Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Adrift]

William, why are you parsing out each reply into it's own post?

[William]

The five hundred would have been known easily enough. Just go to Jerusalem and ask to speak to the people who were there and saw the events. Privacy wasn't a reality back then after all. Also, with Bauckham's hypothesis the names in the Gospels would be the names of the people who would be eyewitnesses.

Unless you want to say the 500 are just totally made-up. I don't know of scholars who take that position.



This is quite frankly derogatory towards the ancient people as if to say they were uneducated so they wouldn't check the claims. The internet actually makes it worse. You know how many claims I see being shared on Facebook by people who are the "educated" that are totally bogus? They don't have any support whatsoever and they're treated as common knowledge. As for allegations of Paul being a liar, feel free to give the specific ones. Second, if they were true, why add more fuel to the fire, especially in his lynchpin argument?

what?

the scholars dont know any better than the rest of us. They only have Paul's claim on it. maybe you rely too heavily on NT scholars. I dont know where Paul got the 500, but I think the number isnt accurate, if at all real, and that whatever number may have actually seen something, were mistaken in what they saw, if anything.

I cant point to anytjing and say, "look there it isnt" so what can I show? Why doesnt Paul name his witnesses? Why didnt they write down their own testimonies? Why doesnt someone prove the 500 or their claims or any of it? "well scholars things..." some scholars think that. You embellish the majority agree upon, and you then want to assert that being skeptical of the miraculous claims is just as ignorant as being skeptical of someone like George Washington. If there are strawmen here, it wasnt me who made them.

And It's not derogatory. They were much less educated than we are today. They have much less access to information than we do today. they have far less means of transportation and communication than we do, which means it was harder to go verify for themselves or pick up a telephone to ask someone else about it. they were also far more superstitious than we are today, already believing all sorts of absurdities. Trying to make sound like they were better back then is like saying black people actually loved being slaves in the south. dishonest and just stupid.

This isnt a hard concept. It's not derogatory, and it's frankly dishonest to say otherwise.

This is becoming an argument and I do not care for it. I didnt come here to convince anyone but to discuss. I see what you have to offer now. Thank for your time.

I'll not bother you further.

peace out.

[Gary]

Folks. Here is absolute proof that the four Gospel accounts are not eyewitness accounts and are not[b][b][b]

[William]

Accurately to who? A 21st century American? An 18th century Englishmen? A 16th century Japanese? A 13th century German? An 11th century Frenchman? A 5th century Roman? A 1st century Jew or Gentile? To who?

just one more. two points here:

1) if the bible was God's word to all of mankind, it may should have been written in a way to reach all of mankind. I do not claim to be perfect, so I do not claim to have the best suggestion, although I do have suggestions that would have been better than what we have.

2) let's just take the example we've already been discussing. Sandals. Wear sandals compared to dont wear sandals. is there anyone at anytime who wouldnt see a problem here?

again, this isnt hard.

[William]

We can probably thank Diocletian and his cohorts for the loss of many originals, but the vagaries of time haven't been kind either. And papyrus just doesn't last that long except in very dry climates. According to tradition, the original of John's gospel was preserved in Ephesus for quite some time, but we don't have it any more.

dear God. Sorry. I did want to reply to this one too.

Diocletion foiled God? If God wanted them preserved, I feel certain he could have.

Papyrus is not the only medium as many other people across time wrote on stone which lasted a very long time.

the point is, is that many of the things we're arguing over now could have been very easily averted and avoided - but they werent, which to me looks more like a mortal human error than a shortsight by a perfect and all powerful God.

[tabibito]

I am still trying to think this through. Are you saying that most the people in the 1st century Palestine area believed Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, but just decided to "act" like they didn't believe it?

Why would a "superstitious" person swap one "superstition" for another - what would make the prospect of such a switch attractive? and what would make the decision to make the switch attractive?
A "superstitious" person isn't going to swap one set of beliefs for another unless he has reason to believe that the claims for the second belief are substantiated well enough to make them plausible. He also has an emotional investment in the beliefs he, and quite probably his ancestors, have held. The beliefs being promoted to him do have to be demonstrably better (in his opinion) than those he now holds. In terms of car buying, a salesman won't make a lot of headway by telling the customer "this car is just as good as the one you've got now." The customer has to be persuaded that the car he is looking at is better than the one he owns.
When it comes to first century Christianity, the message wasn't particularly palatable. In the pagan world, other religions promised a happy life and afterlife without the need for the absolute dedication demanded by Christianity.
As to the claim of the resurrection, it was not too different from claims being made by other religions. Though the detail of a corpse being brought back to full life was somewhat different, the difference was pretty much a matter of detail. The sticking point was the whole "god becoming human and being born in the normal fashion (albeit of a virgin)" bit. The idea of ANY god so demeaning himself was considered preposterous.
The "superstitious" person also believes that he already has some justification for his belief. That is, there will be some justification for believing in the power of astrology (for example) to predict the future. Along comes upstart religion claiming to predict the future - "so what? My religion can do the same." Maybe his religion offers supernatural healing - "so what? My religion can do the same." The question in both cases arises - "Why should I give up the beliefs I now have, and in which I already have an emotional investment, to embrace this new religion, which can do the same?" At the very least, the new religion has to be able to demonstrate a greater reliability to perform than does the current religion. (and if both religions are gulling their observers, the upstart religion has to do a better job of it.)
Now to first century Israel:
Here the problem isn't the same. The people have basic instruction in what to expect of the messiah. What they see in many ways matches expectation, but critical details aren't in accord with their prior beliefs. Moreover, the key people who should know are gainsaying the claims. They haven't yet begun to reinterpret the scriptures to deny the claims, but they are claiming that sorcery, and nothing holy, underpins the actions of the man and his followers. Again, prior held beliefs, and the very real danger (in their opinion) that attends making a switch if the claims are false militate against committing to the messiah (if that is what he is).

Whether pagan or Hebrew, the people of the first century did in fact embrace the new religion in substantial numbers, though not so much as in the second century. The changes of allegiance would have been caused by (to those who made the switch, if to no other) a belief that they had a more substantial body of evidence for the new religion than for the prior held religions.

Your mention of Japan brought all that to mind: the people of Japan have a long tradition of Shinto and a belief in miracles - no shrine has been established that doesn't mark the site of a miracle or three, and shrines abound. The brands of Christianity of all stamps (including non-trinitarian denominations), in total, amount to about 3% penetration of the population. The forms of Christianity being promoted during the past 250 years (give or take) can't demonstrate that they are any more beneficial than the traditional Shinto religion, and in consequence, have had no real impact on Japanese religious practices. By all rights, first and second century Christianity should have fared no better in the Middle East and the Hellenistic world than modern style Christianity has in Japan.

[tabibito]

just one more. two points here:


2) let's just take the example we've already been discussing. Sandals. Wear sandals compared to dont wear sandals. is there anyone at anytime who wouldnt see a problem here?

.

Having a problem doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Scripture Verse: Luk 22:35-36

₃₅₃₆

© Copyright Original Source

[Gary]

what?

the scholars dont know any better than the rest of us. They only have Paul's claim on it. maybe you rely too heavily on NT scholars. I dont know where Paul got the 500, but I think the number isnt accurate, if at all real, and that whatever number may have actually seen something, were mistaken in what they saw, if anything.

I cant point to anytjing and say, "look there it isnt" so what can I show? Why doesnt Paul name his witnesses? Why didnt they write down their own testimonies? Why doesnt someone prove the 500 or their claims or any of it? "well scholars things..." some scholars think that. You embellish the majority agree upon, and you then want to assert that being skeptical of the miraculous claims is just as ignorant as being skeptical of someone like George Washington. If there are strawmen here, it wasnt me who made them.

And It's not derogatory. They were much less educated than we are today. They have much less access to information than we do today. they have far less means of transportation and communication than we do, which means it was harder to go verify for themselves or pick up a telephone to ask someone else about it. they were also far more superstitious than we are today, already believing all sorts of absurdities. Trying to make sound like they were better back then is like saying black people actually loved being slaves in the south. dishonest and just stupid.

This isnt a hard concept. It's not derogatory, and it's frankly dishonest to say otherwise.

This is becoming an argument and I do not care for it. I didnt come here to convince anyone but to discuss. I see what you have to offer now. Thank for your time.

I'll not bother you further.

peace out.

The problem is, William, that the people we are speaking to have based their entire lives, their entire existence, on the historicity of this one ancient tale---the reanimation of the dead body of Jesus of Nazareth. For them to even admit that it might not be true, would be devastating to them. It must be true! For them to admit that it is only an ancient superstition would destroy multiple important relationships in their lives, maybe even their marriages. They will erect the most absurd defenses to protect their cherished belief system. We are not dealing with rational people. Rational people would see that the evidence for this supernatural claim is no better, and probably much worse, than the supernatural claims of many other supernatural-based belief systems. Reason will not dissuade them from their position.

[Adrift]

The problem is, William, that the people we are speaking to have based their entire lives, their entire existence, on the historicity of this one ancient tale---the reanimation of the dead body of Jesus of Nazareth. For them to even admit that it might not be true, would be devastating to them. It must be true! For them to admit that it is only an ancient superstition would destroy multiple important relationships in their lives, maybe even their marriages. They will erect the most absurd defenses to protect their cherished belief system. We are not dealing with rational people. Rational people would see that the evidence for this supernatural claim is no better, and probably much worse, than the supernatural claims of many other supernatural-based belief systems. Reason will not dissuade them from their position.

Project much?

[Gary]

Project much?

I deconverted from Christianity due to the evidence. I would convert back to Christianity if shown good evidence.

I lost my entire social network when I deconverted. All my friends and my wife's friends were in the church. Once we deconverted, we became non-existent to these people. It is as if we had died.

So I have demonstrated that I am willing to take the heat for changing my beliefs. It would cost me nothing but maybe my pride to convert back. What would it cost you to deconvert, and, if you did discover sufficient evidence that proved to you that Christianity is false, would you be willing to pay that cost in order to be faithful to your conscience?

[William]

Having a problem doesn't seem reasonable to me.

read the limited commission in Matthew 10 and then in Mark 6, then you should see the problem.

this is not the only contradiction or problem.

[Gary]

read the limited commission in Matthew 10 and then in Mark 6, then you should see the problem.

this is not the only contradiction or problem.

Did anyone read my whopper of a contradiction above? Jesus tells the disciples to go to Galilee in two gospels but orders them to stay in Jerusalem until the arrival of the Holy Ghost in another. You cannot harmonize these accounts...without twisting yourself into a pretzel. Wake up conservative Christians! These stories are NOT eyewitness accounts.

[Gary]

Hi Nick. I see you are browsing this thread. Would you please respond to my question regarding your position on a literal Hell and whether or not you believe that your god will eternally punish people who reject Jesus as their God and Savior?

If you deny a literal Hell, and you deny that your god will punish non-believers, there is then no point in continuing our debate: You are a liberal Christian universalist and I have no issue with universalists.

[tabibito]

read the limited commission in Matthew 10 and then in Mark 6, then you should see the problem.

this is not the only contradiction or problem.

Right now I'm billing it as a problem. It would take a bit more investigation before I could say definitively whether or not it is a contradiction. On first appearances, one states that Jesus commissioned the apostles at that time. The other only says that he sent them out. So the determination would hinge on whether this was the same event (established on the basis of locale, primarily) or not.

[Adrift]

I deconverted from Christianity due to the evidence. I would convert back to Christianity if shown good evidence.

I lost my entire social network when I deconverted. All my friends and my wife's friends were in the church. Once we deconverted, we became non-existent to these people. It is as if we had died.

So I have demonstrated that I am willing to take the heat for changing my beliefs. It would cost me nothing but maybe my pride to convert back. What would it cost you to deconvert, and, if you did discover sufficient evidence that proved to you that Christianity is false, would you be willing to pay that cost in order to be faithful to your conscience?

You deconverted because whatever faith you had was built on sand. You were a grown man and you never actually stopped to think about why you believed what you believed until the first wind of skepticism blew your way, and you fell apart like a deck of cards. Now your evangelizing against Christianity with the same zeal that you probably had when you called yourself a Christian, cept your new worldview is just as shallow as your old one.

I was born and raised in a cult. I know all too well what it is to question everything I was raised with and believed, reject it, and build on something solid. The bitterness that you display on this forum is an indication that you never got over the emotional toll apostatizing took on you, but that's not surprising when your faith was based on emotionalism to begin with.