian while it's members (or atleast not all of them) were not. Kind of like how there can be both deceivers and deceived in a group (religious or otherwise).

Besides, anti-Christ(ian) is more of a biblical term than anything else, which means that, as I said before, it should be defined the way the Bible defines it. And if Wicca falls under the definition of anti-Christian that the Bible gives then Wicca is anti-Christian.

I will concede and have that by Christian terms/definitions both my faith and myself are considered anti-Christian. I will further point out that by accepted secular usage I do not actively oppose your faith. An only let myself be dran back into this type of discussion when I perceive attacks upon my faith.

Blessed Be, Dur

[Bill the Cat]

Who'd a thought Department Heads have time to waste on Mere Wicca?

Peace,
Eric

Since I'm the Dept Head over this area, I have to visit from time to time. It's in the job description...

[Durthorin]

Hi Durthorin,

I also note that you quoted "Charles Guignebert (1867-1930)" as a source for your conclusions. (Post 84)
Is it not possible that 82 years of research since the passing of Charles Guignebert by notable scholars engaged in the quest for the historical Jesus has provided us with more than this?

Peace,
Eric

No, not really.

Blessed Be, Dur

[headheart]

No, not really.

Blessed Be, Dur

Hi Durthorin,

You wrote, "You see the only actual reports are essentially biblical," and quoted the following, 'Jesus was born somewhere in Galilee in the time of the Emperor Augustus, of a humble family, which included half a dozen or more children besides himself.". He adds elsewhere "there is no reason to suppose he was not executed"
Are you aware that this is a very light version?

Peace,
Eric

[Scrawly]

Well I suppose that puts me in that minority. You see if I accept them I lend validity to something that has no support that *I* consider valid, I concede a point. You see the only actual reports are essentially biblical. An there is a bit of circular logic in using a book to validate itself? Now extra biblical sources don't even mention the resurrection.



Blessed Be, Dur

It seems you don't lend validity to the Bible for other reasons because virtually no historian looks at the Bible and rejects it totally. The facts that I presented are accepted by the majority who are well read on this issue because they are well attested historically. So, yes, you are in the minority here, why do you think that is?

Thank-you for mentioning Charles Guignebert because it possibly highlights the reason you are in the minority when it comes to current NT scholarship - could it be that you are in the minority because you are not familiar with current scholarship on this issue?

[Catholicity]

The facts/evidence for the resurrection of Jesus that you stated doesn't exist is as follows:


FACT #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.

FACT #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.

FACT #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.

FACT #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.

Scrawly, For those who dispute the innerency of scripture, this is not a good argument. One must have other apologetic sources or better arguments other than merely stating that these are the facts..... if you have no "proofs" to back them up.
This type of argument does more to drive people away from Christianity than it will to bring them to it. FYI.
Dur, I believe (correct me if I am wrong Dur) like many other pagans, atheists, agnostics deists, etc, dispute the innerency and authorit of Scripture as fact, As a "Historical Reference with some religious myth?" not so much. Just be aware of that when you argue. and Find better points

[Scrawly]

The only documented evidence.. is the Bible? True? Frankly thats like reading Gone with the Wind to validate what happened to Scarlett as historical Fact.

Blessed Be, Dur

Well, when looking at the Bible in the most objective and unbiased way possible we ought not it presuppose that it is the Word of God; Similarly, we ought not dismiss it in toto. When one comes to this point in their analysis, then they will most likely agree with the majority of NT scholars, including skeptical ones, that:

1) Jesus died by crucifixion
2) His disciples had experiences that they sincerely believed were of the Risen Jesus to them
3) A persecutor of the Church, Paul, converted to Christianity (Messianic Judaism) when he had an experience that he too believed was of the Risen Jesus

These 3 facts are well established and almost unanimously acknowledged by scholars of all stripes in the field of NT studies. The empty tomb is also on solid ground for good historical reasons, however, only about 75% of scholars accept its historicity according to Dr. Habermas' research. Those facts lay the groundwork for building a robust case for the historicity of the resurrection.

[Scrawly]

Scrawly, For those who dispute the innerency of scripture, this is not a good argument. One must have other apologetic sources or better arguments other than merely stating that these are the facts..... if you have no "proofs" to back them up.
This type of argument does more to drive people away from Christianity than it will to bring them to it. FYI.
Dur, I believe (correct me if I am wrong Dur) like many other pagans, atheists, agnostics deists, etc, dispute the innerency and authorit of Scripture as fact, As a "Historical Reference with some religious myth?" not so much. Just be aware of that when you argue. and Find better points

Sorry Cath but it seems that you are equally in the dark when it comes to the minimal facts case. These are facts accepted by the majority of NT scholars who do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Do you know why they are accepted by those who do not hold to the inerrancy of Scripture? Because they are well attested historically. if you wish, with Durth, to stand with the minority and dispute any one of those facts, then you are going to need to provide some good reasons. I have good reasons as to why I hold to them as historical, if you or Durth wish to know the reasons, I will be happy to provide them.

[Catholicity]

Sorry Cath but it seems that you are equally in the dark when it comes to the minimal facts case. These are facts accepted by the majority of NT scholars who do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Do you know why they are accepted by those who do not hold to the inerrancy of Scripture? Because they are well attested historically. if you wish, with Durth, to stand with the minority and dispute any one of those facts, then you are going to need to provide some good reasons. I have good reasons as to why I hold to them as historical, if you or Durth wish to know the reasons, I will be happy to provide them.

Quote arrogant aren't we Scrawly? You haven't the foggiest Idea as to why I corrected your argument and gently if I might add, yet you'll be fast to make a clueless accusation about me and my own deeply held faith? You are without a doubt one of the most pig-headed Christians I've come accross.

[Scrawly]

Quote arrogant aren't we Scrawly?

Am I the one calling people (brothers) pig-headed and clueless?

You haven't the foggiest Idea as to why I corrected your argument

You didn't...

and gently if I might add, yet you'll be fast to make a clueless accusation about me and my own deeply held faith?

Is this from like 1 year ago when I started that thread for you to provide some clarification?

You are without a doubt one of the most pig-headed Christians I've come accross.

Wow...

[headheart]

Am I .... pig-headed and clueless?

There'll be not slam dunk evangelical basket ball routines on this thread or in the forum. Tone it down please Brawly.

Peace,
Eric

[Scrawly]

There'll be not slam dunk evangelical basket ball routines on this thread or in the forum. Tone it down please Brawly.

Peace,
Eric

Acts 5:29.

[headheart]

Acts 5:29.

Colossians 4:5-6

[Adrift]

Scrawly, For those who dispute the innerency of scripture, this is not a good argument. One must have other apologetic sources or better arguments other than merely stating that these are the facts..... if you have no "proofs" to back them up.
This type of argument does more to drive people away from Christianity than it will to bring them to it. FYI.
Dur, I believe (correct me if I am wrong Dur) like many other pagans, atheists, agnostics deists, etc, dispute the innerency and authorit of Scripture as fact, As a "Historical Reference with some religious myth?" not so much. Just be aware of that when you argue. and Find better points

Scrawly is indeed correct that even very critical scholars hold to certain historical claims concerning Christianity. Here are some of the reasons why;

Fact 1, one of the best reasons this is agreed on by most scholars is because there are no early records from the opponents of Christianity in the early church that refutes the claim. In fact, the main claim by the opponents of Christianity early on was that the disciples stole the body away. Which indicates that they understood and believed that Jesus was no longer in the tomb. Another fact that corroborates this is that the disciples of Jesus did not mark his tomb out for veneration, nor did they make pilgrimages to it early on, as was often the case for other 1st century Jewish religious leaders, and that's because they knew that his body was not in the tomb.

Fact 2, Female testimony in the ANE was considered highly suspect and worthless. So in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews he writes, “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment”, and in the Talmud “Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman”. Because of the sexist climate of the time concerning female testimony, its implausible that the account of women being the first to find and report the empty tomb is fictional, and this is agreed to by most critical historians including folks like like the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes.

Fact 3, and 4 are substantiated in a number of ways, including the boldness of the disciples in the face of ex-communication from the synagogue (which would have been unthinkable to most 1st century Jews), general persecution, and execution.

I think its important to realize something here though. Using the historical method, the NT is considered just as valid as any document (secular or religious in nature) in ancient history. Almost all ancient documents (unless we're dealing with ledgers or something) are going to be written with certain biases, and most historians know that going in. Also, the Bible isn't one monolithic book. In the NT we're dealing with a number of separate letters, by different writers, in different genres. Then of course there are the secular mentions of Jesus or of the early Christian movement, and finally there are the writings of the early church fathers and their opponents. Historians take all of these writings into consideration when coming to conclusions about the minimal facts.

[Catholicity]

Scrawly is indeed correct that even very critical scholars hold to certain historical claims concerning Christianity. Here are some of the reasons why;

Adrift;
I believe that there is historical evidence to completely corroberrate Christ's existence. And I do not dispute that he rose from the dead. But neither am I particularly interested in ressurrection proof at this point. Its something merely that I take on faith 1) because I know Jesus, 2) I agree with the eyewitness testimony as stated in Scripture, and the following writings of the early church Fathers, but again, its not something I'm interesting or have particularly set out to prove and slam in someone's face as this is true you have to believe it, etc. but I'm not really an apologetics/evangelical person. Its more this is what I believe this is what I'll teach my child to believe, and because of it I'll act/live a certain way, and if you have questions you can ask me about it.