OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 09:08:38 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Historical Jesus and his "Miracles"  (Read 6798 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TryingtoConvert
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Disbelief in your belief
Jurisdiction: All in your mind
Posts: 384



« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2010, 05:51:48 AM »

I see reason and evidence as strong components of truth.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2010, 09:17:03 AM »

I see reason and evidence as strong components of truth.


Do you believe they are the only components of truth?
Logged
Nero
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 115



« Reply #47 on: December 04, 2010, 10:21:02 AM »

Tryingtoconvert: You haven't answered my question about the apostles in the previous post.

Ortho_Cat: I don't know of any secular sources, but that shouldn't surprise anyone, because very few ever mentioned Jesus himself outside of  passing mentions. I don't think the Romans would've really been concerned with a couple of men in [what they thought of as] a cult.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 10:22:52 AM by Nero » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #48 on: December 04, 2010, 11:33:13 AM »

I see reason and evidence as strong components of truth.


And you have demonstrated little of either, and this platitude doesn't add to that.

The devil is in the details. Give us some details, because you cite militant atheists and fundamentalist preachers without discretion as equal authorites.  That demonstrates neither reason, nor evidence, but a confused mind.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #49 on: December 04, 2010, 11:55:09 AM »


And are you admitting there is no good verifiable evidence for the resurrection? Or are you sticking to the story that the burden is on every one of us to read poorly written apologetics over and over until our brains are so fried by circularism that we finally accept it ourselves?


If you adhere to a strictly scientific standard for belief, there will always be a more logical explanation than the supernatural. You will not come to the faith by intellect alone. It is a journey of the heart that must be lived.
By definition the supernatural is beyond scientific standards. If it was within the reach of natural science, it would not be supernatural.

I recall a freshman at college trying to be clever, who argued that since the Resurrection of Christ wasn't provable by the scientific method (for one thing, it could not be replicated by others) it could not be true. He was oblivious to the fact that much is not provable by the scientific method-one cannot redo DaVinci's Mona Lisa and expect Southerby's to auction it off for a fortune.  Nor are all things true proved only after experimentation: a random mathematical equation done correctly the first time is true without need of replication.

One cannot give enough evidence to make the leap of Faith, nor reason youself to Faith without the leap. What one can do is give enough evidence that there is no reason not to take the leap, and reason enough that it is illogical not to take the leap.  But some won't take the leap anyway.  As Churchill noted on someone "He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #50 on: December 04, 2010, 12:14:47 PM »

In the end I'm still not quite satisied.

This response is more to Fabio, and if anyone wants to respond by all means

This is more of a response to Irish Hermit, but anyone feel free to respond.

I'm about to debunk Strobel for you: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html

And are you admitting there is no good verifiable evidence for the resurrection? Or are you sticking to the story that the burden is on every one of us to read poorly written apologetics over and over until our brains are so fried by circularism that we finally accept it ourselves?

If one book won't convince a skeptic and you admit as much is this not a recognition on your part that there is nothing of substance in any of them? If you can find even a single irrefutable fact that is verifiable and would logically contribute to a god hypothesis that would at least be something to a skeptic reader. Maybe it would not help them unravel the entire story just as any single scientific writing may not, but any skeptic would surely at least take something worth considering from it and perhaps find motivation therein to continue unravelling the whole story.

So can you bring any such facts to the fore from all of your recommended materials for us to consider? Or are you just giving up and/or still insisting it is our responsibility to scour every apologist writing known to man until we find it ourselves?

It isn't that I, and skeptics like me, don't want to know and believe the truth. We do. That's why we are skeptics. But we need reason to believe it. If any apologist writing would offer such reason we would give it due consideration. But not everyone has time to stay current on all the latest attempts, particularly when they all tend to say the same basic things over and over. So at some point you trust other skeptics (whose reason you tend to agree with) to review them before even considering to read it yourself. And you also must posit that if any of them had anything worth considering in them there would be a lot more buzz about it everywhere...including among skeptics, scientists (who also tend to value truth), and the mainstream media (read: not the 700 Club or ultra-conservative bloggers and "news" outlets with their own agendas).

So here I am. You have an opportunity to reach me. You have the ears of every skeptic who reads this thread. If you have read these books and can present to me the worthy content that will give us motivation to reopen the case file of "God", why on earth would you back away from the task?

St. Matthew 7:6.

So let me get this all straight. You enter into my threads, what, expecting to find an easy convert?

So let me get this all straight. You enter into our forum, what, expecting to slay us with your plagerism?

Quote
And then for me who isn't won over by your sermonizing alone,

You haven't worked your way up to be the object of sermonzing yet. I've see nothing to indicate you came do anything but take pot shots, and then cry "I'm wounded" when the troops shoot back with better aim and superior weapons.

I haven't found your posts serious, and have responded accordingly. Prov. 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. Your self proclaimed skeptic friends see a contradiction in that with the preceeding verse, because they lack any sense of discernment.  Cutting and pasting indiscriminately from atheists and fundamentalists, you demonstrate that lack as well.

Quote
you whip out that old chestnut
An oldie but a goodie.  Stick to the tried and true.

Quote
and openly liken them to a sub-human creature?
If it walks like a duck....

Quote
Sounds like the perfect strategy for success to me!
Worked so far.

Since you are "seeking," do you also post your "hard questions" on the atheist fora you plagerize from? Or do you only troll on believing fora?
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 12:16:03 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #51 on: December 04, 2010, 12:39:51 PM »

And are you admitting there is no good verifiable evidence for the resurrection? Or are you sticking to the story that the burden is on every one of us to read poorly written apologetics over and over until our brains are so fried by circularism that we finally accept it ourselves?


If you're looking for logic, consider this: 11 out of the 12 Apostles went willingly to their death [martyrdom] after reportedly seeing Jesus rise from the grave. Why did they do that, if they knew he actually didn't? If they knew that they had made it up, why would they have died for a lie?
On the contrary - they all preached the faith, and except for one who died from other causes, they all chose death rather than deny Jesus's ressurection. That seems highly unlikely to me if it was all made up - at least one (heck, probably the majority) would've said "the jig is up" and spilled the beans. But that wasn't the case... why?

From what sources do we know these apostles were martyred?
Most of the Early Christian writings...

Any secular historians?

Would you say that someone who has faith cannot accurately do history?  That's not a snarky comment by the way! I'm curious about the relevance of a "secular" source.  Just because these historians were members of the Church does not mean they were officially sanctioned by the Church to do their work and achieve a desired result, you know?  

I can understand someone's gut reaction to rejecting the Scriptures, but to reject data because it was written by a Christian seems like an exorbitant amount of prejudice.  Do we reject the work of Jewish historians in regards to the Holocaust, simply because they have a vested interest or even bias?  On the contrary, it is because of that vested interest and bias that their works are so highly detailed and accurate.

I'm not accusing you of any of these things Ortho_cat!  I'm just thinking out loud here Smiley
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #52 on: December 04, 2010, 01:00:14 PM »

And are you admitting there is no good verifiable evidence for the resurrection? Or are you sticking to the story that the burden is on every one of us to read poorly written apologetics over and over until our brains are so fried by circularism that we finally accept it ourselves?


If you're looking for logic, consider this: 11 out of the 12 Apostles went willingly to their death [martyrdom] after reportedly seeing Jesus rise from the grave. Why did they do that, if they knew he actually didn't? If they knew that they had made it up, why would they have died for a lie?
On the contrary - they all preached the faith, and except for one who died from other causes, they all chose death rather than deny Jesus's ressurection. That seems highly unlikely to me if it was all made up - at least one (heck, probably the majority) would've said "the jig is up" and spilled the beans. But that wasn't the case... why?

From what sources do we know these apostles were martyred?
Most of the Early Christian writings...

Any secular historians?

Would you say that someone who has faith cannot accurately do history?  That's not a snarky comment by the way! I'm curious about the relevance of a "secular" source.  Just because these historians were members of the Church does not mean they were officially sanctioned by the Church to do their work and achieve a desired result, you know?  

I can understand someone's gut reaction to rejecting the Scriptures, but to reject data because it was written by a Christian seems like an exorbitant amount of prejudice.  Do we reject the work of Jewish historians in regards to the Holocaust, simply because they have a vested interest or even bias?  On the contrary, it is because of that vested interest and bias that their works are so highly detailed and accurate.

