Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 04-22-2006, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

My religiously inclined cousin. . . . I was just struck by the word, "undeniable" and wanted to see this forum's reactions, comments and opinions.

OK, thanks.

I think the fatal flaw in apologists' appeals to witness testimony for the resurrection is their conflation of a report that there were witnesses with actual witness testimony.

I know next to nothing about Roman law, but I don't think any court nowadays would accept as evidence my assertion that "Joe Smith saw the defendant kill the victim." Joe Smith himself would have to get on the witness stand before the jury would be allowed to hear the first word about whatever he thought he witnessed.

Gooch's dad · 04-22-2006, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

It is rational to believe that the earth orbits the sun, and if somebody doesn't, that tells me I'm more rational than they.

Now, back to the issue of salvation, are you saying salvation is like science, and those who don't accept God's gift don't deserve it, while those that do do deserve it? Because the NT teaches that NOBODY deserves grace, and that it is a gift, not earned by your superior qualities.

You still need to answer re: the boasting bit.

On this "issue of salvation"--that assumes that I need to be saved. I see no reason at all for why I would have to be saved from anything.

And just because the NT teaches something, why should I believe it? You've already admitted that it's just a story. And it is a story that I find to be incoherent and senseless.

Robert_Plant · 04-22-2006, 07:47 AM

The witness thing and that being a reason to believe I've always found to be ridiculous as others have. If witnesses who saw him at trial, death and resurrection are reasons to believe why is any other witness to any other religious occurence dismissed? I just read a book my dad has gotten recently called something like "Reasons you can trust the bible" and it mentions here and there about disciples and others SEEING these things and that it must be true because why would they lie about all this? They wouldn't go thru all the trouble of writing fake tales and trying to spread the new religion around, because its, get this, just too unbelieveable! No way they would do all that, it must have actually happened! So every other religious writing outside of the bible was painstakingly made up but the authors of the bible didn't.

Sparrow · 04-22-2006, 09:09 AM

As Lee Strobel says, "It's too unbelievable not to be true!"

dongiovanni1976x · 04-22-2006, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallandale

Can we believe everything that the Apostle Paul wrote?

Examine what Paul says concerning his own character.
2Corinthians 12:16 NASB
""But be that as it may, I did not burden you myself; nevertheless, crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by deceit. ""

My Bible says, "Let is be assumed that I did not burden you. Nevertheless (you say) since I was crafty, I took you in by deceit." NRSV

The textus receptus is not always the most reliable source for translation.

[/QUOTE]
Colossians 1:23 NASB
""if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.""
Was the Gospel " proclaimed in all creation under heaven"" in Paul's day? Has it even been "proclaimed in all creation under heaven"" in the present day?
Certainly Paul had a habit of exaggerating.[/QUOTE]
With as much travelling and writing as Paul did, and the limited understanding of the size of creation it is still an exaggeration but need not be taken literally...(?)

Quote:

1Corinthians 9:20-23 NASB
20To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;

21to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

22To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.

23I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

Couldn't this be seen as "When in Rome?"

Quote:

Can you possibly trust the honesty of a man who wants to be all things to all men? Can you trust an opportunist like the Apostle Paul?

Is it plausible to see Paul as being flexible on things that did not contradict his core beliefs and uncompromising when they did?

dongiovanni1976x · 04-22-2006, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by His Noodly Appendage

Dude. Terrible nick to use on a debate board.

Don Giovanni better arguments than that?

I just don't like picking new ones...it is the same for email, IM etc so I didn't want to try an remember another one. But good point, I never thought about that - however I don't know what to say about yours :notworthy:

dongiovanni1976x · 04-22-2006, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

Paul is the only source for the "500" number. Did Paul tell us who he consulted or what was said in the interview(s)? Can you tell us?

Exactly what did Paul say he saw, and how did he know that he was really seeing the Risen Christ? How do you know what he saw?

As proof goes, even as proof for ancient events goes, this is pretty flimsy stuff, and not even close to "undeniable."

