Ted Hoffman

kirby
Actually, I should quote Layman then he can quote you.
Lets see, it must have been Jeffrey Jay Lowder who is supposed to have said:
Yeah, it was actually Jeff, NOT Peter Kirby.
I apologise Peter.

Toto
You are being too hard on yourself. Its not you to make people serious. Besides, some threads take days to pick up tempo, so take it easy. I am eyeing the thread myself - except I am very ignorant concerning Acts - spent too much time on the Gospels.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

lcb

ahh toto, your rank hypocricy comes through! several of your atheist brethren have recently referred to the apostles as outright liars for their accounts (dont believe me? check for yourself)now your brethren weren't there unless they are time travellers-so i suppose the rules here are that when atheists preach they are arguing but when christians preach its just preaching!
and as to your topic here where you clearly are trying to conjure an inconsistency where there isnt one-even your brethren here are telling you that it isnt an inconsistency. So it is YOU that doesnt have a clue as to the issue!
And toto, your buddy Callahan you asked to me read-he is an idiot! his sourcing was worse than i would expect from a first year undergrad...so you lose all credibility with me when you posit such authors as a "fait accompli" proof that your position is resolved and won/settled.
and i have in fact read everything here on the secular web concerning rebuttals to McDowell.You seem to think that just because an atheist has said somehting that it settles the issue-this "fait accompli" fallacy of yours is telling.McDowell is writing as an adversary-the way a trial lawyer would-and McDowell pushes the envelope as any advocate would, he sets up a few strawmen in doing this but your atheist friends set up many straw men too! and lcb is a brand new christian, so get used to it. and please dont try to psychoanalyze me, or i might just ask you what happened in your past to make you so angry at God and christians!(your argument that you post here several times a day 24/7 because you are worried america might become a theocarcy-I DONT BELIEVE A WORD YOU SAID!)

Ted Hoffman

lcb,
Your rant aside, Toto has asked a question at the beginning of the thread. You need to answer it.
Tell us how you (as a theist) reconcile the two passages Toto is referring to.

Layman

Lowder did not just say someone could argue for the historicity of Jesus by using the TF, he said McDowell was right to do so. I do no think I misrepresented him at all. And, in fact, I quoted him in full did I not?

lcb

sheesh! one passage clearly uses the word "disciples", the other passage uses the word "brethren".....apostles aint disciples and disciples aint brethren. the group in the upper room aint the same as the group in Gallilee, and aint the same as the group at pentecost or the group at the ascension. some of the brethren "doubted" Jesus it says..disciples were hard core commando types (no doubtin').If a christian here had tried to make a lunatic argument like this y'all would have laughed him to scorn......but not poor 'lil ole toto!

lcb

and p.s. toto, you might want to look up the word "forensic" in a dictionary before you try to lecture me on allegedly using the word improperly( i wont embarass you here publically by posting the definitions)

Ted Hoffman

Layman
And I responded that McDowell is right too to do that, but that does NOT entail saying the testimonium is authentic.
Like in court, it is right to try proving a case using an eyewitness, EVEN when the eyewitness is not reliable. Allowing someone to put a witness on the stand is NOT tantamount to accepting the testimony of the eyewitness.
In a nutshell, he said McDowell is right, NOT that the TF is right or credible.
And even if he did, that would not mean much in the line of making the TF authentic, unless you want to appeal to numbers.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Toto

lcb: Please pay attention. I ask you not to witness here, because what you say doesn't make any sense. If you can't play by the rules of discussion and try to address the actual arguments I make, you are just wasting your time and bringing discredit on the entire Christian religion.

If you think that McDowell is defensible, start a new thread and present some arguments.

I don't think Christians have a big problem harmonizing these passages if they wave their hands and say there were a bunch of people in Galilee that we lost track of, etc. I am not concerned with inerrancy here.

I am trying to figure out a coherent story from these passages.

Acts refers to the "believers" (but the word used is actually "brethren") as a group of about 120, at a time when, according to the story there, Jesus had finished appearing bodily and ascended to heaven. Paul, however, has Jesus "appearing" to 500 anonymous brethren before "appearing" to James.

I am only concerned with the implications of this for either the meaning of "appearance", or conflicts in the early church between Paul, Peter, and James, or perhaps the possibilies of interpolations in Paul's letters.

Layman

This is a little irritating. I have not appealed only to numbers. In fact, I've spent three quite full threads devoted to the issue of the partial-authenticity of the TF. And I note that you have made no appearance in any of them.

Layman

Do you think that the tension between 500 and 120 increases or decreases the likelihood of a later Christian interplator?