I'm not accusing you of any of these things Ortho_cat!  I'm just thinking out loud here Smiley
If the Christians were going to fudge the data, they would have edited out the part where all the disciples fled (not to mention all the times the Gospels tell us they didn't understand Christ and He had to upbraid them for their disbelief and ignorance) in Christ's hour of need, in particular the betrayal of St. Peter, the event which has the lion's share of the mentions of St. Peter in the NT, the most mentioned figure in the NT after Christ.

Nothing in the non-Christian sources (pagan/Jewish) contradict the Church on this.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 01:08:45 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,926



« Reply #53 on: December 04, 2010, 01:06:09 PM »

And are you admitting there is no good verifiable evidence for the resurrection? Or are you sticking to the story that the burden is on every one of us to read poorly written apologetics over and over until our brains are so fried by circularism that we finally accept it ourselves?


If you're looking for logic, consider this: 11 out of the 12 Apostles went willingly to their death [martyrdom] after reportedly seeing Jesus rise from the grave. Why did they do that, if they knew he actually didn't? If they knew that they had made it up, why would they have died for a lie?
On the contrary - they all preached the faith, and except for one who died from other causes, they all chose death rather than deny Jesus's ressurection. That seems highly unlikely to me if it was all made up - at least one (heck, probably the majority) would've said "the jig is up" and spilled the beans. But that wasn't the case... why?

From what sources do we know these apostles were martyred?
Most of the Early Christian writings...

Any secular historians?

Would you say that someone who has faith cannot accurately do history?  That's not a snarky comment by the way! I'm curious about the relevance of a "secular" source.  Just because these historians were members of the Church does not mean they were officially sanctioned by the Church to do their work and achieve a desired result, you know?  

I can understand someone's gut reaction to rejecting the Scriptures, but to reject data because it was written by a Christian seems like an exorbitant amount of prejudice.  Do we reject the work of Jewish historians in regards to the Holocaust, simply because they have a vested interest or even bias?  On the contrary, it is because of that vested interest and bias that their works are so highly detailed and accurate.

I'm not accusing you of any of these things Ortho_cat!  I'm just thinking out loud here Smiley

Not to mention that we cannot and should not hold our modern standards of "history" to the historians and accounts of the past. Even the Roman "Secular" Historians were very bias in their writings, so according to modern standards, their account would be inaccurate.

It is important to see the scriptures & the church fathers in their historical contexts. It is also important to analyze them Biblically. But as for movements like the "Jesus Seminar", they are frankly un-Christian and many of their conclusions are just as un-Christian. We don't believe the Bible is inerrant or infallible, but we certainly don't say that St. John was completely wrong in his account, and that only 1% of what Jesus says in the Bible is actually what he said.

Again, we must be careful about this "Quest for the Historical Jesus", as it has led many away from Christianity because it seeks to discount Christ's Church, the Apostles and even Christ himself. (that is, lowering him to simply just another human)
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #54 on: December 04, 2010, 01:10:54 PM »

And are you admitting there is no good verifiable evidence for the resurrection? Or are you sticking to the story that the burden is on every one of us to read poorly written apologetics over and over until our brains are so fried by circularism that we finally accept it ourselves?


If you're looking for logic, consider this: 11 out of the 12 Apostles went willingly to their death [martyrdom] after reportedly seeing Jesus rise from the grave. Why did they do that, if they knew he actually didn't? If they knew that they had made it up, why would they have died for a lie?
On the contrary - they all preached the faith, and except for one who died from other causes, they all chose death rather than deny Jesus's ressurection. That seems highly unlikely to me if it was all made up - at least one (heck, probably the majority) would've said "the jig is up" and spilled the beans. But that wasn't the case... why?

From what sources do we know these apostles were martyred?
Most of the Early Christian writings...

Any secular historians?

Would you say that someone who has faith cannot accurately do history?  That's not a snarky comment by the way! I'm curious about the relevance of a "secular" source.  Just because these historians were members of the Church does not mean they were officially sanctioned by the Church to do their work and achieve a desired result, you know?  

I can understand someone's gut reaction to rejecting the Scriptures, but to reject data because it was written by a Christian seems like an exorbitant amount of prejudice.  Do we reject the work of Jewish historians in regards to the Holocaust, simply because they have a vested interest or even bias?  On the contrary, it is because of that vested interest and bias that their works are so highly detailed and accurate.

I'm not accusing you of any of these things Ortho_cat!  I'm just thinking out loud here Smiley

Not to mention that we cannot and should not hold our modern standards of "history" to the historians and accounts of the past. Even the Roman "Secular" Historians were very bias in their writings, so according to modern standards, their account would be inaccurate.

It is important to see the scriptures & the church fathers in their historical contexts. It is also important to analyze them Biblically. But as for movements like the "Jesus Seminar", they are frankly un-Christian and many of their conclusions are just as un-Christian. We don't believe the Bible is inerrant or infallible, but we certainly don't say that St. John was completely wrong in his account, and that only 1% of what Jesus says in the Bible is actually what he said.

Again, we must be careful about this "Quest for the Historical Jesus", as it has led many away from Christianity because it seeks to discount Christ's Church, the Apostles and even Christ himself. (that is, lowering him to simply just another human)
As for the Historical Jesus, just applying the same standards that are applied to examining the history of any person of the period (Augustus, Tiberius, Josephus, Pliny etc.), the historical accuracy of the Church on Christ and the Apostles withstand scrutiny.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #55 on: December 04, 2010, 01:14:44 PM »

As one who has been where TryingtoConvert is now, and not that long ago, let me just point out that no apologetics works currently in existence will convince a person at that level of skepticism.  For every popular apologist you cite (Strobel, Lewis, etc.) there are tons of documents online refuting their arguments in exquisite detail.

For me it wasn't argumentation or apologetics that brought me back to faith - in fact, those things just put me on the defensive and drove me further away.

No, for me it was time, and circumstances in my own life, which I believe God used to draw me back to Him.  God doesn't spend a whole lot of time and energy arguing apologetics. He just loves. Smiley
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
TryingtoConvert
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Disbelief in your belief
Jurisdiction: All in your mind
Posts: 384



« Reply #56 on: December 04, 2010, 01:41:16 PM »

Let me quote Sleeper's long post on the Resurrection, of course what I said earlier was tongue and cheek..
Notes, Disclaimers & Things to Remember
-  It’s not about proof but about what the reasonable, logical and likely conclusion is.
See, this is why I can't take you seriously.
When you're trying to present something as fact, it's all about proof. Otherwise it's just BS.

"Alright your honor. I will prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that my client is innocent. But understand when looking at the evidence that I don't really have, and the "witnesses" that weren't even there, It’s not about proof but about what the reasonable, logical and likely conclusion is."



Post edited to replace forbidden profanity with something more acceptable...  -PtA
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 02:16:05 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,092


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #57 on: December 04, 2010, 02:14:04 PM »

Let me quote Sleeper's long post on the Resurrection, of course what I said earlier was tongue and cheek..
Notes, Disclaimers & Things to Remember
-  It’s not about proof but about what the reasonable, logical and likely conclusion is.
See, this is why I can't take you seriously.
When you're trying to present something as fact, it's all about proof. Otherwise it's just BS.

"Alright your honor. I will prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that my client is innocent. But understand when looking at the evidence that I don't really have, and the "witnesses" that weren't even there, It’s not about proof but about what the reasonable, logical and likely conclusion is."

LOL...Your knowledge of Jurisprudence is equal to your understanding of Christianity. Not good.

The standard for guilt or innocence  is not "Beyond a shadow of a doubt".. it is "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"

The case for the claims of Christianity are well beyond reasonable with considerable evidence both circumstantial and direct.
We don't have photos but the evidence is strong enough to convince an ordinarily prudent and reasonable person.

Youre just playing around to make yourself feel good about your life decisions... Grow up



Text in quote box edited to replace forbidden profanity with something more acceptable...  -PtA
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 02:17:30 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #58 on: December 04, 2010, 02:22:15 PM »

Let me quote Sleeper's long post on the Resurrection, of course what I said earlier was tongue and cheek..
Notes, Disclaimers & Things to Remember
-  It’s not about proof but about what the reasonable, logical and likely conclusion is.
See, this is why I can't take you seriously.
When you're trying to present something as fact, it's all about proof. Otherwise it's just bullshit.

