tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post457961331315622572..comments2023-05-24T05:37:27.382-07:00Comments on Grace and Miracles: The Skeptical Response to the Resurrection: The Appearances of JesusAnette Ackerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-81660559448440037782013-03-16T09:55:20.461-07:002013-03-16T09:55:20.461-07:00A couple of points on this OLD posting I just came...A couple of points on this OLD posting I just came across:<br /><br />1. Without Paul, there is no Christianity. Paul's personal visions and channelings of Jesus (and in some cases, like the Lord's Supper story, his teachings and instructions) make up what we know about Christ's resurrection.<br /><br />2. Apart from the Gospel accounts, of course, which were written by Paul's followers, who are intent on diminishing the teachings and prophetic message of Jesus and making the religion ABOUT "Christ crucified and risen" and to be mere assent that he rose and therefore makes our sins magically disappear (which was NOT his teachings.)<br /><br />3. The alleged Josephus quote ran like this: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day." <br /><br />I say "alleged" because all scholars admit this is a forgery inserted much later. If Josephus believed him to be more than a "man" then he would have been a Pauline Christian, not a Jew. No Jew would say "He was the Christ (Messiah)" about Jesus, not even today.<br /><br />4. At one point someone here said, "Actually, Paul did not primarily live and travel in Rome. He traveled all over the eastern Mediterranean, starting in Jerusalem and ending in Rome, where he was martyred." Anette replied, "Acts 22:25-29 show that Paul was born a Roman citizen." Please note that "Rome" ruled the entire Mediterranean at that time. There is zero evidence that Paul lived in Rome. It was only tradition. And even none that Peter did, until Church Historian Eusebius in the 4th Century came up with both of these stories.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02988018648403707235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-72710298434668802882011-08-16T00:02:58.162-07:002011-08-16T00:02:58.162-07:00Hi Anette,
Thanks very much for the post! In the...Hi Anette, <br /><br />Thanks very much for the post! In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, may He Bless you! <br /><br />In response to EVERYONE.. here's a source showing all the non-biblical sources we have on the Historicity of Jesus Christ: <br /><br />http://www.dokimos.org/mmlj/mmlj000.html<br /><br />And here's another source confirming the source I just posted (to all you skeptics): <br /><br />http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Divin/D-0201.htm<br /><br />ONCE AGAIN TO EVERYONE.. I can a also give you over a dozen sources clearly saying "virtually every New Testament Scholar and 99% of Historians including the skeptics and non-Christians agree on these facts: the Crucifixion, empty tomb, and appearances to Paul, and the Disciples.. ALSO in those same sources that I can site to you, a couple of them attest to the fact that 75% of New Testament Scholars believe it was a BODILY appearance, in other words, resurrection.<br /><br />To conclude my comment.. The single most important thing I could ever tell you about the evidence for Jesus, is to open your heart and sincerely ask Him to show you if He is who He claimed to be!.. I did, and there's not a doubt in my mind! But don't for one second take my word for it.. Do it yourself!JusJuiceItnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-70227255648252770732011-02-10T20:50:49.237-08:002011-02-10T20:50:49.237-08:00Darkknight56,
You still didn't really answer ...Darkknight56,<br /><br /><i>You still didn't really answer her question regarding how you define what is a scholar. You didn't tell her you meant just "religious scholars" and not scholars in other fields. I suspect that scholars in other fields are not so unanimous.</i><br /><br />When I say "scholars" I mean scholars who have expressed a written opinion on the subject. And mostly they are NT scholars, historians, and archaeologists. Physicists don't generally write about the empty tomb. ;)<br /><br />Would it be okay with you if we just agree to disagree for now? Right now I feel very exhausted from discussions like this, especially when it means answering the same questions to a number of different people. <br /><br />I don't want to seem like I'm snubbing you by not replying to your recent comments. You seem like a very nice person, and that's not at all what I'm doing. But as I've said before, I don't get the sense that we are making any progress in our discussions. We've talked about this for a while now and seem to be spinning our wheels. And since that is the case, I think the most constructive decision is to agree to disagree.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-76893462008315632652011-02-10T18:17:12.630-08:002011-02-10T18:17:12.630-08:00Anette Acker said...
As for scholars who say that...<b>Anette Acker said...</b><br /><br /><i>As for scholars who say that the disciples at least believed that Jesus appeared to them, that is virtually unanimous. </i><br /><br />You still didn't really answer her question regarding how you define what is a scholar. You didn't tell her you meant just "religious scholars" and not scholars in other fields. I suspect that scholars in other fields are not so unanimous.<br /><br /><i>Of course this does not mean that these scholars think Jesus was raised from the dead. If they did, they would be Christian. However, it means they have to come up with an alternative explanation for all the facts, and that has been very difficult.</i><br /><br />It's never up to others to disprove your argument, it is up to you to show beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true. You still have to prove that the New Testament is accurate and that the stories that are told in them are really true and that they really happened - something you haven't done yet, either.<br /><br />Just out of curiosity, is there any argument someone could present to you that would convince you that the resurrection didn't happen? Any at all?Darkknight56https://www.blogger.com/profile/11679420836886438138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-23115716145814242132011-02-10T08:51:45.291-08:002011-02-10T08:51:45.291-08:00Since you like Jeffery Jay Lowder - he reviewed L...Since you like Jeffery Jay Lowder - he reviewed Lee Strobel's book, "The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998."<br /><br />In it Jeffery wrote regarding the quote from Josephus:<br /><br /><i>"For instance, Strobel defends the partial authenticity of the so-called "Testimonium Flavianum," the most famous reference to Jesus in the writings of Josephus. <b>However, there is no discussion at all of the multiple reasons that have led some scholars--compatible with Christianity--to reject the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety.</b>"</i><br /><br />Later, in discussing the documentation that the church fathers gathered in establishing the New Testament, he points out that even Strobel admits, via Metzger, that the church fathers gathered and kept only those documentst that already agreed with their belief of what happened.<br /><br /><i>"In other words, Metzger admits that "church councils squelched equally legitimate documents because they didn't like the picture of Jesus they portrayed!" After all, consider the implications of these three criteria: (i) excludes a priori the testimony of non-Christian historians; (ii) rules out the possibility of books that did not conform to what Christians already believed; and (iii) ensures that only books popular with the Church were accepted. The implications of this are obvious. We have already seen why there is no reason to expect that first century non-Christians would have taken critical notice of Christianity. But suppose that assumption is entirely incorrect. If, say, the first-century Roman historian Suetonius had written a book entitled, "The Full Grave of Jesus," documenting in intricate detail that the Resurrection was a hoax, it would be an understatement to say that the early church would have excluded such a book from the New Testament. There would have been no reason for the church to include such a book in the canon. But in that hypothetical scenario, the church would not have included at least one important source for the historicity of Jesus, namely, the hypothetical book by Suetonius. Therefore, one can only marvel at Metzger's suggestion the early church's criteria guarantee that "the New Testament contains the best sources for the historicity of Jesus." To paraphrase a comment made by Strobel, <b>these criteria were "loaded from the outset, like dice that are weighted so they yield the result that was desired all along" (p. 156). It would have been more accurate to say that the early church's criteria guarantee that "the New Testament contains the best sources for the historicity of Jesus, consistent with a Christian worldview.""</b></i><br /><br /><b>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel-rev.html</b>Darkknight56https://www.blogger.com/profile/11679420836886438138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-75313286553576405702011-02-09T18:14:30.002-08:002011-02-09T18:14:30.002-08:00Hi A Follower of Jesus,
I'm assuming that you...Hi A Follower of Jesus,<br /><br />I'm assuming that you are referring to my statement that "most scholars accept the historicity of the empty tomb," is that correct?<br /><br />I mean that, according to a study done by Gary Habermas, 75% of scholars who have expressed an opinion on the historicity of the empty tomb since (I believe) the 70s say that they believe that women found it empty on the third day.<br /><br />These scholars include secular historian Michael Grant, Jewish scholar Geza Vermes, and atheist Jeffery Jay Lowder. Agnostic Bible scholar Bart Ehrman has said that "it appears to be a historical datum" that women found the tomb empty. (But he has gone both ways on the issue.)<br /><br />As for scholars who say that the disciples at least believed that Jesus appeared to them, that is virtually unanimous. <br /><br />Of course this does <i>not</i> mean that these scholars think Jesus was raised from the dead. If they did, they would be Christian. However, it means they have to come up with an alternative explanation for all the facts, and that has been very difficult.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-39518065105480665412011-02-09T14:47:04.727-08:002011-02-09T14:47:04.727-08:00I'm sorry but I have to ask about when you say...I'm sorry but I have to ask about when you say "most scholars". I'm assuming that you don't mean most scholars in the world but just those in the US and Europe mainly. It is pretty much a safe bet that we can eliminate most Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and any other non-Christian scholars, correct?<br /><br />I'm just trying to get a better idea of what you mean by scholar and what are their backgrounds.<br /><br />Also, when you say scholars - what fields are they scholarly in? Are they mostly religious scholars? If they were mostly historical scholars I'd have to wonder why then the Resurrection, if it was an actual historical event, isn't in most world history books, if any. Could it be that, despite your claim of historical evidence, most mainstream historians do not consider the resurrection to be an actual historical event?<br /><br />What actually constitutes a scholar? Are they professors at (religious) universities? Who qualifies to be a scholar? I will have a master's degree by the end of this year so do I qualify as a scholar?<br /><br />Can you tell me what fields of study these scholars have studied? I imagine that there are probably several fields but I'm interested in what the majority have studied?Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11780532750727491262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-91262724409978986682011-02-09T00:31:53.431-08:002011-02-09T00:31:53.431-08:00Anette Acker said...
The disciples of Jesus lived...<b>Anette Acker said...</b><br /><br /><i>The disciples of Jesus lived in first century Judea. They would have had very little interaction with Egyptians. The Jews at the time looked down on Gentiles and referred to them as "dogs." And many of the early Christians were devout Jews. I think we agree that this was true of Paul, and Acts 11:8 indicates that Peter was also very Jewish.</i><br /><br />Not true at all. The Greeks, Romans, Jews, Egyptians - all of those people traded with each other. That was one of the reasons for the money-changers that are talked about in the New Testament. Cedars from Lebanon, oil from Greece and Rome, spices from different places. They may not have likened them but they wanted their money, goods and services.<br /><br />More importantly:<br /><br /><i>...and the Easter faith of the disciples</i><br /><br />Previously, you said about atheists dying for atheism:<br /><br /><i>It would tell me that this individual felt strongly about his or her atheism, but it would tell me nothing about whether or not atheism is true.</i><br /><br />If a person dying for what they believe tells you nothing about whether or not their belief is true then this has to apply to the deaths of James, Paul and the others. Are you applying one standard to the apostles for their deaths and a separate one to everyone else who died for their beliefs? If atheist, Muslim or Hindu deaths don't tell you whether or not their beliefs are true then this has to be true for James, Paul and the others who died for Christianity. Their deaths are not indicative of what they believed is true or not.Darkknight56https://www.blogger.com/profile/11679420836886438138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-13632412555475230432011-02-08T21:03:41.213-08:002011-02-08T21:03:41.213-08:00Anette Acker said...
But I'll elaborate by sa...<b>Anette Acker said...</b><br /><br /><i>But I'll elaborate by saying that we have specific historical evidence that supports the resurrection (the empty tomb,</i><br /><br />Oh, okay so you know where He was buried then, right? You have the tomb?<br /><br /><i>the postmortem appearances,</i><br /><br />You have documentation from the 500 who saw Him? NO.<br /><br /><i>and the Easter faith of the disciples),</i><br /><br />You have proof of their faith? NO.<br /><br />what about the faith of Muslims who died for their religion? Oh, right, others who die for their beliefs don't count as they aren't dying for Christian beliefs.<br /><br /><i>and most scholars agree with all these facts.</i><br /><br />What is meant by "most scholars"? How many scholars are there and out of the total population of scholars, how many are Christian and thus accept the resurrection already? How many scholars accept the story of the resurrection as true?<br /><br />You say you have historical facts but you don't have the tomb, you don't have the testimony of the 500, you don't have any outside, independent, corroborating evidence for the resurrection. Remove the bible and there is no historical record or proof it ever happened. If the bible alone were taken off the table there would be no historical proof that the resurrection even occurred.<br /><br />For example, if you were to remove all press and newspaper articles from consideration for, say, the Gettysburg address - let's say it was never covered or printed by any magazine or newspaper in the world - there would be enough historical evidence for its occurrence. Why is there much more proof for the Gettysburg Address than the resurrection?<br /><br /><i>Now the reason why the story of Mohammad immediately fails is because there is no evidence at all, except Mohammad's own word.</i><br /><br />No, we have the witnesses who saw him do it. He wasn't alone when it happened.<br /><br /><i>And there are possible natural explanations for that.</i><br /><br />Natural explanations for why the moon split in two? Like what? Any object striking it would have pulverized it.Darkknight56https://www.blogger.com/profile/11679420836886438138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-20573266513468701902011-02-08T18:42:15.629-08:002011-02-08T18:42:15.629-08:00Darkknight56,
We seem to be having some difficult...Darkknight56,<br /><br />We seem to be having some difficulty communicating. I'm going to summarize my position again, and if it's still not clear, it might be best if we end the discussion here.<br /><br />Clamflats summarized it very well, so you could read that. <br /><br />But I'll elaborate by saying that we have specific historical evidence that supports the resurrection (the empty tomb, the postmortem appearances, and the Easter faith of the disciples), and most scholars agree with all these facts. <br /><br />Skeptics have, especially in the past few hundred years, tried to come up with natural explanations for these facts, but all of them fail. It's sort of like a maze, where there are many directions you can take that lead to a dead end, but there is only one direction that will take you all the way through. And, in response to that dilemma, some skeptics, like David Hume and Bart Ehrman, will just throw up their hands and say, "Any explanation is more probable than the supernatural." But <i>that</i> path leads to a dead end as well, as illustrated by Bayes' Theorem. <br /><br />Now the reason why the story of Mohammed immediately fails is because there is no evidence at all, except Mohammed's own word. And there are possible natural explanations for that.