Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 126

Thread: The reason people reject the resurrection

  1. #41
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,636
    Amen (Given)
    5601
    Amen (Received)
    23885
    Quote Originally Posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    I explicitly referenced a prominent and highly respected Evangelical Christian scholar in my complaints about Wallace's claimed "facts." How is that "no evidence at all?"
    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.

  2. #42
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    60,859
    Amen (Given)
    1234
    Amen (Received)
    22012
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    No, the authors don't identify themselves by name, but they are writing as eye-witnesses to the events. They are eye-witness testimonies. Again, you can ignore them, not believe them, but if you want to CLAIM that they are not eye-witness documents and expect anyone to believe you, then it is up to you to provide evidence for your claims. The burden is on you.


    nope.


    No, I can read the documents. The gospels are writing as eye-witnesses to the events, and Luke is writing as an interviewer of eye-witnesses. And Paul's letters even identify himself.
    Not to mention that for most if not all of their names wouldn't need to be mentioned as they were relatively common knowledge at the time. At least in the communities that they were originally addressed to. The traditions about who wrote what go way back.

    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)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  3. #43
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,313
    Amen (Given)
    855
    Amen (Received)
    463
    Quote 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.
    https://www.christianpost.com/news/6...ars-agree.html
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . 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.

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

  4. #44
    tWebber Boxing Pythagoras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Faith
    Heathen
    Posts
    2,183
    Amen (Given)
    351
    Amen (Received)
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    No, the authors don't identify themselves by name, but they are writing as eye-witnesses to the events. They are eye-witness testimonies.
    They really aren't. The authors are writing in the third person and at no point do they make it seem like they were eyewitnesses to the events. Even if one were to accept the traditional ascriptions of authorship, two of the gospel authors were most certainly not eyewitnesses.

    Again, you can ignore them, not believe them, but if you want to CLAIM that they are not eye-witness documents and expect anyone to believe you, then it is up to you to provide evidence for your claims. The burden is on you.
    That's not really the way it works. We both have access to these documents which do not, themselves, claim to be eyewitness accounts. If you want to claim that they are eyewitness accounts, then the onus of proving that claim is on you. Personally, I think there are quite good reasons to think that they are not the accounts of any of Jesus' followers, but if you would like to claim that they are then I am certainly interested in hearing why.

    No, I can read the documents. The gospels are writing as eye-witnesses to the events, and Luke is writing as an interviewer of eye-witnesses. And Paul's letters even identify himself.
    Why would you think that "the gospels are writing as eye-witnesses to the events?" I see no indication of that in the books, themselves.

    Paul, I will certainly grant, is an eyewitness who explicitly claims to have seen the risen Christ. That does not seem to be the case for any of the gospel authors, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    Not to mention that for most if not all of their names wouldn't need to be mentioned as they were relatively common knowledge at the time. At least in the communities that they were originally addressed to. The traditions about who wrote what go way back.
    The earliest extant traditions about who wrote what date to around 100 years after the last of the gospels was already in circulation. I don't see any compelling reason to think that these much later traditions were likely to reflect early beliefs about the gospels' authorship; and, indeed, there are quite good reasons to doubt these ascriptions.
    "[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)

  5. #45
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,529
    Amen (Given)
    512
    Amen (Received)
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    They really aren't. The authors are writing in the third person and at no point do they make it seem like they were eyewitnesses to the events.
    "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)

    Even if one were to accept the traditional ascriptions of authorship, two of the gospel authors were most certainly not eyewitnesses.
    How do you know that Mark was not an eyewitness? Some say Mark 14:51-52 refers to him. 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)

    Why would you think that "the gospels are writing as eye-witnesses to the events?" I see no indication of that in the books, themselves.
    Luke says he consulted eyewitnesses, 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)

    The earliest extant traditions about who wrote what date to around 100 years after the last of the gospels was already in circulation.
    Well, the extant traditions were based on something, most likely.

    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)

  6. #46
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,529
    Amen (Given)
    512
    Amen (Received)
    260
    Quote 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)

  7. #47
    tWebber Boxing Pythagoras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Faith
    Heathen
    Posts
    2,183
    Amen (Given)
    351
    Amen (Received)
    883
    Quote 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)

  8. #48
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,891
    Amen (Given)
    2856
    Amen (Received)
    1928
    Quote 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.

  9. #49
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,313
    Amen (Given)
    855
    Amen (Received)
    463
    Quote 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 to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . 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.

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

  10. #50
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,529
    Amen (Given)
    512
    Amen (Received)
    260
    Quote 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)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •