Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by William View Post
    I wont argue with that, but is there actually evidence for the resurrection, and if so, where?

    Women witnesses? I dont follow this reasoning. How is it embarrassing that woman saw something first, when the men saw the same thing later? And even if that were embarrassing, how does that mean it's impossible for men to invent? Women witnesses doesn't really prove anything one way or the other. And I cant help but wonder why if something like this stands as evidence, then why doesn't the discrepancies serve as evidence against the bible?

    All the witnesses? who were they? The gospels were written well after the fact. Paul saw a light, not Jesus in the flesh.

    scholars? the majority dont agree on much other than Jesus was probably real, had some followers and was likely crucified. That's about it...

    If someone finds these convincing, that's fine with me. I am just asking whether there's more to it than this?
    IIRC, the timing of the writing of the gospel's was 40 years after death.

    As to your evidence question, the minimal facts approach may be what you're looking for.
    "It's evolution; every time you invent something fool-proof, the world invents a better fool."
    -Unknown

    "Preach the gospel, and if necessary use words." - Most likely St.Francis


    I find that evolution is the best proof of God.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I support the :
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by William View Post
      oh, well that's certainly true. But all other religions have martyrs, yes? I think it certainly shows that a person was devoted to something and believed in that something, but people can be mistaken, despite the best of intentions, so I am not sure that i find someone's fervent belief as evidence that what they believe in is true.

      Otherwise, we'd believe practically all religions, and align to practically all political views as well, and... I just don't have that kind of time ;)
      But with the apostles, it wasn't just some fervent faith. They were good practicing jews with a nice life. They were in the position to actually KNOW if Jesus rose from the dead or not. They didn't just believe in him, they KNEW. And they gave up their nice comfy life and went out and preached him and were tortured and killed for it and they never recanted. Now I can see some fervent believer today dying for his faith, but that is because he has faith, but he doesn't KNOW whether what he believes is true, he just trusts that it is. But the apostles didn't have to trust their faith, they actually were there and knew it. People usually will not die a horrible death for something they know to be false, especially when the alternative was to just go back to their ordinary comfy lives.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by William View Post
        Women witnesses? I dont follow this reasoning. How is it embarrassing that woman saw something first, when the men saw the same thing later? And even if that were embarrassing, how does that mean it's impossible for men to invent? Women witnesses doesn't really prove anything one way or the other. And I cant help but wonder why if something like this stands as evidence, then why doesn't the discrepancies serve as evidence against the bible?
        Female testimony was considered unreliable in the ancient near East. Most NT scholars, even critical ones like Geza Vermes, hold that this detail would have been very unlikely for 1st century writers to make up, because adding that fact would have done nothing to promote the writer's agenda. In fact, it would have harmed their immediate agenda. The so-called Criterion of Embarrassment is one of the methods that modern scholars use to identify passages that are more likely to be factual than not. You are correct that the remark about female witnesses does not "prove" anything one way or the other, but that's not the point. Historians don't prove history. What it does is add cumulative evidence for the case for the empty tomb, which isn't as controversial as you might imagine, even, again, among critical scholars.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by William View Post
          Adrift, thanks for the reply. You could be right, and I'll ponder it. Matthew does say many, like you say. I guess that number could be anything. Maybe dead people did come to life and walk into Jerusalem.

          You have to admit, that's a hard pill to swallow even if seen with your own eyes...
          It wouldn't be a miracle if it was easy to swallow.

          Comment


          • #65
            "For most of history, scholars would kill to have evidence as good as "claims that were made decades after the event allegedly took place." Take, for example, my namesake. Pythagoras was one of the most influential and important philosophers in history, and yet most of the details we have of his life come from works written 800 years after he had died." - Boxing Pythagoras


            well, this is partially true, isn't it? I mean, historians, nor anyone else, take everything at face value. No one accepts all claims. They weigh those claims. Tecumseh was a real guy, for example, and much written about him was true, but no reasonable person just accepts any of the miracles he said to have done, or prophecies he was said to have made.

            so they claimed Jesus arose from the dead and ascended into heaven. No real evidence, but since it was claimed decades later, that's good enough? Some people still aren't convinced that Socrates was a real person, and believing Socrates was real takes no acceptance of anything supernatural.

            I am not a scholar, but here's how I see things, and think that most are actually like me:

            If someone I knew and trusted told me that they saw a deer in the woods with 15 points on one side, but only 3 on the other, I'd likely believe them.

            If someone I knew and didnt trust told me that they saw a deer in the woods with 15 points on one side, but only 3 on the other, I'd likely not believe them.

            If someone I didnt know told me that they saw a deer in the woods with 15 points on one side, but only 3 on the other, I might not reject it, but I wouldnt hang my hat on it.

            Now, If someone I knew and trusted told me that they saw bigfoot, I'd likely not believe them. I may think that they believed they saw it, but i'd suspect that they were just mistaken.

            now take someone I didnt know, and they told me that they saw bigfoot, and that a hundred other guys saw him too, i'd think he was embellishing how many others saw it, and I'd think the guy was lying or badly mistaken.

            Somethings are too out of the norm to simply accept at a claim - at least that's true for me.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by William View Post
              I wont argue with that, but is there actually evidence for the resurrection, and if so, where?

              Women witnesses? I dont follow this reasoning. How is it embarrassing that woman saw something first, when the men saw the same thing later? And even if that were embarrassing, how does that mean it's impossible for men to invent? Women witnesses doesn't really prove anything one way or the other. And I cant help but wonder why if something like this stands as evidence, then why doesn't the discrepancies serve as evidence against the bible?

              All the witnesses? who were they? The gospels were written well after the fact. Paul saw a light, not Jesus in the flesh.

              scholars? the majority dont agree on much other than Jesus was probably real, had some followers and was likely crucified. That's about it...

              If someone finds these convincing, that's fine with me. I am just asking whether there's more to it than this?
              There is a lot more to it. And you need to understand the society they live in.

              The witnesses were the apostles, their followers, and even the jews and romans who killed Jesus but never refuted that he rose from the dead. The parts of the gospels that can be checked out historically check out, the archeology, place names, people and their positions, etc. Showing that those who wrote the gospel not only lived during that time, but were meticulous in getting the details correct. It makes their accounts that much more trustworthy. If you are expecting some sort of video taped account of the resurrection before you will believe, then you might as well toss out everything we know about history. Most historical accounts were written hundreds of years later by people who never knew the people involved and yet we accept them as fact. The gospels and Paul's letters were written within about 20-30 years of the event, and there were probably earlier versions that were lost, or notes that no longer exist taken at the time of the events. The last gospel written was by the Apostle John in the 90's. Mark was a disciple of Peter, Luke of Paul, Matthew was an apostle. Mark and Matthew are the earliest accounts. Probably written in the early 50's

              And you are wrong about the scholors. Sure there are some that deny the events, but they are in the minority.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by William View Post
                "For most of history, scholars would kill to have evidence as good as "claims that were made decades after the event allegedly took place." Take, for example, my namesake. Pythagoras was one of the most influential and important philosophers in history, and yet most of the details we have of his life come from works written 800 years after he had died." - Boxing Pythagoras


                well, this is partially true, isn't it? I mean, historians, nor anyone else, take everything at face value. No one accepts all claims. They weigh those claims. Tecumseh was a real guy, for example, and much written about him was true, but no reasonable person just accepts any of the miracles he said to have done, or prophecies he was said to have made.

                so they claimed Jesus arose from the dead and ascended into heaven. No real evidence, but since it was claimed decades later, that's good enough? Some people still aren't convinced that Socrates was a real person, and believing Socrates was real takes no acceptance of anything supernatural.

                I am not a scholar, but here's how I see things, and think that most are actually like me:

                If someone I knew and trusted told me that they saw a deer in the woods with 15 points on one side, but only 3 on the other, I'd likely believe them.

                If someone I knew and didnt trust told me that they saw a deer in the woods with 15 points on one side, but only 3 on the other, I'd likely not believe them.

                If someone I didnt know told me that they saw a deer in the woods with 15 points on one side, but only 3 on the other, I might not reject it, but I wouldnt hang my hat on it.

                Now, If someone I knew and trusted told me that they saw bigfoot, I'd likely not believe them. I may think that they believed they saw it, but i'd suspect that they were just mistaken.

                now take someone I didnt know, and they told me that they saw bigfoot, and that a hundred other guys saw him too, i'd think he was embellishing how many others saw it, and I'd think the guy was lying or badly mistaken.

                Somethings are too out of the norm to simply accept at a claim - at least that's true for me.
                So basically you are saying you just trust your own beliefs and if something lines up with them, you accept it, and if it doesn't you reject it. Not a very good philosophy for finding the truth.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  Female testimony was considered unreliable in the ancient near East. Most NT scholars, even critical ones like Geza Vermes, hold that this detail would have been very unlikely for 1st century writers to make up, because adding that fact would have done nothing to promote the writer's agenda. In fact, it would have harmed their immediate agenda. The so-called Criterion of Embarrassment is one of the methods that modern scholars use to identify passages that are more likely to be factual than not. You are correct that the remark about female witnesses does not "prove" anything one way or the other, but that's not the point. Historians don't prove history. What it does is add cumulative evidence for the case for the empty tomb, which isn't as controversial as you might imagine, even, again, among critical scholars.
                  but women weren't the only witnesses. and I just can't get around the fact that we're trying to say that men using women witnesses for something untrue is more absurd than a man coming back to life after dying and then flying into heaven. I'm sorry, but if i were to choose which was most likely, I'd have to pick men using women as collaborative witnesses over the awakening of the dead.

                  Yes, the experts seem to agree, that dead people don't come back to life. So if we're taking expert opinions on the likelihood of things, then...

                  c'mon, I cant be alone here...

                  Take the word "prove" out. You're right. But even so, how likely is it that any missing persons case is accurately solved by the missing body having raised from the dead and having flown into heaven? Why is this plausible? I tell you that women witnesses makes it no more plausible - at least to me, which is why I am asking if there's anything else.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    So basically you are saying you just trust your own beliefs and if something lines up with them, you accept it, and if it doesn't you reject it. Not a very good philosophy for finding the truth.
                    lol, is that what i said? are you saying you'd believe in bigfoot if someone told you they saw him, or are you saying that you just believe in bigfoot?

                    I do think that people have to seek out and search. Searching for yourself is likely better that believing the claims that men made in a book. They claimed that God said this or that, they claimed that God did this or that...

                    why do you believe those claims?

                    Like you, I reject those claims from other religious books. Why do you trust the claims of the Bible, while rejecting all others?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by William View Post
                      I am not a scholar, but here's how I see things, and think that most are actually like me:

                      If someone I knew and trusted told me that they saw a deer in the woods with 15 points on one side, but only 3 on the other, I'd likely believe them.

                      If someone I knew and didnt trust told me that they saw a deer in the woods with 15 points on one side, but only 3 on the other, I'd likely not believe them.

                      If someone I didnt know told me that they saw a deer in the woods with 15 points on one side, but only 3 on the other, I might not reject it, but I wouldnt hang my hat on it.

                      Now, If someone I knew and trusted told me that they saw bigfoot, I'd likely not believe them. I may think that they believed they saw it, but i'd suspect that they were just mistaken.

                      now take someone I didnt know, and they told me that they saw bigfoot, and that a hundred other guys saw him too, i'd think he was embellishing how many others saw it, and I'd think the guy was lying or badly mistaken.

                      Somethings are too out of the norm to simply accept at a claim - at least that's true for me.
                      Are you sure you're not a scholar?

                      Yeah. I think that the evidence for the resurrection, by itself, is a reasonably hard thing for a nontheist to accept. The evidence only has force (in my opinion) if we also grant that a divine being capable of rising a man from the dead is also possible. A hardcore materialist is going to struggle no matter how much evidence is thrown at him. For a non-Christian theist, I think that there is plenty of evidence to come to the conclusion that the resurrection did, in fact, happen. I also happen to think that there is good evidence for a non-theist to conclude that a God exists, but that may be independent of the resurrection.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by William View Post
                        lol, is that what i said? are you saying you'd believe in bigfoot if someone told you they saw him, or are you saying that you just believe in bigfoot?

                        I do think that people have to seek out and search. Searching for yourself is likely better that believing the claims that men made in a book. They claimed that God said this or that, they claimed that God did this or that...

                        why do you believe those claims?

                        Like you, I reject those claims from other religious books. Why do you trust the claims of the Bible, while rejecting all others?
                        I did research and study. I have seen God work in my life and the lives of others. I have watched God change me over the years.

                        But you basically said if a friend of yours saw bigfoot you would not believe them. You didn't say you would research it to see if it were true or not.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          There is a lot more to it. And you need to understand the society they live in.

                          The witnesses were the apostles, their followers, and even the jews and romans who killed Jesus but never refuted that he rose from the dead. The parts of the gospels that can be checked out historically check out, the archeology, place names, people and their positions, etc. Showing that those who wrote the gospel not only lived during that time, but were meticulous in getting the details correct. It makes their accounts that much more trustworthy. If you are expecting some sort of video taped account of the resurrection before you will believe, then you might as well toss out everything we know about history. Most historical accounts were written hundreds of years later by people who never knew the people involved and yet we accept them as fact. The gospels and Paul's letters were written within about 20-30 years of the event, and there were probably earlier versions that were lost, or notes that no longer exist taken at the time of the events. The last gospel written was by the Apostle John in the 90's. Mark was a disciple of Peter, Luke of Paul, Matthew was an apostle. Mark and Matthew are the earliest accounts. Probably written in the early 50's

                          And you are wrong about the scholors. Sure there are some that deny the events, but they are in the minority.
                          Sparko, what about them check out beyond dates, places and few names? I have reward through the gospels, like you, many times, and there is quite a lot that doesnt match. And correct names and places dont mean that everything written is true, or else Abe Lincoln was battling Vampires and battles them still as a vampire himself. are you guys sure I'm the one with a misunderstanding of how history works?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            I did research and study. I have seen God work in my life and the lives of others. I have watched God change me over the years.

                            But you basically said if a friend of yours saw bigfoot you would not believe them. You didn't say you would research it to see if it were true or not.
                            because it's moot, unless you tell me how I can see jesus raise form the dead, or point to something beyond hearsay to collaborate the claim?

                            you've seen Jesus work in your life and change you? I am not belittling that experience at all, but are you aware that people of other faiths have similar experiences with their god(s)? do their experiences convince you?

                            I am not really looking to argue or to debate. i am just curious if there's anything else beyond what you guys have offered here and Nick laid out in his debate with Gary?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              I did research and study. I have seen God work in my life and the lives of others. I have watched God change me over the years.

                              But you basically said if a friend of yours saw bigfoot you would not believe them. You didn't say you would research it to see if it were true or not.
                              and let me add that of course I'd go to the woods with a trusted friend after such a claim, but I still wouldnt actually believe it until I saw it. IF I didnt see it, I wouldnt buy out. Not out of pride or whatever, just out of not finding it convincing. The same reasons you dont find Zeus believable.

                              and again, i speaking to trustworthiness of claims, as some fellow had stated that decade old claims was a historians gold mine, or some such.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by William View Post
                                Sparko, what about them check out beyond dates, places and few names? I have reward through the gospels, like you, many times, and there is quite a lot that doesnt match. And correct names and places dont mean that everything written is true, or else Abe Lincoln was battling Vampires and battles them still as a vampire himself. are you guys sure I'm the one with a misunderstanding of how history works?
                                You seem to want to isolate evidence. Women being witnesses, dates, places, who wrote what and when, etc. You isolate each item and try to find fault with it, while ignoring the rest. You are not seeing the forest for the trees. It all works together to make the accounts trustworthy. No, there is no absolute proof of the resurrection. There is no absolute proof that Alexander the Great existed either. At some point, after researching and studying, you have to make a decision to accept or reject the accounts. You have obviously chosen to reject them, and so far your posts seem to show you have little understanding of the 1st Century society, people, events, or anything, so I doubt you have done much studying on the matter. You seem a lot like Gary. Assured by your own ignorance.

                                You might want to do a look up of the Kruger-dunning effect.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X