<br /><br />In the words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that." At least for now, until I elaborate on it more in a future post.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-1336439569514557522011-02-08T09:48:58.079-08:002011-02-08T09:48:58.079-08:00I find it interesting that I have the same evidenc...I find it interesting that I have the same evidence for a supernatural event that you do and yet you refuse to accept it as true. Would there be any supernatural event from any other religion you would be willing to accept?<br /><br />A combination of truth (Jesus, Paul and James really existed), half-truth, after-death myth building and hero-worship (the last two demonstrated with George Washington and the cherry tree) explains the resurrection very nicely and naturally.<br /><br />Combine all that with the fact that there are no independent testimony for any of Jesus's miracles in the 33 years He was alive means that the claim of a supernatural aspect cannot be corroborated.Darkknight56https://www.blogger.com/profile/11679420836886438138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-21861270869370645012011-02-08T06:13:48.871-08:002011-02-08T06:13:48.871-08:00Do you now accept the proof that Mohammad split an...<i>Do you now accept the proof that Mohammad split and put back together the moon? If not, why not?</i><br /><br />I have already given possible naturalistic explanations for the story of Mohammed splitting the moon numerous times, and unless you can refute those, we're done with Mohammed.<br /><br /><i>No, but it does seem strange that there is no more support for Christian miracles than those of other religions.</i><br /><br />I have given you the historical evidence. Now it's up to you to find viable non-supernatural explanations for the empty tomb, the appearances of Jesus, and the Easter faith of the disciples. But before you respond, please take into consideration the arguments that I have already made, so that we don't go in circles.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-37613583437349090892011-02-07T13:52:07.194-08:002011-02-07T13:52:07.194-08:00Anette Acker said...
Did Osiris rise bodily from ...<b>Anette Acker said...</b><br /><br /><i>Did Osiris rise bodily from the dead? No, he did not. A story about Isis and Osiris says:<br /><br />"Yet nothing that has died, not even a god, may dwell in the land of the living. Osiris went to Duat, the abode of the dead."<br /><br />So there we see what the pagans thought of anyone dying and coming back to the land of the living. It didn't even happen in their mythology, a point that N. T. Wright makes in his extensively researched and scholarly tome, The Resurrection of the Son of God.</i><br /><br />Again, we don't expect one culture to take myths and religious stories from other cultures without change. When the Romans, for example, adopted the Greek gods they made changes to the stories to make it more acceptable to the culture. The fact that there are differences shows cultural differences and preferences. It does not invalidate the idea that one religion was or wasn't influenced by another.<br /><br />You are looking at differences and saying that they make a difference when all they do is show cultural differences and influences. A difference in the way Egyptian gods rise from the dead and you God rises from the dead still doesn't prove that your story is any more true than theirs. Isis could have risen and be accompanied by a marching band and the fact that Jesus's resurrection wasn't accompanied by a marching band doesn't prove either story.<br /><br />You still need to look at similarities between religions; that can be even more telling that the differences. Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism all have miracles that were:<br /><br />1. recorded in their holy books,<br />2. witnessed by various people, and<br />3. not recorded in mainstream history books mainly because of those pesky disbelievers, and<br />4. such events have no outside, independent, lines of proof that any of the miracles took place.<br /><br />In addition, religions are tailored for where the culture lives. The Norse religion had ice monsters. People who live by the sea have sea monsters and demons (Neptune, for example). The desert is an integral part of the Judeo/Christian religion so it isn't surprising that Hell is a lake of fire. If Christian miracles really did happen then why do they have so much in common with miracles of other religions. I'm not talking point-for-point sameness; Islam has miracles that Christianity doesn't. Does that make Islam true and Christianity false? No, but it does seem strange that there is no more support for Christian miracles than those of other religions.Darkknight56https://www.blogger.com/profile/11679420836886438138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-74991483375134785172011-02-07T10:45:34.929-08:002011-02-07T10:45:34.929-08:00I do think we are straying a bit from the original...I do think we are straying a bit from the original question here.<br /><br />I have a supernatural event - the splitting of the moon.<br />I have witnesses to the event.<br />None were hallucinating.<br />I assume the author of the holy book was honest, at least there is nothing to indicate he/they were lying.<br />It is possible some were tortured and killed over the event (although neither holy book records the deaths of anyone).<br />The reason it is not in mainstream history is because non-believers and skeptics kept it out.<br /><br />Do you now accept the proof that Mohammad split and put back together the moon? If not, why not?Darkknight56https://www.blogger.com/profile/11679420836886438138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-11971323503986354212011-02-07T08:01:18.585-08:002011-02-07T08:01:18.585-08:00We're doing great, Daniel. I hope things are g...We're doing great, Daniel. I hope things are going well with you and yours as well.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-19771555130717583162011-02-07T07:47:18.777-08:002011-02-07T07:47:18.777-08:00Christ exists only in heaven. Aren't you still...<i>Christ exists only in heaven. Aren't you still awaiting His second coming?</i><br /><br />Did Osiris rise bodily from the dead? No, he did not. A story about Isis and Osiris says:<br /><br />"Yet nothing that has died, not even a god, may dwell in the land of the living. Osiris went to Duat, the abode of the dead."<br /><br />So there we see what the pagans thought of anyone dying and coming back to the land of the living. It didn't even happen in their mythology, a point that N. T. Wright makes in his extensively researched and scholarly tome, <i>The Resurrection of the Son of God.</i>Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-16732111898324322462011-02-07T06:51:49.250-08:002011-02-07T06:51:49.250-08:00However, I make my assertion based on the fact tha...<i>However, I make my assertion based on the fact that there was very little scientific knowledge at the time so humans, as they tend to do around the world, fill in the gap with superstitions.</i><br /><br />Okay, let's say Paul and everyone else did that. That does not mean that they would easily accept the idea of someone rising from the dead. <br /><br />In fact, we have two examples in Acts of people reacting very negatively to Paul talking about the resurrection. Acts 17:32 says: "When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered . . ." And in Acts 26:24, right after Paul mentions the resurrection, Festus shouted, "You are out of your mind, Paul! Your great learning is driving you insane."<br /><br />So they may have thought evil came into the world because the first woman opened a box, that an evil look could bring a curse, and that too much education could drive one mad, but they did <i>not</i> think a person could rise from the dead. 1 Cor. 1:23, says that the message of the cross is <i>foolishness</i> to the Gentiles. <br /><br /><i>Are you kidding? Have you read the old testament? Moses wasn't on the mountain very long when they started worshiping a new god they created on the spot.</i><br /><br />But they had just come out of Egypt, so no wonder they had been influenced by the pagan cultures. <br /><br />The disciples of Jesus lived in first century Judea. They would have had very little interaction with Egyptians. The Jews at the time looked down on Gentiles and referred to them as "dogs." And many of the early Christians were devout Jews. I think we agree that this was true of Paul, and Acts 11:8 indicates that Peter was also very Jewish. <br /><br /><i>But like the atheist it would tell you nothing about whether or not Christianity is true.</i><br /><br />I never said it did. I said that it said something about her <i>conviction.</i> I further said that most Christians would not die for their faith.<br /><br /><i>Yes, you can find an Indian or an Arab who agrees with the New Testament. What I'm asking is when you say "most scholars" are you referring JUST to European scholars alone or do most Muslim and Hindu scholars also agree that the New Testament and not their Holy Book is really true and accurate.</i><br /><br />I honestly don't know what you're getting at here. There are plenty of Christians in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. But there may not be that many (or any) <i>critical</i> Bible scholars. <br /><br />Since Ludemann and Ehrman are both skeptics, they are no more biased in favor of the Bible than you are. They just know more about it, so they realize that they have to make certain concessions. For example, both John Dominic Crossan and Ludemann have said that it is certain that Jesus died on the cross (which would rule out the swoon theory). <br /><br />A hypothetical African Bible scholar would probably say that same thing. If he didn't, he would have to give a good explanation, if he wanted to be taken seriously. The rules of logic and human physiology and psychology are the same in Africa and Asia as they are here. <br /><br />The point is not that European and American scholars accept everything about the Bible. Far from it! They are far more critical of the Bible than other historical documents. However, there are still certain facts that they can't deny, and I am basing my argument on those facts.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-53182108890318168782011-02-07T06:33:55.486-08:002011-02-07T06:33:55.486-08:00Hi Anette,
Just wanted to acknowledge your kind re...Hi Anette,<br />Just wanted to acknowledge your kind reply. I've been out of circulation for a while. My comment to DarkKnight56 is the first comment I've written on any blog in about 3 months. Anyway, I hope you and Rick are doing well.<br />Be blessed, sister,Daniel Gracelynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-65660134750941309442011-02-06T20:53:30.288-08:002011-02-06T20:53:30.288-08:00Anette Acker said...
Can you point to something i...<b>Anette Acker said...</b><br /><br /><i>Can you point to something in the Bible that indicates that Paul was irrational or superstitious? That is, did he ever say anything in his canonical letters that has later been deemed scientifically false or an old wives' tale?</i><br /><br />Considering that all we know of him comes only from the New Testament it is hardly a complete biography. It doesn't say he has parents either but I'm pretty sure he had one of each. However, I make my assertion based on the fact that there was very little scientific knowledge at the time so humans, as they tend to do around the world, fill in the gap with superstitions. It doesn't mean that they don't have some remedies for some conditions but just because they did doesn't mean they still didn't have their superstitions.<br /><br /><i>The Jews would not have been inspired by the Roman gods, and early Christianity was thoroughly Jewish.</i><br /><br />Are you kidding? Have you read the old testament? Moses wasn't on the mountain very long when they started worshiping a new god they created on the spot.<br /><br /><i>But Osiris only continued to exist in the after-world.</i><br /><br />Christ exists only in heaven. Aren't you still awaiting His second coming?<br /><br /><i>It would tell me that this individual felt strongly about his or her atheism, but it would tell me nothing about whether or not atheism is true. Likewise, the fact that Rachel admitted at gunpoint to being a Christian means that she had very strong faith.</i><br /><br />But like the atheist it would tell you nothing about whether or not Christianity is true.<br /><br /><i>Would you like it if I stopped quoting Ludemann so much and started quoted Indian-born Ravi Zacharias, who is the descendant of a line of Hindu priests? The problem is that Zacharias is an evangelical Christian apologist. Still, if you would find his opinions on the Bible more persuasive than Ludemann's, I'd be happy to comply. ;)</i><br /><br />Yes, you can find an Indian or an Arab who agrees with the New Testament. What I'm asking is when you say "most scholars" are you referring <b>JUST</b> to European scholars alone or do most Muslim and Hindu scholars also agree that the New Testament and not their Holy Book is really true and accurate. By your answer I have to assume it is just European scholars. (NOTE: by European I mean not only those in Europe but in North, Central and South America - practically everywhere where Christianity reigns.)Darkknight56https://www.blogger.com/profile/11679420836886438138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-29990927479231461942011-02-06T16:01:36.980-08:002011-02-06T16:01:36.980-08:00I said:
Considering how many gods the Greeks and ...I said:<br /><br /><i>Considering how many gods the Greeks and Romans had, it would have been surprising if not a single one died and rose again in some sense. But Osiris only continued to exist in the afterworld.</i><br /><br />Correction:<br /><br />Considering how many gods the various <i>pagans</i> had (Osiris was an Egyptian god) . . .Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-4349695856887381792011-02-06T15:06:19.015-08:002011-02-06T15:06:19.015-08:00Pinchas Lapide actually believed that God raised J...Pinchas Lapide actually believed that God raised Jesus from the dead, and Geza Vermes believes that a group of women found the tomb empty on Sunday morning.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-47828304269738063312011-02-06T15:04:40.072-08:002011-02-06T15:04:40.072-08:00Yes, people have biases. This is one reason I'...Yes, people have biases. This is one reason I'm trying to apply the criteria we are using to events in other religions.