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

The reason people reject the resurrection

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    I think saying that "the one reason" is a big oversimplification, given that Muslims reject the resurrection but certainly don't reject the supernatural. What they do reject is the crucifixion of Christ.
    Yes, but they say that Jesus was replaced by somebody else. This does not seem so likely as the Christian explanation, Wallace would I think say that the best explanation if you accept the supernatural is the Christian one.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard..." (1 John 1:1-3)

      For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.' We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain." (2 Peter 1:16–18)
      I said that the gospels do not make any claims to having been eyewitnesses. Quotes from these later epistles are, quite obviously, not from the gospels; nor do I see how they have anything to do with the gospels.

      How do you know that Mark was not an eyewitness? Some say Mark 14:51-52 refers to him.
      Some people very well might say that. The gospel, itself, most certainly does not say that. Nor do I see any good reason to take such a specious claim seriously.

      And as far as Luke is concerned, we read:

      "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1–4)

      Luke says he consulted eyewitnesses
      Perhaps you should re-read the passage you just quoted. The author of Luke most certainly does not say that he consulted eyewitnesses. He says that many people have attempted to make an account of the traditions which have been passed down from the eyewitnesses. He then says that he has also investigated these traditions and is writing his own account.

      and there are many eyewitness-type details in the gospels:

      "Then Jesus directed them to have all the people sit down in groups on the green grass." (Mark 6:39)
      "The next day as they were leaving Bethany..." (Mark 11:12)
      How are these "eyewitness-type details?" When I think of an "eyewitness-type detail," I think of first-person statements. Nothing about either of these statements would indicate that the author was an eyewitness.

      Well, the extant traditions were based on something, most likely.
      Something, sure. The question is whether that "something" is the actual historical authorship or later legendary ascription. I see no good reason to think that it was the former.
      "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
      --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        You weren't proposing "alternate facts" of what "really happened" either, like Starlight in post #5, postulating that they just couldn't find the right tomb. That is pure conjecture with no evidence.
        I think you are misunderstanding my post. I'm just referring to what the gospels say regarding confusion over where Jesus's body was.
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          I think you are misunderstanding my post. I'm just referring to what the gospels say regarding confusion over where Jesus's body was.
          The wpmen knew were the tomb was. Matthew 27:60-61. Mark 15:46-47. Luke 23:55.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
            I said that the gospels do not make any claims to having been eyewitnesses.
            Well, how about this verse?

            "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." (John 21:24)

            Quotes from these later epistles are, quite obviously, not from the gospels; nor do I see how they have anything to do with the gospels.
            Yet these later(!) epistles have people saying "we were eyewitnesses"! Surely this places the earlier gospels in the timeframe of eyewitnesses.

            The author of Luke most certainly does not say that he consulted eyewitnesses. He says that many people have attempted to make an account of the traditions which have been passed down from the eyewitnesses. He then says that he has also investigated these traditions and is writing his own account.
            Though his statement implies he would have certainly have gone to the source if it was available, which it appears it was (see above).

            How are these "eyewitness-type details?" When I think of an "eyewitness-type detail," I think of first-person statements. Nothing about either of these statements would indicate that the author was an eyewitness.
            The author of John refers to himself in the third person (see above). And I mean by eyewitness-type details the sort of details only an eyewitness would know:

            "Then Jesus directed them to have all the people sit down in groups on the green grass. So they sat down in groups of hundreds and fifties. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to distribute to the people. He also divided the two fish among them all. They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces of bread and fish. The number of the men who had eaten was five thousand." (Mk 6:39–44)

            They sat on the green grass in groups of hundreds and fifties, five loaves and two fish, twelve baskets of leftovers, about 5,000 men.

            Something, sure. The question is whether that "something" is the actual historical authorship or later legendary ascription. I see no good reason to think that it was the former.
            I would think the burden of proof would be on the one claiming the ascriptions are legendary!

            Blessings,
            Lee
            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              Well, how about this verse?

              "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." (John 21:24)
              If you think that the "this" in that sentence refers to the author of the gospel, you've removed the sentence from its context. John 21:24 is clarifying the identity of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" from verses 20-23, and the author is clearly differentiating himself from that disciple by saying "we know that [the disciple's] testimony is true."

              Yet these later(!) epistles have people saying "we were eyewitnesses"! Surely this places the earlier gospels in the timeframe of eyewitnesses.
              Firstly, I don't think that the 1 John passage is a claim to being an eyewitness to the events of the gospels. Secondly, even if it isn't the case that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphal (as most scholars believe), Peter did not author any of the gospels even if one grants the traditional ascriptions. So, no, these later epistles do not place the earlier gospels in the timeframe of eyewitnesses.

              Though his statement implies he would have certainly have gone to the source if it was available, which it appears it was (see above).
              "If it was available," sure. However, I don't believe that the gospel of Luke was written early; nor do I think that even if it had been written early, the author would necessarily have been able to interview the eyewitnesses directly.

              And I mean by eyewitness-type details the sort of details only an eyewitness would know:

              "Then Jesus directed them to have all the people sit down in groups on the green grass. So they sat down in groups of hundreds and fifties. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to distribute to the people. He also divided the two fish among them all. They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces of bread and fish. The number of the men who had eaten was five thousand." (Mk 6:39–44)
              What details in that passage are "the sort of details only an eyewitness would know?" They all seem perfectly consistent with details one might find in legends or exaggerated tales.

