Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sparrow · 11-18-2005, 06:15 PM

AChristian, it's hard for me to take anything by ICR seriously. That you do, speaks volumes to me.

Archaeologists can find traces of wandering bedouins from 3000 years ago (or recently, toolmaking peoples in the Carolinas as much as 20,000 years ago (bet you don't believe that dating!)), yet cannot find any trace of a million Jews wandering in the desert for 40 years. BTW, due to its arid climate, many things are well preserved in desert sands.

Rather than read your conservative scholars, some of whom have already been outed as loonies, I'll go for objective scholars. But thanks for trying.

Godless Wonder · 11-18-2005, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Bogie
New User

Join Date: October 2003
Location: Mars
Posts: 11

11 posts in 2 years? A truly Lurker-tastic 1 post every 60 days.

Sparrow · 11-18-2005, 06:50 PM

He's probably got very low bandwidth on Mars. Plus, he has to keep on the move to stay out of camera range of Spirit and Odyssey.

aChristian · 11-18-2005, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antlerman

Greetings. This is my first post here.

I'm curious from the above statement if you could show where Paul actually "said" the resurrection was a "historical fact", in those words as you just stated? There are those who see Paul's view of the resurrection as taking place solely within the transcendent eternal realm. Not to argue that specific point of view here, but your statement that says Paul calls the resurrection a "historical fact" is something that is not there in that clear of a form as you just stated. In may be possible to infer he was thinking that way, but that subject is debatable because it is not nearly as explicit as you just stated.
.

Welcome! I was paraphrasing the fifteenth chapter of I Corinthians. It is clear in this chapter that Paul is referring to a historical fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antlerman

If you are going to hang the validity of Bible history via the agency of divine inspiration, and seek to establish that inspiration on the “historical fact�? of the resurrection, I think you may find that foundation less then rock solid.
.

I have found the evidence for the resurrection to be rock solid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antlerman

Also, I would like to ask if you feel that all people who refer to mythologies in historical contexts always believed it was actual history, like saying "when Poseidon got angry at Ulysses over the blinding of his son Polyphemus?" Is it not in the least possible that some of the earliest Christians likewise, being of non-Jewish tradition understood them as legends to tell a greater tale, or those that wrote of Jesus used myth as a vehicle to tell about the hero of their faith? This is not an uncommon thing historically as far as I know.

I read no hint in any of the NT writings that they regarded the resurrection as anything less than historical fact. Using legends to tell a greater tale or myth as a vehicle are euphemisms for lying. I find straightforward reporting of facts by honest and capable people in the Bible.

aChristian · 11-18-2005, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

AChristian, it's hard for me to take anything by ICR seriously. That you do, speaks volumes to me.

Archaeologists can find traces of wandering bedouins from 3000 years ago (or recently, toolmaking peoples in the Carolinas as much as 20,000 years ago (bet you don't believe that dating!)), yet cannot find any trace of a million Jews wandering in the desert for 40 years. BTW, due to its arid climate, many things are well preserved in desert sands.

Rather than read your conservative scholars, some of whom have already been outed as loonies, I'll go for objective scholars. But thanks for trying.

ICR scientists are well qualified and their arguements are well reasoned.

Of course I don't believe that dating. I know enough about the dating to know how ridiculous it is.

Calling people loonies doesn't remove their accomplishments or diminish the force of their arguements.

Godless Wonder · 11-18-2005, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

ICR scientists are well qualified and their arguements are well reasoned.

Of course I don't believe that dating. I know enough about the dating to know how ridiculous it is.

Calling people loonies doesn't remove their accomplishments or diminish the force of their arguements.

What arguments? You keep saying you have them, but you never get around to actually presenting them.

mata leao · 11-18-2005, 07:49 PM

I agree with aChristian. I have studied the resurrection and its supporting and skeptical arguments in dozens of expert treatises, hundreds of professional abstracts in the professional literature and seen it tested in forensic debate and in many academic venues for thirty years ,and I concur: the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is rock solid. It is by far the most reasonable explanation for the penumbraic causative correlates.

Godless Wonder · 11-18-2005, 08:12 PM

I've seen it debated around here the last 2 years, and guess what, there is no evidence for the resurrection. NOT ONE SCRAP AT ALL.

Produce your "evidence."

Diogenes the Cynic · 11-18-2005, 08:12 PM

What "forensic debates?" There isn't any forensic evidence. There also aren't "hundreds of professional abstracts in the professional literature" which remotely support the resurrection stories as being historical. There also isn't any evidence for "penumbraic causative correlates.'

You don't seem to have the slightest awareness of what the scholarship actually is on this stuff. Do you really think you're going to able to successfully bluff your way through your absurd assertions on this board?

If you've seen such great scientific evidence (which apperenyly only you know where to find), why don't you step up and tell us what it is. You can start by proving Jesus ever existed.

Sauron · 11-18-2005, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mata leao

I agree with aChristian. I have studied the resurrection and its supporting and skeptical arguments in dozens of expert treatises, hundreds of professional abstracts in the professional literature and seen it tested in forensic debate and in many academic venues for thirty years

Oh, cool. Cite some of these treatises, professional abstracts, or forensic debates.

(sound of crickets)

Quote:

and I concur: the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is rock solid. It is by far the most reasonable explanation for the penumbraic causative correlates.

I noted on the other thread that you tend to pepper your posts with words that you think sound big and impressive -- only to wind up misusing them.

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

11-18-2005, 06:15 PM	#171
Sparrow Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Atlanta Posts: 1,077	AChristian, it's hard for me to take anything by ICR seriously. That you do, speaks volumes to me. Archaeologists can find traces of wandering bedouins from 3000 years ago (or recently, toolmaking peoples in the Carolinas as much as 20,000 years ago (bet you don't believe that dating!)), yet cannot find any trace of a million Jews wandering in the desert for 40 years. BTW, due to its arid climate, many things are well preserved in desert sands. Rather than read your conservative scholars, some of whom have already been outed as loonies, I'll go for objective scholars. But thanks for trying.

11-18-2005, 06:50 PM	#173
Sparrow Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Atlanta Posts: 1,077	He's probably got very low bandwidth on Mars. Plus, he has to keep on the move to stay out of camera range of Spirit and Odyssey.

11-18-2005, 07:49 PM	#177
mata leao Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: tampa,florida Posts: 342	I agree with aChristian. I have studied the resurrection and its supporting and skeptical arguments in dozens of expert treatises, hundreds of professional abstracts in the professional literature and seen it tested in forensic debate and in many academic venues for thirty years ,and I concur: the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is rock solid. It is by far the most reasonable explanation for the penumbraic causative correlates.

11-18-2005, 08:12 PM	#178
Godless Wonder Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 4,197	I've seen it debated around here the last 2 years, and guess what, there is no evidence for the resurrection. NOT ONE SCRAP AT ALL. Produce your "evidence."

11-18-2005, 08:12 PM	#179
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	What "forensic debates?" There isn't any forensic evidence. There also aren't "hundreds of professional abstracts in the professional literature" which remotely support the resurrection stories as being historical. There also isn't any evidence for "penumbraic causative correlates.' You don't seem to have the slightest awareness of what the scholarship actually is on this stuff. Do you really think you're going to able to successfully bluff your way through your absurd assertions on this board? If you've seen such great scientific evidence (which apperenyly only you know where to find), why don't you step up and tell us what it is. You can start by proving Jesus ever existed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.