"Alright your honor. I will prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that my client is innocent. But understand when looking at the evidence that I don't really have, and the "witnesses" that weren't even there, It’s not about proof but about what the reasonable, logical and likely conclusion is."

Talk about BS:You are trying to retry a case tried nearly two millenia ago. A little past the statute of limitations.

I Cor.  15:3 Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Don't know what witnesses that weren't even there you are talking about.

Let's give you an event of comparable antiquity and comparable (in worldly terms) as to the Resurrection of Christ: Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon.  Tell us, how would you prove that event happened?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #59 on: December 04, 2010, 04:26:28 PM »

Let me quote Sleeper's long post on the Resurrection, of course what I said earlier was tongue and cheek..
Notes, Disclaimers & Things to Remember
-  It’s not about proof but about what the reasonable, logical and likely conclusion is.
See, this is why I can't take you seriously.
When you're trying to present something as fact, it's all about proof. Otherwise it's just BS.

"Alright your honor. I will prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that my client is innocent. But understand when looking at the evidence that I don't really have, and the "witnesses" that weren't even there, It’s not about proof but about what the reasonable, logical and likely conclusion is."

Therein lies the rub.  At no point did I claim to be presenting the Resurrection as a fact.  In fact, you just quoted where I said that!  What I presented was an argument based on solid historical evidence (evidence of the highest caliber in fact) that leaves one pining for a better explanation than the Resurrection.

You can't take me seriously, yet your reply to my post was that you "got nothing" and had no other conclusion than that Christ rose from the dead.  That lasted until, what, you went scurrying back to a "skeptic" website where they could finally tell you what to think?

Do your own research TryingtoConvert.  Be a man about it.  Draw your own conclusions.  Think for yourself...
Logged
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #60 on: December 04, 2010, 05:34:47 PM »

I might suggest something about history (that I saw on a great vid) that we don't need to be absolutely certain in the realm of history when it comes to anything, as history is mostly defined by probobablies (as ones historical theory could be proved wrong in the future), but this is like science as well I think, which constantly changes and evolves with better theories as to what happened, and thus the scientist says Its most probably right, not definetly. Just in case you foun. Rather history needs to be sufficient not definite. And I think there is sufficient evidence and more for the ressurection.
Logged
TryingtoConvert
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Disbelief in your belief
Jurisdiction: All in your mind
Posts: 384



« Reply #61 on: December 04, 2010, 10:15:02 PM »

EDIT: Alright Sleeper let me debunk your "Simple Facts" approach. I look forward to seeing what you have to counter my argument

Moving on to the real discussion, I am going to redirect your attention to your own words in this thread yet again to clarify the current state of the discussion:

Quote from: Sleeper
He then supported these assertions with verifiable historical data without appealing to Church authority or the inspiration of the New Testament.

Did you miss the part where I said there is verifiable historical data that does not appeal to the Church or the New Testament?
I am going to examine your post in search of such verifiable data/evidence, which is what I requested you to reveal to me, and see what I find.  Feel free to highlight anything I may have missed.

Fact One:  Jesus died by crucifixion.

A fact that Jesus existed and was crucified would have nothing to do with the plausibility of his resurrection.   Such a fact would be irrelevant to your original claim in question.

Fact Two:  Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them.

First of all, as you surely know, evidence of belief is not equivalent to evidence of evidence supporting said belief.
Remembering that we are looking for verifiable historical data that does not appeal to Church authority of the New Testament, your “9 sources" are all irrelevant to your claim in question.  

As a side note, I did not count 9 among those you mentioned.  I count Paul, Clement, Polycarp, “Matthew", “John",  and Luke = 6.  I encapsulate two in quotes because I suspect you would contend these gospels were written in their entirety directly by the original disciples themselves (making them perhaps the most important), while in reality all points of that claim are quite open for debate.  The “creed" (or hymn as I’ve heard it called) from 1 Corinthians was recorded by Paul, making him the only actual known source as far as your argument here goes.  I also find it suspicious you would consider a brief “hymn/creed" that had only been alive perhaps 20-30 years (as it refers to Christ’s death in the past tense, describes follow-up events, and as 1 Corinthians was dated in the mid 50’s) to have lived long enough to be referred to as “oral tradition" or particularly “ancient" at the time as you call it in Fact Four.  You seem to be puffing it up to be far more important to the argument than it actually is just so you can add 1 to the small count of sources.  I will say more on this creed later after I have addressed the rest of your post.  I do not count Mark’s gospel because it makes no claims (that I am aware of) about who had visionary experiences.  If I did count Mark and the creed, I would arrive at 8.  What was the 9th?

In your attempt to provide me with historical data in support of “Fact Two" that does not appeal to Church authority or the New Testament, you’ve given me the words of some Church fathers and the New Testament.  Is this correct, or did I miss something?

If you would call these 6/9 sources “independent", your definition of independence is a far cry from what most reasonable people would accept.  You are talking about a small group of contemporaries in direct contact with one another, who derived a common belief system from one another and shared common motivations—or subsequent students of these whose own writings are merely derivative.

Now, say I grant that there was in fact a group of people, including the disciples and Paul, who truly believed they had witnessed evidence of Christ’s resurrection (be his appearance physical, spiritual, or a little of both).  I suppose I have no problem granting that so that I can continue reading your thoughts about “Fact Two".   You really didn’t have to work so hard to convince me of that possibility.

I wonder, have you ever heard of Hopkinsville Goblins Case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly-Hopkinsville_encounter)?  Here we have multiple witnesses who truly believed they had an otherworldly experience, and we even have a daughter of a primary witness testifying 55 years later just how much her father truly believed his interpretation of what he had experienced (comparable weight to that of any Clement/Polycarp testimony about Apostle/Paul beliefs).  What do you make of that?

Quote from: Sleeper
Modern martyrs act solely out of their trust in beliefs that others have taught them. The Apostles on the other hand, died for holding to their own testimony that they had personally seen the risen Jesus. Contemporary martyrs die for what they believe to be true. The Apostles died for what they knew to be true, from their own experience (whether true or false).
You emphasize a distinction between "believe" and "knew" in these two final statements.  I contend there is none here and you are just playing with words to assign more importance to Apostle martyrdom (which itself is uncertain, historically, but let's put that aside).  Please define these two terms so I can understand your distinction; as I see it now there is none.

You gave two examples involving suicide (Muslim, Buddhist) in reference to non-Christian martyrs.  Committing suicide is altogether different from falling victim to homicide in this line of discussion.  Did any Apostles or early Christians literally commit suicide in support of their cause?  I take it you further consider your two examples as differing from Apostle martyrdom because they both lack first-hand experiences backing up their beliefs (how do you know that?).  Along the lines of suicide I might propose a more apt example that may have been based on some degree of first-hand experience.  That example would be Marshall Applewhite of Heaven’s Gate infamy.  But I won't seriously consider this case because the jury seems out on whether his beliefs first formed as the result of a near-death experience resulting from a heart attack, or due to some degree of insanity.  And yet, this example serves to suggest at least one alternative way in which a person can come to believe something strongly enough to die for it--insanity.

I am actually much more interested in how you would distinguish the martyrdom (as held by LDS) of Joseph Smith from that of Paul or Peter.  So if you could address this it would be appreciated.

Last on this subject, quite normal people die willingly for principle all the time.  Principle.  Belief.  Knowledge.  Closely related, if not identical, concepts.  That’s why I am interested in your definition of “believe" and “knew", that distinguishes them as distinctly separate reasons for assuming a risk of death.

Quote from: Sleeper
Since the original disciples were making the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, his resurrection was not the result of myth making. His life story was not embellished over time if the facts can be traced to the original witnesses, which we have seen is historically believed to be the case.
You've made a gigantic leap here.  You’ve asked me to go from accepting that a bunch of people truly believed they all had a similar experience of some kind, to accepting that the supporting story surrounding that belief which has survived until today did not evolve over time.  The latter does not follow from anything you’ve said thus far, that I can see.  Can you clarify the logical progression here?