<br /><br />You want me to be impressed with this poor girl's death. YOu want me to believe that since she was willing to die for her convictions then there must be something to what she believes in. However, if she was Muslim or Hindu, you would not be as impressed with her convictions; You wouldn't be saying "Wow, she had the courage of her convictions so there must be something to them." I get the feeling that you only would be impressed if someone died for Christian beliefs but not for their belief in Islam or Hinduism.<br /><br />Recanting under torture is not a reliable measure of what actually happened, either. If a gunman was to walk into a Sunday school and threaten to kill each child if a parent did not recant, how many parents would not recant knowing it meant the death of their child? Romans, as well as others throughout history, have not only tortured individuals for their beliefs but if the person was married and had children everyone from grandma to infant child would be threatened, tortured, raped and killed. James, Paul and other apostles were not married and didn't have families so it was a bit easier for them to adhere to their beliefs under torture. who knows what they would have done if they were married and their children were threatened and tortured as a result of their beliefs. Would you refuse to recant if (God forbid) your children were placed in such a dangerous position?Darkknight56https://www.blogger.com/profile/11679420836886438138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-77392018317239733552011-02-06T14:55:34.836-08:002011-02-06T14:55:34.836-08:00We don't know for certain what he did and did ...<i>We don't know for certain what he did and did not consider as "worldly fables fit only for old women." We don't have a complete and detailed biography of him so that isn't much of a defense.</i><br /><br />Can you point to something in the Bible that indicates that Paul was irrational or superstitious? That is, did he ever say anything in his canonical letters that has later been deemed scientifically false or an old wives' tale?<br /><br />For example, he told Timothy to have some wine with his water to help with his stomach troubles and frequent illnesses, and that was good advice during the first century because the alcohol would kill the bacteria in the water. I can't think of anything Paul said that seemed like superstition. <br /><br /><i>Again, there is no expectation that other religions will map point-for-point to Christianity. No one expects Christianity to be a carbon copy of other religions or vice-versa. But other religions could serve as inspiration for some aspects of Christianity. People would take certain aspects of neighboring religions and adapt them to their own culture and put their own twist on it.</i><br /><br />The Jews would not have been inspired by the Roman gods, and early Christianity was thoroughly Jewish. Also, the fact that there's a <i>very</i> vague similarity between Osiris and Jesus does not mean there's any connection. Considering how many gods the Greeks and Romans had, it would have been surprising if not a single one died and rose again in some sense. But Osiris only continued to exist in the afterworld. <br /><br /><i>If the two "boys" who walked in and asked "Who here is an atheist?" and someone stood up and said "I am."and was subsequently shot and killed, would you consider that as an endorsement for atheism?</i><br /><br />It would tell me that this individual felt strongly about his or her atheism, but it would tell me nothing about whether or not atheism is true. Likewise, the fact that Rachel admitted at gunpoint to being a Christian means that she had very strong faith.<br /><br />Your original argument was that most people would die for the hope of eternal life, and my response was that only those who believe strongly in it would. Faith is not an either/or proposition. How we react when our faith is tested tells us how strong it is. <br /><br /><i>My question was regarding your statement of most scholars endorsing or validating some aspects of the bible. Do these scholars include most, not all, Muslim and Hindu scholars or are they mainly European/American scholars?</i><br /><br />Would you like it if I stopped quoting Ludemann so much and started quoted Indian-born Ravi Zacharias, who is the descendant of a line of Hindu priests? The problem is that Zacharias is an evangelical Christian apologist. Still, if you would find his opinions on the Bible more persuasive than Ludemann's, I'd be happy to comply. ;)<br /><br />There are just not that many New Testament scholars that are Hindus and Muslims. In fact, I don't know of any. However, I have mentioned Jewish scholars Pinchas Lapide and Geza Vermes.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-66529873824072054902011-02-06T11:46:11.218-08:002011-02-06T11:46:11.218-08:00Anette Acker said...
Paul says in 1 Timothy 4:7:...<b>Anette Acker said...</b><br /><br /><i>Paul says in 1 Timothy 4:7: "But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women." There is no evidence anywhere that he is superstitious.</i><br /><br />We don't know for certain what he did and did not consider as "worldly fables fit only for old women." We don't have a complete and detailed biography of him so that isn't much of a defense.<br /><br /><i>But it wouldn't matter because, as I said before, people didn't believe that a human being could rise from the dead and come back and make breakfast for them. </i><br /><br />Not as a normal event, no.<br /><br />Are you saying that people from that time had no superstitions?<br /><br /><i>Close examination of this story shows that it is very different from Christ's resurrection. </i><br /><br />Again, there is no expectation that other religions will map point-for-point to Christianity. No one expects Christianity to be a carbon copy of other religions or vice-versa. But other religions could serve as inspiration for some aspects of Christianity. People would take certain aspects of neighboring religions and adapt them to their own culture and put their own twist on it.<br /><br /><i>My point was that Rachel must have really believed to give her life for her faith at such a young age. She was an exceptional Christian, as evidenced also by what she wrote. Likewise, the disciples of Jesus and other martyrs must have really believed.</i><br /><br />If the two "boys" who walked in and asked "Who here is an atheist?" and someone stood up and said "I am."and was subsequently shot and killed, would you consider that as an endorsement for atheism? What if they asked "Who here is a Muslim/Hindu/Shinto Buddhist?" and someone stood up and they shot him/her? I'm sure I can find people from each group who are willing to die for their beliefs.<br /><br /><i>It doesn't matter that Ludemann is European, because he is an atheist and his stated goal is to disprove Christianity. And he does not accept everything in the Bible as true--only what he has to accept. He is biased against the Bible.<br /><br />How do you think Salman Rushdie feels about Islam? Do you think that if he was here discussing this with us, he would concede anything about the story of Mohammad splitting the moon just because he comes from a Muslim culture and background?</i><br /><br />I know who he is from the media but I have no idea what his view are on many subjects. The most exciting thing I know about him is that his ex-wife is one of the hosts of "Top Chef".<br /><br />My question was regarding your statement of most scholars endorsing or validating some aspects of the bible. Do these scholars include most, not all, Muslim and Hindu scholars or are they mainly European/American scholars?Darkknight56https://www.blogger.com/profile/11679420836886438138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-74086366325030918112011-02-06T11:20:22.281-08:002011-02-06T11:20:22.281-08:00Darkknight56,
I want to clarify that I did not me...Darkknight56,<br /><br />I want to clarify that I did not mean that I believe everything a Muslim says about Mohammed and the Koran, but that given the amount of misinformation I've seen about the Bible, I don't formulate opinions about Islam without getting the perspective of Muslims.<br /><br />You said that Mohammed and the early Muslims were also persecuted, so I researched that. It turns out that the Koran says that persecution of a Muslim is worse than the death of an infidel.<br /><br />The following story illustrates this teaching: In pre-Islamic Arabia, the poets were considered the conscience of their culture and were allowed to satirize whatever they wanted. One poet (a young mother) said something critical about Mohammed, who replied by saying: "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" <br /><br />A follower of Mohammed took up the challenge and broke into her home at night while she was asleep nursing a baby. What happened next is somewhat unclear. Some sources say that he cut the baby into pieces, raped the poet, and then stabbed her to death. An Islamic source said that he had poor eyesight, so "he had to grope for her." But the Islamic sources agree that he killed her, and that Mohammed later said that her life was not worth two goats. <br /><br />And if that's not bad enough, many people converted to Islam after that because they saw the power of Islam. <br /><br />But according to secular sources, the early Christians were peaceful and wouldn't even join the military. They were executed for reasons like:<br /><br /><b>Cannibalism</b>--for the sacrament of Communion,<br /><br /><b>Incest</b>--for calling each other "brother" and "sister," greeting each other with a kiss and expressing love for each other,<br /><br /><b>Atheism</b>--for refusing to worship their pantheon of gods,<br /><br /><b>Causing disasters</b>--for provoking the gods by their atheism and causing them to retaliate by sending famines, floods and other disasters,<br /><br /><b>Superstition</b>,<br /><br /><b>Asocial behavor</b>--for not participating in civic activities where the gods were worshipped, and for refusing to just add their God to the pantheon. The Romans had a the-more-the-merrier attitude towards their gods and would have welcomed the Christian God to join the party,<br /><br /><b>Worshipping a man who was a "sorcerer"</b>,<br /><br /><b>Apostasy from Judaism</b>,<br /><br /><b>Lack of patriotism</b>--for refusing to worship the emperor and join the military.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.com