Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 126

Thread: The reason people reject the resurrection

  1. #51
    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
    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)

  2. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  3. #52
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,327
    Amen (Given)
    860
    Amen (Received)
    467
    Quote 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 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. #53
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,854
    Amen (Given)
    1796
    Amen (Received)
    1065
    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.
    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.

  5. #54
    tWebber Whateverman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    833
    Amen (Given)
    193
    Amen (Received)
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Quote 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 at 04:14 PM.

  6. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  7. #55
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,854
    Amen (Given)
    1796
    Amen (Received)
    1065
    Quote 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.

  8. #56
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,327
    Amen (Given)
    860
    Amen (Received)
    467
    Quote 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 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.

  9. #57
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,854
    Amen (Given)
    1796
    Amen (Received)
    1065
    Quote 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.

  10. #58
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,552
    Amen (Given)
    519
    Amen (Received)
    263
    Quote 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)

  11. #59
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,327
    Amen (Given)
    860
    Amen (Received)
    467
    Quote 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 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.

  12. #60
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,854
    Amen (Given)
    1796
    Amen (Received)
    1065
    Quote 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.

Posting Permissions

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