In summary, Fact Two appears irrelevant to your claim in question, and is also irrelevant as far as legitimate evidence for a “miraculous"/"supernatural" occurrence.  Nevertheless I have posed some questions for you, since you wrote the most about Fact Two.

Fact Three:  The church persecutor Saul of Tarsus was suddenly changed.

As evidence for Paul’s experience, you’ve again referenced exclusively Church fathers and the New Testament.  Thus Fact Three appears irrelevant to the claim in question.

Nevertheless, not to leave Fact Three echoing around completely uncontested, one can fathom many reason a person might have a change of heart.  And when one does, what better way to gain acceptance among the old enemy than to become convinced one has had a relevant vision from God of one’s own?

Fact Four:  The skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed.

This fact and the evidence supporting it are no different in nature from Fact Two.  I will spare you from me repeating myself here.

Fact Five:  The tomb was empty.

I can’t help but chuckle a little here.  You lay out the definition of the “minimal facts" approach, and then apparently you conclude that 4 (3 actually, since I contend #4=#2) “facts" are maybe a little too minimal so you try to throw in a 5th one while openly admitting it doesn’t even meet the approach.  For this, I am perhaps a lunatic to even respond to it, but I will.

You say the empty tomb is attested not only by Christian sources.  Such as?  The only things you list are Christian sources.  You’ve got a couple of New Testament references, you’ve got a Church father, and you’ve got an early apologist.  As you’ve again given me nothing outside of appeals to Church authority and the New Testament, Fact Five would also appear irrelevant to the original claim in question.

What is the reasonable evidence William Wand refers to?  Why did you leave that out and only supply the two things you claimed you would not need to appeal to?

What does the existence of an empty tomb actually prove to anyone, anyway?  

Furthermore I’ll tell you one good reason to attribute the claim of its mystical emptiness to women—contemporaries opposing the claim might easily shrug it off and say “ah, well, who can trust a woman?" rather than summon & enact hostility toward an actual claimant (or the hostility would be redirected safely upon an imaginary or inconsequential scapegoat).

Conclusion

You have presented no evidence for Jesus’ resurrection except that which appeals to Church authority and the New Testament.  Feel free to try again, or, if you like, revoke the original claim in question.

Miscellaneous

Some other thoughts raised by your post…

Regarding the "creed" to which you referred, let me summarize something I’ve read lately:

Quote from: 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (NAS)
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
buried -- Greek word "etaphe", meaning "burial". Not "tomb" (mnema), not "sepulchre" (mnemeion).

raised -- Greek word "egeiro, egergetai" - meaning "to wake up, awaken".  Not "resurrected" (anastasis, anistemi).  Egeiro is used throughout the New Testament; when not being used in the literal sense it refers instead to a metaphorical, spiritual awakening, not bodily resurrection.  Romans 13:11.  Ephesians 5:14.  

appeared -- Greek word "ophthe".  Paul & other New Testament writers use this word elsewhere when referring to non-physical appearances, or "visions".  Acts 9:12.  Acts 16:9.  Matthew 17:3.  Paul continues using "ophthe" in 1 Corinthians 15:6-8, finally referring to his own vision which we know was non-physical because nobody with him saw anything.

This early creed of the church thus makes no apparent explicit mention of a tomb or of physical resurrection.  When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, held to be the earliest of the New Testament writings, why would he avoid explicitly mentioning these aspects of the story?  Could it be that the story had not yet developed?

My source on the above is a debate between Michael Horner and Dan Barker (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/barker_horner.html).  Related topics of course include redaction criticism.

Regarding something you quoted of Clement:

Quote from: Clement
Therefore, having received orders and complete certainty caused by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and believing in the Word of God, they went with the Holy Spirit’s certainty, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God is about to come.
What do you suppose he meant by "about"?  That was roughly 2,000 years ago.  Many Christians would have me believe the world is 6,000 years old.  At a point on that timeline of 4,000 years, Clement says "about to come".  Yet here we all still are, halfway through another period of similar size to what Clement may well have regarded as the entirety of human history.  Would Clement consider a period of length equal to or exceeding half the entire period of human existence as being so near on the horizon as to be described by the phrase "about to come"?
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 10:21:05 PM by TryingtoConvert » Logged
TryingtoConvert
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Disbelief in your belief
Jurisdiction: All in your mind
Posts: 384



« Reply #62 on: December 04, 2010, 10:31:16 PM »

Also Sleeper I do not appreciate you throwing potshots at me.
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #63 on: December 04, 2010, 10:51:15 PM »

TtC, you present some seemingly unassailable arguments.  Obviously no one here is going to be able to tell you anything you don't already knowm or can't find for yourself over at IIDB.

So why are you here?  I find it hard to believe you're seriously interested in converting to Christianity - seems more like you're trying to convert others *away* from it.

Which is fine - just be honest about it. (And if you were, and I missed your statement thus, my apologies.) Smiley
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
TryingtoConvert
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Disbelief in your belief
Jurisdiction: All in your mind
Posts: 384



« Reply #64 on: December 04, 2010, 10:56:29 PM »

Both actually. Christianity is fascinating, but in order for me to convert to the claims made by the faith I must throw at it all that I know.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,926



« Reply #65 on: December 04, 2010, 11:02:14 PM »

Both actually. Christianity is fascinating, but in order for me to convert to the claims made by the faith I must throw at it all that I know.
But the thing is, faith isn't something you prove. You can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that matters of faith are absolutely true. That is what makes it faith. Reason and logic are definitely important, but they are secondary to faith.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #66 on: December 04, 2010, 11:30:09 PM »

Both actually. Christianity is fascinating, but in order for me to convert to the claims made by the faith I must throw at it all that I know.
Conversion does not merely consist in accepting a new set of claims.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #67 on: December 04, 2010, 11:32:02 PM »

Both actually. Christianity is fascinating, but in order for me to convert to the claims made by the faith I must throw at it all that I know.
Thank you! Now we know what your intentions are. I really have a new found respect for you TtC. Peace be with you. And hopefully others will be more friendly with you as well. I hope you find what you are looking for.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,073


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #68 on: December 04, 2010, 11:50:45 PM »

Quote from: theistgal
For me it wasn't argumentation or apologetics that brought me back to faith - in fact, those things just put me on the defensive and drove me further away.

No, for me it was time, and circumstances in my own life, which I believe God used to draw me back to Him.  God doesn't spend a whole lot of time and energy arguing apologetics. He just loves. Smiley

True. For me, what brought me back was prayer. I experienced it. I also missed the majesty of the Gospels-- there's really something there, something was pulling me back. Going through the Holy Week services is something that has to be done to know what it is. You can't hear a painting, you can't taste a smell. Asking to 'show' a faith the same way I might draw directions to my house, isn't going to pan out.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #69 on: December 05, 2010, 12:06:34 AM »

Trying to Convert, what is your first language? You have a very unusual communication style.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #70 on: December 05, 2010, 01:48:35 AM »

EDIT: Alright Sleeper let me debunk your "Simple Facts" approach. I look forward to seeing what you have to counter my argument

Moving on to the real discussion, I am going to redirect your attention to your own words in this thread yet again to clarify the current state of the discussion:

Quote from: Sleeper
He then supported these assertions with verifiable historical data without appealing to Church authority or the inspiration of the New Testament.

Did you miss the part where I said there is verifiable historical data that does not appeal to the Church or the New Testament?
I am going to examine your post in search of such verifiable data/evidence, which is what I requested you to reveal to me, and see what I find.  Feel free to highlight anything I may have missed.

Fact One:  Jesus died by crucifixion.

A fact that Jesus existed and was crucified would have nothing to do with the plausibility of his resurrection.   Such a fact would be irrelevant to your original claim in question.

I mention this because there are some that claim Jesus either never existed, or that he didn't actually die.

Fact Two:  Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them.

Quote
First of all, as you surely know, evidence of belief is not equivalent to evidence of evidence supporting said belief.
Remembering that we are looking for verifiable historical data that does not appeal to Church authority of the New Testament, your “9 sources" are all irrelevant to your claim in question.  

I'm not appealing to their belief as if it's evidence that it happened.  That would be rightly scoffed at.  I'm simply saying we have people who genuinely believed their experience to be real.  This plays in later...

Quote
The “creed" (or hymn as I’ve heard it called) from 1 Corinthians was recorded by Paul, making him the only actual known source as far as your argument here goes.

Actually, it is known to be a hymn/creed precisely because it is not Pauline in its source.  Did you even read what I wrote???

Quote
In your attempt to provide me with historical data in support of “Fact Two" that does not appeal to Church authority or the New Testament, you’ve given me the words of some Church fathers and the New Testament.  Is this correct, or did I miss something?

Actually, I did not at any point say I wouldn't appeal to the New Testament but that I would be treating the New Testament as any other historical work from antiquity, granting only those passages that the vast majority of scholars would classify as "historically reliable."  I'm not appealing to the authority of the Church nor to the New Testament as an inspired or somehow "special" document.

I think I'm the one who's missing something...

Quote
If you would call these 6/9 sources “independent", your definition of independence is a far cry from what most reasonable people would accept.  You are talking about a small group of contemporaries in direct contact with one another, who derived a common belief system from one another and shared common motivations—or subsequent students of these whose own writings are merely derivative.

If you'd care to back this assertion up, that would be nice.

Quote
I wonder, have you ever heard of Hopkinsville Goblins Case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly-Hopkinsville_encounter)?  Here we have multiple witnesses who truly believed they had an otherworldly experience, and we even have a daughter of a primary witness testifying 55 years later just how much her father truly believed his interpretation of what he had experienced (comparable weight to that of any Clement/Polycarp testimony about Apostle/Paul beliefs).  What do you make of that?

I'm not familiar with it, no.  Do I need to make anything of it?  I try to take things on a case by case basis, so I'm not sure what relevance this would have to the Resurrection...

At any rate, my logic was missed by you somehow, because again, you're asserting I claimed something that I didn't claim.  I'm not saying we should believe the Resurrection because these people said they had experiences.

Quote
You emphasize a distinction between "believe" and "knew" in these two final statements.  I contend there is none here and you are just playing with words to assign more importance to Apostle martyrdom (which itself is uncertain, historically, but let's put that aside).  Please define these two terms so I can understand your distinction; as I see it now there is none.

Again, you're missing my logic.  I'm not demonstrating their belief for the reasons you think I am.  Please, go back and read it again.

Quote
I am actually much more interested in how you would distinguish the martyrdom (as held by LDS) of Joseph Smith from that of Paul or Peter.  So if you could address this it would be appreciated.

I've never researched the martyrdom of Joseph Smith.  I'm not interested in it, so I don't think I ever will.  It's pretty much irrelevant to the Resurrection.  At any rate, I'm guessing the same logic would apply though.  There is a difference between dying for something you believe and dying for something you know, even if it's true or not.  I can die for my belief that the world will end tomorrow.  That is not the same as dying because I saw the risen Christ.

Quote
Quote from: Sleeper
Since the original disciples were making the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, his resurrection was not the result of myth making. His life story was not embellished over time if the facts can be traced to the original witnesses, which we have seen is historically believed to be the case.
You've made a gigantic leap here.  You’ve asked me to go from accepting that a bunch of people truly believed they all had a similar experience of some kind, to accepting that the supporting story surrounding that belief which has survived until today did not evolve over time.  The latter does not follow from anything you’ve said thus far, that I can see.  Can you clarify the logical progression here?

I'm not speaking of the time that has lapsed from then until now.  I'm speaking of the time that had lapsed from Jesus death/Resurrection to the time the Apostles made the claims.  If you're implying that it's the claims of the Apostles themselves that have evolved over time, then I'd just have to hope you're comfortable going against the vast majority of scholarship on the subject.  Again, I'm only allowing those pieces of data that have very wide support as historically authentic.

Quote
Fact Three:  The church persecutor Saul of Tarsus was suddenly changed.

As evidence for Paul’s experience, you’ve again referenced exclusively Church fathers and the New Testament.  Thus Fact Three appears irrelevant to the claim in question.

I don't dispute this.  I have no problem using these sources as they are historically authentic pieces of data.  You have no grounds to dispute them simply because they were believers and besides, that's not the reason I'm appealing to them anyway.  Again, my logic is lost on you for some reason.

Quote
As you’ve again given me nothing outside of appeals to Church authority and the New Testament, Fact Five would also appear irrelevant to the original claim in question.

*sigh* I'm beginning to wonder if you read my post at all.  How in the world is quoting the New Testament or a Church Father an "appeal to Church authority"?  I'm not asking you to consider them because of their source.  I'm asking you to consider them because a great deal of historical inquiry and research has been put into these sources and I'm only using that which finds a vast amount of support amongst historians.

In other words, what you're trying to do here is say, "Hey! You can't use that because I don't believe in the New Testament and the Church's authority means nothing to me!"  And what I'm saying here is that you could go talk about these sources to the scholars who specialize in them and you'd basically get laughed at because their own research has overwhelmingly concluded that the information is historically authentic and reliable.  If that means nothing to you then of course my line of reasoning isn't going to work.  But you'd have bigger problems than that...

Quote
What does the existence of an empty tomb actually prove to anyone, anyway?

Nothing on its own.  It's part of a cumulative case.

Quote
You have presented no evidence for Jesus’ resurrection except that which appeals to Church authority and the New Testament.  Feel free to try again, or, if you like, revoke the original claim in question.

I'd actually like to ask you to try again because you so obviously did not follow my line of reasoning.  How in the world you could finish reading that and think that I appealed to Church authority in any way, completely baffles me.  But I also can't say I'm surprised. 

As for your "miscellaneous" thoughts, if you were in any way actually interested in this topic, I'd refer you to the painstakingly researched "The Resurrection of the Son of God" by N.T. Wright.  If you had any doubts that a literal, bodily resurrection was indeed the exact and only thing claimed by these people, they would be completely obliterated.

Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #71 on: December 05, 2010, 02:34:06 AM »

But then TtC will just cut and paste an article from IIDB or one of the other skeptic sites refuting Wright's arguments.

Trust me, I used to be a moderator at IIDB, I know how this stuff works. Smiley
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #72 on: December 05, 2010, 02:53:02 AM »

I would like to know why the New testament is an unrealiable source as well as the church fathers... Are we to dismiss everything they say for simply believing and making claims? is this what historians do? I think not.
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #73 on: December 05, 2010, 11:39:30 AM »

Well, let me try and help you see it from TtC's point of view.  Imagine a world where Mormonism is the dominant world religion.  And you are trying to investigate its claims.  Would you be content if the only sources you could find were practicing Mormons?
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,092


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #74 on: December 05, 2010, 04:04:05 PM »

Both actually. Christianity is fascinating, but in order for me to convert to the claims made by the faith I must throw at it all that I know.
Conversion does not merely consist in accepting a new set of claims.

Right. The main event is participation in the mysteries of the Church and the transformation of your soul.  It's not an intellectual exercise.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
TryingtoConvert
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Disbelief in your belief
Jurisdiction: All in your mind
Posts: 384



« Reply #75 on: December 05, 2010, 08:03:59 PM »

Sleeper, I truly appreciate you following up with me. Of course the Resurrection is a very important topic to discuss, anyway onwards...
Actually, it is known to be a hymn/creed precisely because it is not Pauline in its source.  Did you even read what I wrote???
I spent a considerable part of yesterday reading every last word of what you wrote, and more than just that, I performed occasional background research along the way to help verify/understand your words before replying.

As far as whether your creed should be considered a source, it really seems irrelevant to the current discussion we are having (which you've already redefined, and I'll get to that momentarily). That is why I discussed it in a paragraph labeled "a side note", so at this point let's avoid a debate on the acceptance of oral tradition as a source via the historical method. You'll note I did say:

Quote
If I did count Mark and the creed, I would arrive at 8. What was the 9th?

I see no answer to this question. You seem very disinterested in clarifying your response to me.

Quote
Actually, I did not at any point say I wouldn't appeal to the New Testament...
Actually, at one point, which I quoted already, you did:

Quote
Did you miss the part where I said there is verifiable historical data that does not appeal to the Church or the New Testament?

It was at this point that I said:

Quote
Are you saying that the Bible is entirely absent from the argument? If this is true then let's hear your "verifiable historical data".
You ignored this question, while I continued to make it clear in my posts that I was personally interested in hearing the data you have found in all of your studies that does not appeal to either:

Quote
Here in this very thread he has just recently claimed that he found concrete, verifiable evidence that stands on its own outside of the Bible and of Church authority, but refuses to even give us a single such example.
...
You are the very one who himself just said in this very thread that there is verifiable, extra-Biblical evidence in support of the resurrection. I have said a couple of times now that if you presented any examples that held water you might gain some traction.
The reason I want to hear this kind of evidence is because it would stand apart from the usual arguments that ultimately rely on the New Testament as a non-fiction, fully verified source. Remember what I originally said in the first place? For starters, you will ultimately rely on a non-verifiable interpretation of scripture to justify your interpretation of scripture.

Quote
...but that I would be treating the New Testament as any other historical work from antiquity, granting only those passages that the vast majority of scholars would classify as "historically reliable." I'm not appealing to the authority of the Church nor to the New Testament as an inspired or somehow "special" document.

I think I'm the one who's missing something...
First, if any of your evidence relies in ANY way, uninspired, non-special, or otherwise, on the New Testament then (per all the above) you are not addressing my actual request.

Apparently you either didn't understand my real request, or you thought I wouldn't notice if you went ahead and redefined the discussion (moved the goal posts).

Nevertheless, moving on... Whenever you cite the New Testament as evidence for anything, you are necessarily regarding the cited portions as fact. So you do ascribe "specialness" to it -- the quality of being non-fiction. So when you tell me that these claims only require that I regard the Bible as a work of ancient literature, you are being disingenuous. These claims require that I regard the portions highlighted as being wholly factual.

Quote
If you'd care to back this assertion up, that would be nice.
Back what up, everything you already laid out for me yourself? Sure, why not? To whom do you turn in asking me to accept the relevant parts of scripture as fact?

1) Paul - An author of that very scripture! An eyewitness of his own visionary claim (which he curiously never bothered to describe in any detail himself), but only an indirect witness of the visions of the rest. "I saw a UFO, these other pals of mine say they did too!"
2) An oral creed - Taken from that very scripture (or do you have other record of it?)! Recorded by Paul! And what would it's ultimate source have been...the very pals Paul refers to!
3-6) Authors of Gospels - More authors of that very scripture! Who the majority of scholars today agree were not themselves the original eyewitnesses! More indirect reports of what Paul's pals believed!
7) Clement - More indirect reports of what the original eyewitnesses believed! From a guy who was allegedly ordained by one of them to propagate their beliefs!
Cool Polycarp - Again with the indirect reports of what the original eyewitnesses believed! From another guy who, according to Irenaeus, was ordained by one of them to propagate their beliefs!

So you have one eyewitness, Paul, with his own agenda, who never even recorded the details of his experience firsthand. The only other ultimate source hiding behind the rest is the same group of original eyewitnesses whose own records of their accounts remain suspiciously absent from the New Testament. The rest are just people saying "uh huh, yep, I talked to them, they sure believed they saw somethin'!"

And yet you insist these are all "independent sources". Sources of what, repetition of hearsay? In that case, who cares?

And so, by these sources you ask me to accept that "they sure believed they saw somethin'!" Great, I can imagine that, now what? What they believed they saw, an actual description of it in their words, and when and in what order they saw it, is pretty important in my opinion, but you sweep all that under the rug and say it's not.

All you think is important is that they thought they saw something and later endured strife because of it, which you claim means that their interpretation of what they saw must be so entirely true (yet we have none of them, save Paul, even giving us their interpretation directly) that we must call it "knowledge" and not "belief".

Quote
I'm not familiar with it, no. Do I need to make anything of it? I try to take things on a case by case basis, so I'm not sure what relevance this would have to the Resurrection...
The reason I wonder what you make of the Hopkinsville Goblins Case is that it is a more contemporary example of a situation which I immediately recalled as being similar to your Fact Two situation:

Similarities to the Resurrection story:
- Multiple eyewitnesses to an event they could only describe as otherworldly.
- Secondary sources (indirect witnesses) attesting to the fact that the eyewitnesses truly believed what they saw.

Differences from the Resurrection story:
- The original eyewitnesses have actually provided, in their own words, descriptions of what they saw.

From what I have read, there seems to be as much (actually, more) reason to believe they saw what they claimed than to believe what the disciples and Paul saw what they claimed. There seems to be far better definition of what it was they claimed to have seen. They certainly seem to have endured strife (but admittedly not death) for claiming it, yet continued to claim it. They seem to have "known it to be true".

I suppose I wonder, would you consider this "fact" equally as meaningful as your "Fact Two", or do you require death over belief for said belief to achieve apparent/relevant truthfulness? And, I wonder, if you did know about it, what you might offer as counterpoint against its truthfulness because then I might be able to better understand why you would place the disciple/Paul claims at a higher level of truthfulness. If you have no interest in reading about it I suppose these wonders will remain wonders.

Quote
At any rate, my logic was missed by you somehow, because again, you're asserting I claimed something that I didn't claim. I'm not saying we should believe the Resurrection because these people said they had experiences.

Again, you're missing my logic. I'm not demonstrating their belief for the reasons you think I am. Please, go back and read it again.
I did read it. And I read it again just now. Allow me to expand my previous quotation of your post:
Quote
Extreme acts do not validate the truth of their beliefs, but willingness to die indicates that they regard their beliefs as true. But there is an important difference between people like this and the Apostles. Modern martyrs act solely out of their trust in beliefs that others have taught them. The Apostles on the other hand, died for holding to their own testimony that they had personally seen the risen Jesus. Contemporary martyrs die for what they believe to be true. The Apostles died for what they knew to be true, from their own experience (whether true or false).
This seems to be what you spend the majority of Fact Two building up to! A distinction between strife resulting from belief in first-hand experience, and strife resulting from belief in in what others have said. You quite clearly imply this assigns additional truth to their beliefs (and yet you curiously continue to grant that what it was they experienced first-hand is vaguely defined and up for questioning).

If this is not the reason you think that granting their belief is an important, relevant fact, then what is the reason? I need clarification because I can't find it.

Quote
I've never researched the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. I'm not interested in it, so I don't think I ever will. It's pretty much irrelevant to the Resurrection. At any rate, I'm guessing the same logic would apply though. There is a difference between dying for something you believe and dying for something you know, even if it's true or not. I can die for my belief that the world will end tomorrow. That is not the same as dying because I saw the risen Christ.
It is not irrelevant to your argument for the resurrection by any means. Are you at least aware that Joseph Smith claimed to have had first-hand, visionary, God-driven experiences on which his beliefs were founded? And that he endured much strife and was allegedly killed for adhering unflinchingly to those beliefs, according to the LDS church? If I replaced "Joseph Smith" with "Paul", and "LDS church" with "Orthodox church" in the above, there would be no difference. But yet I imagine you would tell me there is a difference because clearly you do not believe Smith's claims to be true while you do believe Paul's to be true. I'd like to know, for the record, what that difference is as you see it -- to help me understand the distinction you are trying to make between different types of martyrs.

Quote
I'm not speaking of the time that has lapsed from then until now.
Neither am I.

Quote
I'm speaking of the time that had lapsed from Jesus death/Resurrection to the time the Apostles made the claims.
I'm speaking of the time that lapsed from Jesus's death/resurrection to the time any pieces of it were recorded and accepted into the New Testament.

Quote
If you're implying that it's the claims of the Apostles themselves that have evolved over time, then I'd just have to hope you're comfortable going against the vast majority of scholarship on the subject. Again, I'm only allowing those pieces of data that have very wide support as historically authentic.
From what I have read, there is no wide scholarly support today, if you are truly including all biblical scholars, for the idea that the twelve apostles, or any of the others to experience visions before Paul, actually recorded their visions themselves (moreover, Paul never personally detailed the nature of his vision). Did Habermas claim as much? So I am implying that by the time anybody got around to writing it down (20...50...70...however many years later) there had been ample time for evolution of the supporting story--any amount of modification to the who/what/when/where of these visions could have occurred. You've shown no data nor logical thought process which opposes that proposition, that I can find. If you contend that you have you are going to have to clarify it for me.

