Usual introductions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2012, 12:04 PM
RE: Usual introductions
(10-08-2012 10:06 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Pastor Erxomai will show you the error of your ways, Son.
...
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. Drinking Beverage

Father, forgive him; for he knows not what he does. [Image: signofcross.gif]

(11-08-2012 02:53 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(10-08-2012 12:46 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  FAIL! Big Grin Me, that is. Damn, that was good!

I noticed the girl in black leave. Cos I was watching her arse! Too distracting.

I saw the gorilla 'cause I'm always on the lookout for gorillas, I saw the girl leave 'cause like DLJ I'm always looking at asses, and I saw the curtain color change 'cause it was just the wrong color for that stage. But I didn't see this ball I was supposed to be counting.

Welcome Grazer, you and itsacow should get along fine.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
13-08-2012, 11:12 AM
RE: Usual introductions
Ok resurrection. Below is what I've put together and its probably very amateurly done so I apologise in advance.


The below are 5 facts (though there are more) with the exception of 1 are accepted by virtually all historians and scholars but this 1 exception is accepted by close to 75% of them. I’m putting this because I am citing biblical texts and I can already here the objection; “we aren’t Christian, we don’t believe the Bible or accept it as evidence” But with the greatest of respect, this is not about what you will accept, this is about making a case so it’s about what historians studying the period will accept. To say you don’t accept any part of the bible as evidence because you’re not Christian is like saying “we don’t believe man landed on the moon so we won’t accept any evidence from NASA”

There is some debate over whether some of the letters attributed to Paul are actually written by him. They accept Pauls letter to the Corinthians which is important, it was written around 55AD and a statement of faith (or creed) was passed to him and can be traced back to the original disciples (1 Corinthians 15:3) I’ve posted elsewhere interviews with historians that explain why the Bible is reliable and how it is treated (see https://publicchristianity.org/library/c...the-bible)

So, here we go:

- Jesus died by crucifixion (non Christian sources include Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serpoian and Talmud)

Why is this important: He didn’t faint, pass out or fake it. The roman soldiers were highly skilled at killing, they knew if someone was dead and it was in their best interests to ensure no one survived since they themselves would be killed if someone escaped. See Swoon Theory vs Strauss’s critique.

- Disciples sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them (this has a couple of parts to it)

They claimed it (sources include Paul, Oral Tradtion [Creeds and Sermon Summaries] Written Tradition [Gospels/Acts] Apostolic fathers [Clement, Polycarp]

They believed it and were willing to suffer for it (Acts, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Origen)

Why is this important: The disciples did not deliberately lie or make it up. You don’t die for something you know is a lie or you made up. They didn’t die because they believed something they read, they died because they believed they encountered the risen Christ.

- Conversion of Church Persecutor Paul (again, a couple of parts to it)

Conversion (Paul, Acts, Known by early Christians in Judea [Galatians]

Suffered and Martyred (Paul, Luke, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, Origen)

Why is this important: Paul was a known persecutor of the early Christians and he didn’t just stop, he joined them and ended up being killed for it. Again, he didn’t make it up or lie, he really believed that he had an appearance of the risen Christ and was killed for it.

- Conversion of skeptic James

Conversion (Before - Gospels report Jesus's brothers were unbelievers prior to the resurrection, early creed reports of appearance of risen Christ to James. After - Paul & Acts identify James as a leader in the church)

Martydom (Josephus, Hegeisppus, Clement Of Alexandria)

Why is this important: Former sceptic who was a family member. Again, he didn’t make it up or lie, he really believed that he had an appearance of the risen Christ and was killed for proclaiming it.

- Empty Tomb (75% one)

Jesus had enemies in Jerusalem, he was executed in Jerusalem, disciples proclaimed it in Jerusalem; anything but an empty tomb would have killed the resurrection story there and then

Enemy Attestation, the Jewish authorities accused the disciples of stealing the body thus indirectly admitting the tomb was empty

Testimony of Women; women were not regarded as reliable witnesses, according to Talmud a woman had the same standing in court as a robber, if you make it up you don't claim women were witnesses especially at the time

Buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb who was member of the Sanhedrin who voted to crucify Jesus. Essentially an enemy of Jesus plus well known so story could be verified

Why is this important; if the tomb is empty, the body wasn’t stolen and they didn’t get the tomb wrong…….

In a debate between Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew, Flew said he does not dispute the facts above. But when Habermas presented the case for the empty tomb (which was more comprehensive than above) their exchange was as follows (starts at about 54 minutes in):

Flew: I don’t think we should be apologetic about this at all, these facts are facts. I would rather wish in these topics, more people were prepared to face facts rather than run away and say “ooh mustn’t say that. This is a very impressive piece of argument I think.

