Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Richbee · 03-24-2006, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

Just that the guy you're relying on to date John as 'no later than 80 AD' appears to be outdated.

That's all.

If you have new evidence, pony up and paste your best POST!

Richbee · 03-24-2006, 02:10 PM

Simon Greenleaf, one of the most skilled legal minds ever produced in this nation, top authority on the question of what constitutes sound evidence, developer of the Harvard Law School, after a thorough evaluation of the four Gospel accounts from the point of view of their validity as objective testimonial evidence, concluded:

"It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact".

(Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists , (New York, 1874), p. 28.)

THE APPEARANCES OF CHRIST

These appearances were probably in the following order:

To Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18; Mark 16:9)
To the other women (Matthew 28:8-10)
To Peter (Luke 24:34; I Corinthians 15:5)
To the two on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35; Mark 16:12)
To ten of the disciples (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-29)
To all eleven disciples, eight days later (John 20:24-29)
To seven disciples by the Sea of Tiberias (John 21:1-23)
To five hundred followers (I Corinthians 15:6)
To James (I Corinthians 15:7)
To the eleven, at the ascension (Acts 1:3-12)

There were probably many other times He appeared to one or more of His disciples. Luke says: "He showed Himself alive after His passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days" (Acts 1:3). He was apparently seen by Stephen (Acts 7:56). Finally, of course, He was seen by Paul (Acts 9:38; I Corinthians 15:8) and once again by John (Revelation 1:12-18).

Have a nice weekend!

Richbee · 03-24-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hallq

Richbee-

I do in fact know the original source. Do you? You've just quoted from people talking about Sherwin-White, whereas I quoted Sherwin-White himself. When you compare quotes, we find that Craig et. al. have misrepresented the historian's claims regarding legend development.

What makes you think that I was quoting Craig?

TomboyMom · 03-24-2006, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

Why be concerned about fictional stories?

My feelings precisely.

Quote:

There is no difference between the Jesus of History and the Jesus of the Christian faith!

Sez you and what consensus of modern scholarship?

Nietzsche's Muse · 03-24-2006, 03:32 PM

There were probably many other times He appeared to one or more of His disciples.

These people lived in the desert... I'm sure it was probably just another mirage. Well, or heat stroke... Or folklore that was a customary practice for folks not so big on writing stuff down... Or, since they wanted a Messiah, it could have been group hallucinations... Or, the whole thing could have been fabricated by a corrupt Vatican City - you know the Popes who fathered children and ignored that whole part about vows of poverty... Or...

TomboyMom · 03-24-2006, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

[size=2]Simon Greenleaf, one of the most skilled legal minds ever produced in this nation, top authority on the question of what constitutes sound evidence, developer of the Harvard Law School, after a thorough evaluation of the four Gospel accounts from the point of view of their validity as objective testimonial evidence, concluded:

"It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact".

(Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists , (New York, 1874), p. 28.)

Why would we be convinced by the hundred year old analysis of a lifelong Christian? How is this relevant to your claim in the OP that the consensus of modern scholarship supports this view? This is neither a consensus nor modern, and calling it scholarship is an overstatement. btw, I think it's a gross exageration to call him one of the most skilled legal minds ever produced in this nation, and I think the other lawyers in the crowd would agree.

TomboyMom · 03-24-2006, 06:04 PM

So Richbee, are you still asserting that the consensus of modern scholarship supports your ten facts? Do you have any support for that assertion, or are you ready to retract it?

Chris Weimer · 03-24-2006, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomboyMom

So Richbee, are you still asserting that the consensus of modern scholarship supports your ten facts? Do you have any support for that assertion, or are you ready to retract it?

Those two, unfortunately, are not mutually exclusive with Richbee.

RED DAVE · 03-24-2006, 06:44 PM

From Richbee:

Quote:

There is no difference between the Jesus of History and the Jesus of the Christian faith!

I guess this means you buy the virgin birth, too. Tell us. Inquiring minds want to know.

RED DAVE

hallq · 03-24-2006, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

What makes you think that I was quoting Craig?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

Thus, respected Oxford Professor Sherwin-White states that for the Gospels to be myths or legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be “unbelievable” — more generations are needed. He maintains that it would have been without precedent anywhere in history for a myth to have grown up that fast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he comments that for these stories to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be "unbelievable"; more generations are needed.

The second quote is from The Son Rises, p. 101. A very similar quote appears in Reasonable Faith

If the entire quote was not written by Craig, fifteen words of it were lifted from his work. It's not a matter of two people quoting Sherwin-White; to my knowledge, no phrase in his book is as similar to the Craig quote as your statement is. If you can get access to a copy of the original essay, feel free to correct me, though [context would be nice, just in case I'm having trouble finding the relevant phrase].

03-24-2006, 02:10 PM	#132
Richbee Banned Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Falls Church, Virginia Posts: 264	Simon Greenleaf, one of the most skilled legal minds ever produced in this nation, top authority on the question of what constitutes sound evidence, developer of the Harvard Law School, after a thorough evaluation of the four Gospel accounts from the point of view of their validity as objective testimonial evidence, concluded: "It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact". (Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists , (New York, 1874), p. 28.) THE APPEARANCES OF CHRIST These appearances were probably in the following order: To Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18; Mark 16:9) To the other women (Matthew 28:8-10) To Peter (Luke 24:34; I Corinthians 15:5) To the two on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35; Mark 16:12) To ten of the disciples (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-29) To all eleven disciples, eight days later (John 20:24-29) To seven disciples by the Sea of Tiberias (John 21:1-23) To five hundred followers (I Corinthians 15:6) To James (I Corinthians 15:7) To the eleven, at the ascension (Acts 1:3-12) There were probably many other times He appeared to one or more of His disciples. Luke says: "He showed Himself alive after His passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days" (Acts 1:3). He was apparently seen by Stephen (Acts 7:56). Finally, of course, He was seen by Paul (Acts 9:38; I Corinthians 15:8) and once again by John (Revelation 1:12-18). Have a nice weekend!

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

03-24-2006, 03:32 PM	#135
Nietzsche's Muse Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: United States Posts: 35	There were probably many other times He appeared to one or more of His disciples. These people lived in the desert... I'm sure it was probably just another mirage. Well, or heat stroke... Or folklore that was a customary practice for folks not so big on writing stuff down... Or, since they wanted a Messiah, it could have been group hallucinations... Or, the whole thing could have been fabricated by a corrupt Vatican City - you know the Popes who fathered children and ignored that whole part about vows of poverty... Or...

03-24-2006, 06:04 PM	#137
TomboyMom Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 10,931	So Richbee, are you still asserting that the consensus of modern scholarship supports your ten facts? Do you have any support for that assertion, or are you ready to retract it?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.