Quote
How in the world is quoting the New Testament or a Church Father an "appeal to Church authority"? I'm not asking you to consider them because of their source. I'm asking you to consider them because a great deal of historical inquiry and research has been put into these sources and I'm only using that which finds a vast amount of support amongst historians.
When you cite the New Testament, you unavoidably ask me to accept some interpretation of the citation to be correct. The interpretation, and especially in these cases where you are counting up "independent sources", requires consideration of authorship. From what I can tell, your Church still holds the authorship conclusions of the Church fathers with respect to the gospels to have been correct, am I right? This, in the face of the majority of contemporary scholars who have concluded otherwise. If you tell me we can count authors of the evangelist gospels as eyewitnesses in the argument for Fact Two, you are thus appealing to Church authority, are you not? So, are you telling me that?

Still, maybe I have been loose with the term "authority" because of its special meaning in the phrase "argument from authority". But you have been loose with it as well--in the second assertion you made that contributed to my request (which I already quoted but will quote again here) you dropped the word altogether:
Quote
Did you miss the part where I said there is verifiable historical data that does not appeal to the Church or the New Testament?

As the Church fathers you mentioned were of course members of the Church and crucial in establishing its sense of authority, and since you seemed to equate "appeals to the Church" with "appeals to Church authority" yourself, perhaps you can forgive me for also equating them in my evaluation of your response.

Yet if we replace "authority" with "fathers" in my post it does not make any of your facts any more relevant to my original request for extra-Biblical, non-circular evidence because no fathers are anything other than indirect witnesses with their own agenda of establishing the church. The words you cited of theirs offer no new testimonies of the nature, sequence, or distribution of visionary experiences outside of the Bible -- just mere secondary parotting that experiences were had and beliefs were thus held.


Quote
In other words, what you're trying to do here is say, "Hey! You can't use that because I don't believe in the New Testament and the Church's authority means nothing to me!" And what I'm saying here is that you could go talk about these sources to the scholars who specialize in them and you'd basically get laughed at because their own research has overwhelmingly concluded that the information is historically authentic and reliable. If that means nothing to you then of course my line of reasoning isn't going to work. But you'd have bigger problems than that...

TryingtoConvertwrote:
You have presented no evidence for Jesus’ resurrection except that which appeals to Church authority and the New Testament. Feel free to try again, or, if you like, revoke the original claim in question.
I'd actually like to ask you to try again because you so obviously did not follow my line of reasoning. How in the world you could finish reading that and think that I appealed to Church authority in any way, completely baffles me. But I also can't say I'm surprised.
What I've ultimately said, perhaps more clearly now, is that I don't see the relevance of these sources, or of your 5 facts supported by them, to proving the resurrection actually occured as described or interpreted by you. I stand by the conclusion that you have yet to offer any compelling extra-Biblical evidence for your interpretation.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Quote
As for your "miscellaneous" thoughts, if you were in any way actually interested in this topic, I'd refer you to the painstakingly researched "The Resurrection of the Son of God" by N.T. Wright. If you had any doubts that a literal, bodily resurrection was indeed the exact and only thing claimed by these people, they would be completely obliterated.
I'll investigate Wright's book and consider adding it to my reading queue (which I'll admit is pretty long, and which I seldom have time to progress through). Meanwhile here is a relevant portion of a review I just found (2nd search result in my search for the book) by Robert M. Price, whom I've come to admire a bit. Maybe you can read the quote and provide some counterpoint to help convince me to read your book.

Hopefully you don't find Price to be a "militant atheist" or I'm afraid you are going to have to belittle me again. By the way, I see you made no attempt to back up the accusations you made about me before, as I requested. I suppose now you will just use this post-accusation pasting exercise I am about to engage in as your sole example in support of those claims, but oh well.

Here is the relevant portion of Price's review:
Quote
Part of Wright’s agenda of harmonizing and de-fusing the evidence is to smother individual New Testament texts beneath a mass of theological synthesis derived from the Old Testament and from the outlines of Pauline theology in general. He is a victim of what James Barr long ago called the “Kittel mentality,” referring to the approach of Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, in which articles on individual New Testament terms and words synthesized from all uses of the term an artificial and systematic semantic structure, leading the reader to suppose that every individual usage of the word was an iceberg tip carrying with it implied reference to all other references. In other words, each article in the TDNT composed a “New Testament theology,” topic by topic. In just this manner, Wright first composes a streamlined Old Testament theology of historical and eschatological redemption (akin to that of Von Rad, without the latter’s understanding that much of it was based on fictive saga rather than history); then Wright synthesizes a Pauline Theology, then a New Testament theology, then an early Christian theology; and finally he insists that the synthetic resurrection concept he has distilled must control our reading of all individual gospel and Pauline texts dealing with the resurrection. In short, it is an elaborate exercise in harmonizing disparate data. The implications of 1 Corinthians 15, for example, with its talk of spiritual resurrection, are silenced as the text is muzzled, forbidden to say anything outside the party line Wright has constructed as “the biblical” teaching on the subject.
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_ntwrong.htm

Your move Sleeper
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 08:04:36 PM by TryingtoConvert » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,092


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #76 on: December 05, 2010, 08:10:24 PM »

I see no answer to this question. You seem very disinterested in clarifying your response to me.

Why would anyone want to spend their time on you?

Maybe if you lost the snarky hyper-aggressive tone and seemed genuinely interested. Right now you seem to just want attention.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #77 on: December 05, 2010, 11:52:54 PM »

Well, let me try and help you see it from TtC's point of view.  Imagine a world where Mormonism is the dominant world religion.  And you are trying to investigate its claims.  Would you be content if the only sources you could find were practicing Mormons?
I think the fundamental difference is that the only witness was Joseph Smith to these miracles and appaerences, plus three other men I think. Im not completely up to date with Mormons beliefs nor do I care to be so. But the thing is if we are to emply such radical skepticism and throw out any source written by someone supporting the position, how much history is left? For instance what sources would we have of Alexander the great? We have the secondry sources such as Arrian (not to be confused with Arrius) but he relied on sources written by contemporaries of Alexander, therefore we might conclude that Alexander did not exist? Of what of various roman emperors?
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #78 on: December 05, 2010, 11:58:24 PM »

But it doesn't really matter to us today whether or not Alexander really existed - whereas Jesus' existence is literally a matter of life and eath. Hence the need to provide substantive proof is much greater.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #79 on: December 06, 2010, 12:56:14 AM »

TryingtoConvert, I too want to thank you for your replies and the time it took to do so.  I also want to apologize that I won't be able to continue this back and forth with you in such great detail.  I started a new job recently and I don't have as much time as a topic of this magnitude deserves.  I was able to post my original lengthy post because I had it saved on my computer from some of the research I did when I was investigating the Resurrection a few years ago.

That doesn't mean I'm giving up on the conversation, but it's just so you know why I can't address every single question or point you bring up.  I wish I could because it's a worthy conversation!

To address some of the overall points, here's what I'm saying and what I think you're missing.  These 5 minimal facts are not in themselves proof of anything.  I said that outright and you'll note that the first point I made was that "it's not about proof."  I still maintain that.  I'm not out to prove the Resurrection to you.  What I'm out to do is to answer this question:  Given the sources that we have, the methods that we have, and the scholarly work of credentialed historians on the subject, what facts can we gather that enjoy a wide acceptance as being historically reliable and authentic, by both believer and skeptic alike?

These 5 facts are what we have.  These are 5 facts that virtually no honest historian worth their salt would dispute.  That's the point.  That's why they're used and why, even though you accuse me of it, I'm not appealing to the "inspiration" of the New Testament or Church authority as many others might be tempted to do.  I'm saying if you gathered every professional scholar who deals with the subject, who have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals over the last 25 years, and were to ask them, "What can we really know, based on good research and solid history?" more than 90% of them would tell you, "We know that Jesus died by crucifixion, that his disciples genuinely believed they had real experiences of Jesus risen from the dead, that there was a man named Saul of Tarsus who converted because of a similar experience, that there was a man named James who converted because of a similar experience and that there was a known tomb, where Jesus was known to be buried and that it was found empty.  And we know these things because we have data that meets the most rigorous of historical standards.  We have eyewitness accounts from very early sources, which are multiple and independent, from friend and foe alike, containing all the hallmarks of authenticity."

Now, here's the important part of this:  You have 5 variables that you must account for, with a hypothesis that must make sense out of all of them; not just some.  You have to have a good answer for why Saul converted, why James converted, why the tomb was found empty and why these people genuinely believed they saw Jesus risen from the dead.  And I want to make this point very clear because it appears you're not following me here:  I'm not saying you should believe the Resurrection because these people said it happened.  And there is also a huge difference between believing something happened, and claiming that it happened.  These people didn't just make claims and hope people believed them.  That's why I spent time giving good reasons for their martyrdoms.  They died specifically for this belief that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead.  They really believed it, and that's something that we have to account for.  Do you see this important nuance?  I'm not offering it as a proof of the Resurrection, I'm offering it as an historical phenomenon that demands an explanation.  This is a big difference and the questions you ask imply that it's being missed by you.  Let me know if it still doesn't make sense.

Do you see how this works?  I'm not saying, "Believe the Resurrection because people a long time ago say it happened."  I'm not saying, "Believe the Resurrection because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true."  I'm not saying, "Believe the Resurrection because the Church says it's true."

I'm saying, believe the Resurrection because it is the only thing that makes sense out of what we can know.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2010, 01:07:05 AM by Sleeper » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #80 on: December 06, 2010, 04:14:23 PM »

^ Well stated. The historical evidence removes many of the intellectual objections to the resurrection and tilts towards the actual resurrection as the most reasonable answer to what happened that first Easter.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #81 on: December 06, 2010, 04:17:18 PM »

I highly recommend The Resurrection of the Son of God, by N.T. Wright as a scholarly discussion of the matter from a pro-resurrection point of view.




You can find it here at amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796
« Last Edit: December 06, 2010, 04:30:03 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #82 on: December 06, 2010, 04:24:53 PM »

Well, let me try and help you see it from TtC's point of view.  Imagine a world where Mormonism is the dominant world religion.  And you are trying to investigate its claims.  Would you be content if the only sources you could find were practicing Mormons?

LOL. I would, as that would be enough: the BoM has the testimony of the 3 and 8 witnesses at the beginning of every issue. What they do not tell you in every issue is that everyone of them besides Joe Smith's relatives apostacized/were expelled from Mormonism.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,360



« Reply #83 on: December 06, 2010, 05:09:10 PM »

I'm not going to spend my entire day reading every one of your links & books to piece together your argument by myself, just to further discussion with a person who so far has shown little interest in actually responding to counterpoint. Note, however, that I have read skeptical evaluations of a couple of the books you've mentioned so far, and I've also listened to some debates on the subject and have read some other things online. I remain so wholly unconvinced of any kind of verifiable argument for the resurrection that even the phrase "I remain unconvinced" might suggest too high a degree of possible convincedness.


Translation: "Don't bother me with facts or information. My mind is made up."
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #84 on: December 06, 2010, 05:25:31 PM »

I'm not going to spend my entire day reading every one of your links & books to piece together your argument by myself, just to further discussion with a person who so far has shown little interest in actually responding to counterpoint. Note, however, that I have read skeptical evaluations of a couple of the books you've mentioned so far, and I've also listened to some debates on the subject and have read some other things online. I remain so wholly unconvinced of any kind of verifiable argument for the resurrection that even the phrase "I remain unconvinced" might suggest too high a degree of possible convincedness.


Translation: "Don't bother me with facts or information. My mind is made up."

It is a fair response. You can't expect in an argument for someone to read thousands or even of pages of what you think is important, unless you both are getting paid for it.

I think Fr. Hopko has the right of it. As I have posted elsewhere he has a few podcasts on dealing with questions like these. He simply doesn't for the most part with anyone anymore unless they are *doing* certain things.

I know that a lot of my hang-ups about Christianity and then Orthodoxy just came undone by following his "experiment". All the reading and discussion in the world didn't make things like the "miracles of Jesus" intelligible or of importance until I began to repent, act differently.

Jesus didn't have long drawn out conversations with people to get them to follow him.

It seems that the kinda conversations which developed among practicing Christians who were struggling together to understand their faith more deeply through argument, often ugly and vehement, leaked out to the evangelizing process.

TryingToCovert,

If you would like to know how I had the beginning of a change of heart, I recommend you listen to a mere 60 minutes or so of a priest speaking at a retreat. In fact, the the first 40 minutes sums up most of what grabbed me. Maybe it will grab you too. I know a wiki article and even writing which I so admired and loved never did. I had to change my life a little first, for a little while.

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/teaching_doctrine_in_the_world_we_live_in_today_part_1
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/teaching_doctrine_in_the_world_we_live_in_today_part_two
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/teaching_doctrine_in_the_world_we_live_in_today_part_three

Let me know what you think. Then again maybe asking someone to listen to 40-60 minutes of someone talk is too much to ask as well.

Good luck!



Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,360



« Reply #85 on: December 06, 2010, 05:35:45 PM »

It is a fair response. You can't expect in an argument for someone to read thousands or even of pages of what you think is important, unless you both are getting paid for it.

I respectfully disagree with you on this point. If one has the time to read and listen and study and come to certain conclusions, as well as the time to post these conclusions on a forum such as this, inviting responses, then surely one would have the time to consider responses to one's arguments.


Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #86 on: December 06, 2010, 05:36:53 PM »

It is a fair response. You can't expect in an argument for someone to read thousands or even of pages of what you think is important, unless you both are getting paid for it.

I respectfully disagree with you on this point. If one has the time to read and listen and study and come to certain conclusions, as well as the time to post these conclusions on a forum such as this, inviting responses, then surely one would have the time to consider responses to one's arguments.



Exactly. I think that for many it is intellectual laziness that keeps them from the truth.
Further, this a huge topic, and it would be impossible to answer all of the questions and objections that the OP raises in this format (online forum). If he is truely interested in the topic, he needs to be honest, and see what the other side has to offer as far as scholarship and evidence. This whole, "These books are too long and they don't agree with my conclusions" attitude will get Trying nowhere, except further entrenched in his own views for no other reason than the lack of desire to read.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2010, 05:39:06 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #87 on: December 06, 2010, 05:39:39 PM »

Oops, I just realized this is the "faith issues" subform. I am out.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #88 on: December 06, 2010, 05:42:37 PM »

It is a fair response. You can't expect in an argument for someone to read thousands or even of pages of what you think is important, unless you both are getting paid for it.

I respectfully disagree with you on this point. If one has the time to read and listen and study and come to certain conclusions, as well as the time to post these conclusions on a forum such as this, inviting responses, then surely one would have the time to consider responses to one's arguments.

Well, really you should read . . .
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #89 on: December 06, 2010, 05:48:16 PM »

It is a fair response. You can't expect in an argument for someone to read thousands or even of pages of what you think is important, unless you both are getting paid for it.

I respectfully disagree with you on this point. If one has the time to read and listen and study and come to certain conclusions, as well as the time to post these conclusions on a forum such as this, inviting responses, then surely one would have the time to consider responses to one's arguments.



Exactly. I think that for many it is intellectual laziness that keeps them from the truth.
Further, this a huge topic, and it would be impossible to answer all of the questions and objections that the OP raises in this format (online forum). If he is truely interested in the topic, he needs to be honest, and see what the other side has to offer as far as scholarship and evidence. This whole, "These books are too long and they don't agree with my conclusions" attitude will get Trying nowhere, except further entrenched in his own views for no other reason than the lack of desire to read.

OK, where does Jesus have an extended debate with anyone who ends up following him? None of my Bibles are a couple thousand pages long and none of the Gospels even come out to a hundred and the one Bible I have with red letters, I could probably fit all those read letters on a single spaced A4 page in 10 pt. type.

I've tens of thousands of pages around this stuff and it didn't matter one iota. There is a difference between following and leading. But I could be wrong, maybe most Orthodox and Roman Catholics do become so by studying dozens of books other than the Bible first. Again for those who can't detect it without a smiley, that was irony.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2010, 05:48:56 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Tags: atheist scholasticism atheism 
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.229 seconds with 72 queries.