Originally posted by Roy
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
Nobody Dies for a Lie
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostAll the accounts agree on many things, often to the extent of being word-for-word identical, which suggests copying, not authenticity - but they disagree regarding the resurrection and what happened afterwards. The earliest account doesn't include it - although later copies of that account have had it added. Later accounts that do include it differ.
Only the earliest extant copies of Mark omit the Resurrection - none of the other Gospels do. Was it actually omitted or simply not found in the copies? Dunno, but it poses no real issue - the theory that the Resurrection accounts don't exist prior to the physical writing of Mark is absurd on its face - that would be utterly insufficient for the extra-Biblical sources to have picked it up - which they did. It's also nonsensical - the keystone of the early apologetic suddenly appearing decades later should have destroyed the nascent movement - but Christianity grew significantly in the First Century AD - this theory does not fit known facts.
Yes, they have differences - exactly what should be expected of authentic accounts. No two people see or interpret events the same way. Disregarding the audience variation (Gospel authors had target audiences) the accounts do not differ on the important points and are easily reconciled - they stand up perfectly well in a modern court room.
No it doesn't. The same standards are applied to all historical knowledge. If you're going to go with MM's misunderstanding rather than reading what I actually wrote, I can't see any point continuing.
If you toss Biblical accounts based on omission and differing accounts, you must do the same for every other documentary piece of evidence - which eliminates mountains of evidence. The standard is improper and unwarranted.
No, but there are stories where Ares and Indra do.
I'm not particularly familiar with Indian deities, but a quick reading finds that Indra got a major rewrite as he was adopted into newer religious forms - and buddhism in particular wasn't kind about it. I would hazard that the myth in question comes from the later revisions - and if so, that proves my point. But I'd need the specifics to evaluate it - got a source link or something? (Perfectly cool if not - I'm just curious).
You know who Theophilus was? Do tell.
The theory that the Resurrection account doesn't appear until late is untenable - it does not fit the facts."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 carpedm9587 View PostOK, I have just traced this thread and tried to follow all of the various exchanges, with an emphasis on the exchanges involving Teal. I read all her comments, and my responses to those comments. As best I can tell, this entire exchange is based on one post where I said, "evidence, maybe; proof, no." Apparently, the "maybe" created the impression that I was proposing that there was an impression that the information about apostolic martyrdom might not be evidence for the life of Jesus being as claimed. I completely missed, in the subsequent discussion, that this turn of phrase had created that perception.
In fact, the use of "maybe" was simply a turn of phrase. If someone said to me, "sugar has been shown to contribute to obesity and cancer," my response might be, "obesity, maybe; cancer is not proven." It's my way of saying, "there is adequate evidence to assert that it contributes to obesity, but the jury is still out on cancer." So, in the context of my statement, I was saying, "we can admit the martyrdom of the apostles as evidence for believing the claims about Jesus are true, but I believe it is inadequate evidence (i.e., the claim is not proven).
If that was the source of the confusion, and it was based on that brief phrase - hopefully that clarifies. If not, then I have no idea what question it is you think I'm avoiding, so someone will have to restate.
But you still haven't answered the OTHER question. Please start paying attention to the post you are responding to - not just in the reply box where you can't see the full quotation. I quoted the post I was responding to which was your non-response to someone else's question.
You're not the only one with limited time, you know. If it were a once in a while thing, no one would care, but this happens A LOT. You don't seem to really pay attention to what you're responding to - I made myself clear about what I took exception to but you acted as if I hadn't (still doing so, see above). When you do pay attention, we still get off into lala land because you can't keep track of the conversation - because you didn't note what was being responded to to begin with.
i get that you are at a disadvantage - there are more people disagreeing with you - but when you consistently fail to respond to the actual posts, it makes you look like you're deliberately dodging. Everyone else has to keep track of the conversation - you're not being asked to do what no one else has to do.
And I'm tired of having to track down stuff for you - this is the last time:
Er, never mind - Sparky already got it..."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 rogue06 View PostNot as much for the wimmenfolk who still had high mortality rates while giving birth. Even when you factor in wars the evidence suggests that back then men tended to live longer than women."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View Post"You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book."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 seerI'm not doubting his veracity, I'm accepting what he wrote. He said his group had accounts passed down from the original eyewitnesses. He does not say that he personally spoke to the eyewitnesses. That's your addition.Originally posted by seerAnd what James is this Roy?We know that Paul met James the Lord's brother in Jerusalem Galatians 1:18-20. Unless you don't believe that Christ's brother was an eyewitness.
If you had something to indicate some person named James was both an eyewitness to the resurrected Jesus and was visited by Luke, then you might have presented it. Your vagueness and evasion suggests you have nothing, and you're trying to pretend otherwise.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 One Bad Pig View PostEven for you, this is a bit excessive; he answered the question right after he posed it.
He truly is a dishonest schmuck.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 PostGiven his subsequent refusal to clarify which James he meant, and third evasion of his own question, I don't think it's excessive at all. As best I can tell from his vague evasions, he's trying to suggest that the James that Luke met was the same James that Paul said Jesus met after the resurrection, while repeatedly refusing to provide any evidence for it or even clarify his intent.
He truly is a dishonest schmuck.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostSo not only have you refused for the third time to say whether this James was an eyewitness according to Luke, you're even refusing to say which James you meant.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostAs for the rest, I don't beat around the bush, I don't do strawmen, and I do the best I can to answer the questions asked.
ETA: I am not accusing you of deliberately doing these things; you merely seem unable to address a question in a straightforward manner.Last edited by One Bad Pig; 04-24-2018, 08:29 AM.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 Roy View PostGiven his subsequent refusal to clarify which James he meant, and third evasion of his own question, I don't think it's excessive at all. As best I can tell from his vague evasions, he's trying to suggest that the James that Luke met was the same James that Paul said Jesus met after the resurrection, while repeatedly refusing to provide any evidence for it or even clarify his intent.
He truly is a dishonest schmuck.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
-
And I already referenced the Galatians passage.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostI don't know if you are projecting or what, but seer isn't being evasive here. He's saying that your question regarding which James isn't relevant, because all of them were eyewitnesses. He's certainly not as clear as he could be, and I think he should've answered your question anyway (not least because it's not at all difficult), but he doesn't merit the appellation "evasive" just because he's not as rigorous in his argumentation as you'd like.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostApparently to you, Teall, and perhaps Sparko.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
104 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
397 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
163 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
219 responses
1,048 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 07:42 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
255 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
Comment