              I would think the burden of proof would be on the one claiming the ascriptions are legendary!
              This is a bit like saying that we should believe that Pythagoras of Samos actually had a thigh made of gold because only an eyewitness could have seen his thigh to make such a claim. If you want skeptics like me to believe that the accounts in the gospels are historically accurate-- which, ostensibly, was what the original post of this thread was all about-- then the burden of proof is on you to show that they are historically accurate. Now, if I wanted to disabuse anyone else of their belief in the historicity of these events, I completely agree that I would have a burden of proof for so doing. However, that's not the situation under discussion in this thread.
              "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
              --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                If you think that the "this" in that sentence refers to the author of the gospel, you've removed the sentence from its context. John 21:24 is clarifying the identity of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" from verses 20-23, and the author is clearly differentiating himself from that disciple by saying "we know that [the disciple's] testimony is true."
                The same writer of verse 24-25 identifed Johe to be the writer of the gospel account now bearing John's name, John 21:24, "and who wrote them; . . ." Now interpreters of John 21:24-25 are divided as to whether John himself wrote of himself in the third person or that the initial recipients added what is now John 21:24-25.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                  I don't know if I would call him the best but he most certainly is exceptionally knowledgeable on the subject. Even when I disagree with him, I highly respect Dr. Habermas' scholarship.
                  Despite his depth of scholarship Dr. Habermas has not come up with anything new in terms of what is known historically concerning the life of Jesus, and the history of the gospels, and letters of the New Testament. He is fundamentally an apologist for factual nature of the gospels and letters concerning the life of Jesus and the Resurrection, again nothing new.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    I am responding the erroneous assertion in circular reasoning of the thread proposal that those that believed in the 'supernatural' the evidence is conclusive that based on the claim of evidence' they would believe. You are confirming this that if they converted to Christianity they would believe. As Jews and Musims, and other religions as well that believe in the supernatural, the evidence claimed is not sufficient for a reason to believe in a physical Resurrection.
                    The suppostion that the evidence is not sufficient does not make it so.
                    It actually does, though.

                    If I say the evidence is insufficient for me to conclude X, then the evidence is literally not a justifiable reason for me believing in X. There can be no argument against this simple fact - though it needs to be stressed that ME saying the evidence is insufficient doesn't imply that it must also be insufficient for others.

                    Shunyadragon was right.
                    Last edited by Whateverman; 06-02-2020, 06:14 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      So am I to understand there is no such thing as the Jewish obervance of the Passover and unleavened bread? Mark 14:12, Exodus 12:18. A Jewish Calendar, https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/
                      . . . which year?
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        . . . which year?
                        Mark 14:12-16 fell on our Wednesday in 30AD.
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          Mark 14:12-16 fell on our Wednesday in 30AD.
                          Actually no, contradictory throughout the gospels, and considered inconclusive. the year of the birth of Jesus and his crucifixion
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                            If you think that the "this" in that sentence refers to the author of the gospel, you've removed the sentence from its context. John 21:24 is clarifying the identity of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" from verses 20-23, and the author is clearly differentiating himself from that disciple by saying "we know that [the disciple's] testimony is true."
                            "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down." That could hardly be clearer, this is the author of the gospel, claiming to be an eyewitness. As here:

                            "The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe." (John 19:35)

                            Firstly, I don't think that the 1 John passage is a claim to being an eyewitness to the events of the gospels. Secondly, even if it isn't the case that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphal (as most scholars believe), Peter did not author any of the gospels even if one grants the traditional ascriptions. So, no, these later epistles do not place the earlier gospels in the timeframe of eyewitnesses.
                            Well, again "what we have seen and heard we declare to you" could not be clearer. And the point still stands that these later epistles claim to be written by eyewitnesses, so since the gospels are earlier, they also would be in the time of eyewitnesses.

                            If you want skeptics like me to believe that the accounts in the gospels are historically accurate-- which, ostensibly, was what the original post of this thread was all about-- then the burden of proof is on you to show that they are historically accurate.
                            Well, the point of this thread is that the resurrection of Jesus fits the facts best, once you allow for the supernatural. And if this one event described in the gospels is historically accurate, then the whole world has changed.

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Actually no, contradictory throughout the gospels, and considered inconclusive. the year of the birth of Jesus and his crucifixion
                              Contradictory interpreations does not make the account contradictory. The date of Herod the Great 4 BC or 1 BC. The common view point is 4 PC. The gospel accounts are in agreement. Each include some different details. The reading into the four accounts are the different interprations. Mark 14:12-16, ". . . And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. . . ." In 30 AD it fell on a Wednesday. And according to the New Testament text, Mark 14:12-16, Jesus was crucifed the day following the Passover! All disagrements are interpretations impossed on plain reading of the texts.
                              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                Contradictory interpreations does not make the account contradictory. The date of Herod the Great 4 BC or 1 BC. The common view point is 4 PC. The gospel accounts are in agreement. Each include some different details. The reading into the four accounts are the different interprations. Mark 14:12-16, ". . . And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. . . ." In 30 AD it fell on a Wednesday. And according to the New Testament text, Mark 14:12-16, Jesus was crucifed the day following the Passover! All disagrements are interpretations impossed on plain reading of the texts.
                                That still does not determine the year as specifically as you claim.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                158 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X