Seminary Professor vs. Earth Science Professor

[Zzyzx]

.
Mcarma, who introduces himself as "I am also a seminary professor and teach Hebrew, OT Studies, Ancient Languages and periodically different theology classes" has indicated a willingness to defend bible stories as literally true.

Zzyzx, who acknowledges being a long retired professor of Earth science disputes the claim that bible stories can be shown to be literally true.

Questions for debate:

1. Was the "Resurrection of Jesus" a literally true physical event that happened in the real world?

2. Is there evidence to indicate that Jesus "arose from the grave after three days"?

3. What constitutes evidence?

[Easyrider]

It should also be noted that the gospels are not private journals recording the neutral personal observations of an eyewitness.

I see them as independent, personally written historical accounts of people, places, and events in the life of Christ, including his resurrection.

That's odd. Just recently on another thread you said you ascribed to something like the Augustinian or Griesbach hypothesis as a solution to the synoptic problem.

That wasn't me. That must have been someone else.

If the latter is biased then why does that automatically make the Gospels biased? Because they both have religious themes? That's not a good enough reason. That assumes a religious person (a Gospel writer) cannot be an honest broker of the truth. If that's the case you will need to document the bias, and preferably the motive behind the bias.

Is a commercial for Gillette razors biased?

I think it a much more reasonable assumption that salesmen are biased toward their product than that salesmen are not biased toward their product. Don't you? Do you think the gospel writers don't care what the reader concludes about Jesus? Do you think they don't care how the reader understands Judaism, relates to the Law, interprets the fate of the Temple, acknowledges the leadership of the church, and sees the role of Gentiles? Do you think the Watchtower writers don't care what you think about the Jehovah's Witness movement? Do you think they don't care about your membership, your view on true scripture, your views on mainstream cultural participation, your belief in a paradise on Earth, or your view of Christianity at large?

Bias and outright lying are not synonymous. But neither are they mutally exclusive. And they can be the product of similar motivations.

The case for bias is based on the treatment of the subject matter, intended conclusions, and purpose of the documents. The gospels are not simply histories recorded for posterity. To approach either the Watchtower materials or the gospels with that kind of blindness is (IMO) naive or willful.

You're welcome to think as you will on that, but there's nothing you've presented yet that shows the historical accounts of the Gospels are biased to the degree that they are untrustworthy.

[Easyrider]

I get the attitude already: You don't believe in God and you hate Him.

Just going to go on a small tangent here,

you are using a common fallacy, that atheists hate god

FYI, mccarma was addressing Zzyzx specifically, and not athiests in general, so there's no "common fallacy" as you contend. At least none that I can see.

[Mark75]

I don't mind a challenge to debate an issue, but if I'm going to debate with someone, then we should prepare the debate properly. No one side should be having to do all the work in writing posts to explain my case only, and then have the "debate" focus on criticising my position, while the opposition just sits and throws comments about the other participant but never bothers to spend the same effort to post a case for the opposite side which is also open to critique by others.

I'll be posting soon.

mcarma,

It has been the concern of some theists that there are some debaters who love to do cross-examination only without the obligation to present their case with evidence for examination, as well. As you have mentioned, this is a debate forum and as expected, the OP is required, as stipulated in the forum rules and guidelines, to present their position attested to with evidence and is subject to the same methods of examination and scrutiny acceptable to or as agreed upon by both parties. I am certain that you have noticed by now how a thread like this can easily turn into a grilling station while the OP offers nothing for you to examine. And as you have noticed again, the points you are making are left unasnswered and are just piling up altogether while the OP is busy rejecting at hand your evidence without support as to why it is inadmissible. That is sad and a waste of time.

Well, that's not very nice. Do you have some example threads that you could show me so I can see better what you're talking about?

[ST_JB]

I don't mind a challenge to debate an issue, but if I'm going to debate with someone, then we should prepare the debate properly. No one side should be having to do all the work in writing posts to explain my case only, and then have the "debate" focus on criticising my position, while the opposition just sits and throws comments about the other participant but never bothers to spend the same effort to post a case for the opposite side which is also open to critique by others.

I'll be posting soon.

mcarma,

It has been the concern of some theists that there are some debaters who love to do cross-examination only without the obligation to present their case with evidence for examination, as well. As you have mentioned, this is a debate forum and as expected, the OP is required, as stipulated in the forum rules and guidelines, to present their position attested to with evidence and is subject to the same methods of examination and scrutiny acceptable to or as agreed upon by both parties. I am certain that you have noticed by now how a thread like this can easily turn into a grilling station while the OP offers nothing for you to examine. And as you have noticed again, the points you are making are left unasnswered and are just piling up altogether while the OP is busy rejecting at hand your evidence without support as to why it is inadmissible. That is sad and a waste of time.

Well, that's not very nice. Do you have some example threads that you could show me so I can see better what you're talking about?

As you have requested, here are some of the examples I can give you..

1. this LINK

2. here's another LINK

I will add the links to some of the threads that i will identify sooner. For the mean time, feel free to scan the thread and see for yourself. If ever you find none of what i am talking about then, please let me know. i would love to see and reaxamine the thread and will retract my statement if, indeed, I am in fault.

[LittlePig]

It should also be noted that the gospels are not private journals recording the neutral personal observations of an eyewitness.

I see them as independent, personally written historical accounts of people, places, and events in the life of Christ, including his resurrection.

That's odd. Just recently on another thread you said you ascribed to something like the Augustinian or Griesbach hypothesis as a solution to the synoptic problem.

That wasn't me. That must have been someone else.

Really?

In another thread,someone named Easyrider said:

3. There's no point in saying that the Gospels are independent. Even Bible scholars admit that Luke and Matthew drew off of Mark as a source.

That's a THEORY by some (which many others reject) which has never been established with credible evidence. There's even early church father quotes that say Matthew wrote the first Gospel.

Did you mean these quotes which also claim interdependence?

Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most remarkable circulation over the whole world, and whose number has been fixed as four, are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John.

Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek. And however they may appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done

Here's another interesting quote from someone named Easyrider:

No dancing here. I've often said Mark isn't necessary to be copied from. All these individuals knew Jesus or the eyewitnesses, arguably attended church services together, and shared common information, either from each other and / or from the Holy Spirit. Besides, Jesus would very probably have given them additional information (about his trial, etc.), after his resurrection.

Sounds like your impersonator was saying the gospels were interdependent. What changed his mind?

Your position in these quotes sounds very much like the Augustinian hypothesis. However, I will admit your position is not consistent from post to post. So you may not really hold to that hypothesis at all.

My favorite quote of yours regarding synoptic evidence:

Personally, I think God made these complementary to confuse those who think themselves wise.

Could anyone ask for a more reasonable theory?

[Fallibleone]

Moderator suggestion: ST_JB I would advise you at this point to not turn this thread into a continuation of an ongoing issue you may have with another member. From what I see, mcarma is more than capable of understanding the lie of the land. Mcarma, may I suggest you make your own investigations into your opponent's position and previous output?

[Mark75]

Moderator suggestion: ST_JB I would advise you at this point to not turn this thread into a continuation of an ongoing issue you may have with another member. From what I see, mcarma is more than capable of understanding the lie of the land. Mcarma, may I suggest you make your own investigations into your opponent's position and previous output?

Falibleone, thank you for your advise. I don't think ST_JB meant any harm, and I am a capable person and have already taken your advise and am thoroughly enlightened. Thanks for the insight.

[Zzyzx]

.

Folks, I'm 75 yrs old. I may be dead before we actually progress any farther. Can I get a volunteer to replace me should that occur?

The Professor (but you can call me doc.)

Let's see, "Professor", since you are making this a personal issue and are pushing to be called "Doc" -- you claim in PMs sent to a member that you served as a Marine Corps sniper during WWII (AFTER high school), then served in Korea (which you have repeated in a thread " adding that you were injured and chose a different course in life), then in Vietnam.

What a remarkable career " beginning as a Marine sniper when you were ten years old " and now a professor of Hebrew and theology when you are seventy-five.

I actually served in the Army " from 1958 to 1961. However, I was two years old when the US entered WWII (and the recruiters were not offering me sniper assignments). Since you are five years older than me you would have been seven or so when the US entered the war and ten when the war ended (and were a high school graduate by that time). Remarkable. Incredible. It reads like a bible story.

As I said about religion as a child, "If they will lie to me about the little things, they will lie to me about the big things".

[McCulloch]

Moderator Comment

As I said about religion as a child, "If they will lie to me about the little things, they will lie to me about the big things".

Let me remind the debaters that the personal veracity of any of the participants is entirely irrelevant. Since the participants are required to back up their claims with evidence and reason, it matters not if their on-line persona is reasonable or even possible. In real life, I am a chimpanzee in an experimental research facility. The experimenters don't know that I use their computers while they are out of the room.

[Mark75]

.

Folks, I'm 75 yrs old. I may be dead before we actually progress any farther. Can I get a volunteer to replace me should that occur?

The Professor (but you can call me doc.)

Let's see, "Professor", since you are making this a personal issue and are pushing to be called "Doc" -- you claim in PMs sent to a member that you served as a Marine Corps sniper during WWII (AFTER high school), then served in Korea (which you have repeated in a thread " adding that you were injured and chose a different course in life), then in Vietnam.

What a remarkable career " beginning as a Marine sniper when you were ten years old " and now a professor of Hebrew and theology when you are seventy-five.

I actually served in the Army " from 1958 to 1961. However, I was two years old when the US entered WWII (and the recruiters were not offering me sniper assignments). Since you are five years older than me you would have been seven or so when the US entered the war and ten when the war ended (and were a high school graduate by that time). Remarkable. Incredible. It reads like a bible story.

As I said about religion as a child, "If they will lie to me about the little things, they will lie to me about the big things".

First of all, what are you doing with access to my PM's? Aren't they supposed to be "Private Messaging?"

Second of all, you began the personal insults on page 4, post 36, and I suggested that you back off with the persoanl insults. You obviously chose no to, so I sholwed you how it is to be personally insulted in a professional debate.

Third, you don't even have the entire story on my enlistment at WWII. It involved a typo on my birth certificate since I wasn't born in a hospital, but at home instead and didn't get a birth certificate until I was a bit older. On top of that, I did misrepresent my age when I signed up as many did; they didn't really go out of their way to do background checks back then, if you must know. My mother told me that I was born in one year, and my father said another year; so I guess, truthfully I really can't say with 100% certainty which year I really was born, which was not uncommon in those days, also.

Fourth, this has absolutely nothing to do with anything that concerns either you or this thread.

And finally, this is a clear-cut violation of rules 1, 4, 5 (by default to 4), 7, apparently 11, definitely 12, and 14.

I have tried to be civil and professional with you, but you have obviously allowed your bitterness toward Christianity as well as obviously Christians to bring you trouble, which it always does. You need to let it go, and stop with these tactics you are trying to use with me. As my father always said, "That dog doesn't hunt with me."

If you are so unwilling to debate this issue with me that you want to resort to these types of actions, just say that you got into an area that you shouldn't have, and no one will judge. But I predict that your pride is going to continue to be a stumbling block for you.

I fully intended to have a civil and professional debate; not one where you build the entire OP without collaboration, title it at me rather than its subject matter, use my title continuously in quotes, as though you are using it in disdain and insultingly as my title is not written in quotes, and I really don't prefer to use it in the forums. Also I was always taught since computer communication has been around that when you place words in ALL CAPS, it is the equivalent of yelling at the other person. Let me ask you, Are you yelling at me?