Didymus

I cannot. It is not clear how the putative event unfolded. I liked Peter Kirby's 9 possible scenario's. I never gave much consideration to option 2c...sounds very plausible.

dongiovanni1976x · 04-22-2006, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mithy73

I'm pretty much with Peter Kirby on this one - that the apostles had some kind of mystical experience that was interpreted as feeling the presence of Jesus. I also agree that it's not supported in the synoptic Gospels - indeed, if one goes back to Mark (minus Mk 16:9-20, which as far as I know is generally accepted to be a later interpolation), I think it's arguably possible to interpret Mk 16:1-8 as being symbolic of a mystical ascension rather than a physical Resurrection (even if one skips past the question of how Mark knew about the tomb visit if the three women told no-one).

I think you make some very good points. I very much doubt that there even was a tomb burial, let alone this Joseph of Arimathea character.

dongiovanni1976x · 04-22-2006, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

OK, thanks.

I think the fatal flaw in apologists' appeals to witness testimony for the resurrection is their conflation of a report that there were witnesses with actual witness testimony.

I know next to nothing about Roman law, but I don't think any court nowadays would accept as evidence my assertion that "Joe Smith saw the defendant kill the victim." Joe Smith himself would have to get on the witness stand before the jury would be allowed to hear the first word about whatever he thought he witnessed.

It was an exaggeration no doubt in my mind, but she believes it nonetheless. I agree with you.

hallq · 04-22-2006, 10:26 AM

It's important to note that there's a gray area between being made up and based on an actual experience. I've encountered many instances of lay apologists talking off the top of their heads and making claims that resemble things said by professional apologists, but are greatly exagerated. I think the exagerations are mostly accidental. Examples of such claims:

1) Many historians of the time recorded Jesus' resurrection: May have originated with lists of sources that mention Jesus (but not the resurrection), or a conflation of the mention in Josephus to "many" historians.

2) We have manuscripts of the gospels from 70-100 A.D.: I have some reason to think that this was a deliberate lie, but it also could have been a confusion with the date of composition of the originals.

3) If not for 1 source, we wouldn't even know that Alexander the Great existed, but we have 32 sources for Jesus: I believe I once heard a professional apologist say that there's one *main* source for AtG, even though it's not the only source

4) There's more evidence for the resurrection than the existenec of Benjamin Franklin: some apologists will claim that there's more evidence for the resurrection than any event in *ancient* history. This is highly questionable, but more plausible than the claim that there's more evidence for the resurrection than anything in history, ever.

If modern apologists can make confused exagerations, so could Paul.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-22-2006, 07:47 AM	#23
Robert_Plant Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: California (central valley) Posts: 13	The witness thing and that being a reason to believe I've always found to be ridiculous as others have. If witnesses who saw him at trial, death and resurrection are reasons to believe why is any other witness to any other religious occurence dismissed? I just read a book my dad has gotten recently called something like "Reasons you can trust the bible" and it mentions here and there about disciples and others SEEING these things and that it must be true because why would they lie about all this? They wouldn't go thru all the trouble of writing fake tales and trying to spread the new religion around, because its, get this, just too unbelieveable! No way they would do all that, it must have actually happened! So every other religious writing outside of the bible was painstakingly made up but the authors of the bible didn't.

04-22-2006, 09:09 AM	#24
Sparrow Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Atlanta Posts: 1,077	As Lee Strobel says, "It's too unbelievable not to be true!"

04-22-2006, 10:26 AM	#30
hallq Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Madison, Wisconsin Posts: 204	It's important to note that there's a gray area between being made up and based on an actual experience. I've encountered many instances of lay apologists talking off the top of their heads and making claims that resemble things said by professional apologists, but are greatly exagerated. I think the exagerations are mostly accidental. Examples of such claims: 1) Many historians of the time recorded Jesus' resurrection: May have originated with lists of sources that mention Jesus (but not the resurrection), or a conflation of the mention in Josephus to "many" historians. 2) We have manuscripts of the gospels from 70-100 A.D.: I have some reason to think that this was a deliberate lie, but it also could have been a confusion with the date of composition of the originals. 3) If not for 1 source, we wouldn't even know that Alexander the Great existed, but we have 32 sources for Jesus: I believe I once heard a professional apologist say that there's one main source for AtG, even though it's not the only source 4) There's more evidence for the resurrection than the existenec of Benjamin Franklin: some apologists will claim that there's more evidence for the resurrection than any event in ancient history. This is highly questionable, but more plausible than the claim that there's more evidence for the resurrection than anything in history, ever. If modern apologists can make confused exagerations, so could Paul.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.