Habermas: So you accept the empty tomb?

Flew: This is an impressive testimony because it’s very difficult to get round this……I’m not going to offer a theory because I simply don’t think anyone can reconstruct story about what happened in a city all that long ago when we haven’t got the sort of evidence we might get today with cameras…I offer hallucinations to explain the appearances but offer nothing for the empty tomb evidence

Flews comments doesn’t prove the tomb was empty, I just found them interesting. You can see the debate at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACljoLzPQ14

So if these are accepted as fact, what is the best explanation for them? I agree with C.F.D Moule:

'If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of the Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with? … the birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church… remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the Church itself'
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2012, 11:40 AM
RE: Usual introductions
Hehehe.

INCOMING!

TAKE COVER!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
13-08-2012, 12:05 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2012 12:09 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Usual introductions
(13-08-2012 11:12 AM)Grazer501 Wrote:  The below are 5 facts (though there are more) with the exception of 1 are accepted by virtually all historians and scholars but this 1 exception is accepted by close to 75% of them. I’m putting this because I am citing biblical texts and I can already here the objection; “we aren’t Christian, we don’t believe the Bible or accept it as evidence” But with the greatest of respect, this is not about what you will accept, this is about making a case so it’s about what historians studying the period will accept. To say you don’t accept any part of the bible as evidence because you’re not Christian is like saying “we don’t believe man landed on the moon so we won’t accept any evidence from NASA”

[Image: AndHereWeGo.gif]

a. How did you determine that 75% of historians accept that one exception? (argument from authority/appeal to the majority either way)
b. Fallacy of the false analogy and strawman fallacy. We don't reject the Bible as evidence because we're not Christians, we reject it because it is, among other reasons, historically inaccurate, full of myths and contradictions and written by people who never saw Jesus in their own lifetime.

I think Richard Dawkins put it quite well, when he said "You don't believe that the earth is round only if you're an astronaut, you don't believe Napoleon existed only if you're a historian, you believe these things because they're facts, proofed by evidence."

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
29-08-2012, 11:30 AM
RE: Usual introductions
It's interesting you cite Richard Dawkins in connection with historical facts since his expert ancient historian in the God Delusion turns out to be a professor of German language.

The interview I've cited before (here if you're interested) gives examples of where the New Testament has been shown to be historically accurate. The gospels are ancient biographies written very very early (unprecendetedly early for texts of this age) that people who saw Jesus were still alive. The gospel sources include eye-witnesses to what Jesus did. Johns gospel is regarded to be the John who was one of Jesus's disciples. Likewise with Matthew though this is under scholarly discussion. But they were still written very early. Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) was obviously an eye witness to his own conversion. There are other extra biblical texts referencing Jesus and his followers. The there's also the fact the Christian faith rose very very fast, within a year of his death and his reported resurrection. This doesn't prove Jesus was the Son of God but it does show that this wasn't a slow evolving myth (as Craig Blomberg puts it)

Which definition of myth are you using and which parts? (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition...th?q=myth)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2012, 10:07 AM
RE: Usual introductions
(29-08-2012 11:30 AM)Grazer501 Wrote:  It's interesting you cite Richard Dawkins in connection with historical facts since his expert ancient historian in the God Delusion turns out to be a professor of German language.

Citation, please.

Quote:The interview I've cited before (here if you're interested) gives examples of where the New Testament has been shown to be historically accurate. The gospels are ancient biographies written very very early (unprecendetedly early for texts of this age) that people who saw Jesus were still alive. The gospel sources include eye-witnesses to what Jesus did. Johns gospel is regarded to be the John who was one of Jesus's disciples. Likewise with Matthew though this is under scholarly discussion. But they were still written very early. Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) was obviously an eye witness to his own conversion. There are other extra biblical texts referencing Jesus and his followers.
The there's also the fact the Christian faith rose very very fast, within a year of his death and his reported resurrection. This doesn't prove Jesus was the Son of God but it does show that this wasn't a slow evolving myth (as Craig Blomberg puts it)
Which definition of myth are you using and which parts? (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition...th?q=myth)

We have no evidence that the gospel writers had any contact with eyewitnesses, nor the identities, let alone the veracity, of any of their sources.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
30-08-2012, 10:56 AM
RE: Usual introductions
Oh well, Chas beat me to it. Sleepy

Anyway, why is it that you ignored the question I raised (a)? It's essential to your argument.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: