Toto

"Restoring Abrahamic Faith" appears to be a lecture by Dr. Tabor. Amazon link to DVD (or via: amazon.co.uk)

There are some interesting comments on Tabor here:

~M~

No.


We disagree here, but since this is more of your baseless assertions, then I see no reason to respond.




Try arguing this interpretation. My suggestion is that you should not because you couldn't tango with me in epistemology. But there's always the formal debate proposal thread to show otherwise. http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=75




This is just another baseless assertion. Yet, even if it did have basing, rolling your eyes establishes nothing against Pascal's Wager(s) or how the argument was applied by Craig. All it does is further add to the avalanche of your inadequate critiques.

-------------------

stuart shepherd,

if you're thinking about replying to this post, I will save you the time by stating your last two replies to me. Here goes:

Well, that's just your opinion.

stuart shepherd

Dear Toto,
When I was a Christian, I met Dr Tabor on two occasions at Christian conferences, and spoke to him face to face. I was always impressed with his knowledge of the Bible, and I thought he was an honest straight forward great guy. I like him. I have Restoring Abrahamic Faith in my library as well as some of Dr Tabor's audio tapes.
I was always impressed that when asked a queston he always gave a Bible answer. His answers in my opinion, were not based on a dogmatic approach to Christianity but an approach of "What does the Bible say?"
The truth is that Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic Scriptures of the Hebrew Scriptures. When I was a Christian and came to realize that Jesus didn't "measure up", I found this disturbing. But what is... is. I had to accept the facts as they are and not invent a way to twist and re-interpret the Scriptures to make it fit my religion. Maybe that's why I am no longer a Christian.
Whatever Dr Tabor's religious beliefs may be, I believe him to be a man of honor and integrity, who tells it as it is.

Stuart Shepherd

Steven Carr

PFC claims that women were the first to witness the tomb, and implies that for example Joanna was a credible witness.

I would love to see the evidence for the credibility of Joanna. The best that can be done is that her names starts with a J, like Jesus, and you can't get more credible than Jesus.

But who does tell the reader that there has been a resurrection?

The first witnesses testifying to the resurrection in each Gospel are a young man, an angel of the Lord, two men in dazzling clothes, and Jesus himself.

And still PFC makes this junk claim that the Gospels must be true because the person who testifies to the resurrection is a woman....


Mind you, people simply would not have believed Mary Magdalene's claim that somebody had taken the body from the tomb.

The reader is invited to share in the fact that this woman has got everything wrong. Typical woman! Always wrong. Can't trust them an inch.

adren@line

I fail to see how this is even a debate.

resurrection is a scientific impossibility.

There is nothing to debate.

FireBrandon

M~,

I think Toto and Stuart's point is that according to evangelical tradition, the Scriptures are authoritative and as such the Bible is the standard for what faith is, not William Lane Craig's definition. So if Heb. 11:1 says that faith itself is evidence that heaven exists, then we can also say that faith in Islam proves Islamic heaven exists. I have no problem with an exposition by a theologian concerning rational faith, but in my personal experience most people choose irrational faith and superstition more often than rational faith. I think one major flaw in Christianity is its logic. Sure I could believe in Jesus due to arguments 1, 2, and 3. But if I apply those same three arguments to any superstitious religion with miracles, experiences, and sacred texts, then I can come to nearly the same conclusion and that is not kosher with Judeo-Christian tradition, because Christ is purported to be the only Savior and Yahweh the only true God, so all others are false. I have to go to the gym and so I can't elaborate more right now. Does that make sense? Just because I am saying that most if not all Christian faith is logically flawed, I am not saying that all atheists are inherently rational or logical, so don't make an illicit contrast here

Sincerely,
FireBrandon

stuart shepherd

Did you all read Post #117 on this thread?

Do you wonder why the writer of the Gospel according to Matthew refers to Mary, the Mother of Jesus as....."""the other Mary?"""" and doesn't identify her as Jesus' mother????

There is an answer to the question ""What were they hiding?"""

I am composing the answer and will post it soon.
Watch for it!

Stuart Shepherd

Allied35

Even if one assumes that the bible, and Jesus are not fictional and that the crucifixion (or is that crucifiction) really happened, there is no evidence that Jesus actually died on the cross. Perhaps he appeared dead but did anyone check for vital signs?

As I stated in an earlier post, there is no evidence that Jesus is anything other than myth. As famous and notorious as he supposedly was to the Romans and others the fact remains that there exists not a single contemporary reference to him. Not one mention.
So to win this debate PunkFC will need to show convincing evidence that:

1) Jesus actually existed.

2) Jesus was indeed crucified.

3) Jesus was actually dead when taken down off the cross and not just unconscious.

4) Jesus was actually seen again alive and well.

To fail in providing evidence for either one of these will mean that the "Resurrection" is not "sufficiently evidenced" and that PunkFC loses the debate. IMHO.

Punkforchrist will need nothing short of a "miracle" to win this debate. He's as likely to receive one as Mr. Huckabee...

stuart shepherd

The Amazing Sequel to Post #117 on this thread

Do you wonder why the writer of the Gospel according to Matthew refers to Mary, the Mother of Jesus as....."""the other Mary?"""" and doesn't identify her as Jesus' mother????

There is an answer to the question ""What were they hiding?"""

The Amazing truth, is that the Gospel writers used the life story of a real person who was stoned to death for idolatry, on Passover Eve, as a template for their fictional story of Jesus. This person’s mother was know as Mary Magdalene.

I know this is shocking but here is the proof from the Talmud, and the Catholic Encyclopedia.


The Jesus Narrative In The Talmud
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html


Notice….
Ben Stada brought witchcraft from Egypt.
Ben Stada was a bastard, a child of adultery.
Ben Stada’s mother was Miriam, a woman’s hairdresser.


Notice……
Ben Stada was stoned to death in Lud, on the eve of Passover


Notice…….
Yeshu was stoned on the eve of Passover



Notice………
Yeshu had 5 disciples who were executed. The first one named Matai [Matthew]



Notice……..
This ties together the name “Yeshu” with with his real father‘s name, “Pandira”, indicating that Yeshu, and Ben Stada, AKA Ben Pandira are the same person.




Notice……..
Mary Magdalene’s name refers to a woman’s hairdresser, and an adulteress just like Ben Stada’s mother, Miriam.


Tell me truthfully………
Doesn’t this prove that the Jesus story is just a fictional rewrite of the Yeshu Ben Stada, AKA Yeshu Ben Pandira story?

AKA= Also Known As

Stuart Shepherd

Toto

More likely that the Talmud was a parody of the Jesus story. How can you date the Talmud?