Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
There are no (Christians present) in actual point of fact. None that will support the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus as a point of "logic, reason and critical thinking." Unless there happens to be a Christian newbe present that I am unaware of who wishes to tackle the job. None of the Christian regulars here will defend the story of the resurrection beyond a "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," defense.
SelectThis! wrote:
Not so. None is all. I would defend it gladly. Logic and reason reveals what is most evident and what the Bible reveals is absolutely most evident. Start the thread up if you dare. Bring your best arguments.
East of Eden wrote:
Rather than getting sidetracked, how about if we just discuss the eyewitness testimony?
Good suggestion.
Witnesses need to be handled one at a time.
Following the courtroom motif,
Call your first witness.
When a witness is called, the first questions are often preliminary and lay a framework for the meat of the testimony:
Name
Background
Relationship to the parties
Then questions re:
Opportunity to observe
and what was actually seen as opposed to opinion.
Then comes cross examination by opposing counsel.
Before you go into all that, I'd like to point out that if we use the same standards on historical figures like Socrates, we would come up short of establishing that he existed... but no one really believes Socrates wasn't real, right?
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
aglassdarkly wrote:
Before you go into all that, I'd like to point out that if we use the same standards on historical figures like Socrates, we would come up short of establishing that he existed... but no one really believes Socrates wasn't real, right?
Well, there aren't many references to him, so it IS likely that he was an invention of Plato, in his plays, to put though a point.
It doesn't matter if he existed or not, because the method that bears his name DOES exist.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
aglassdarkly wrote:
Before you go into all that, I'd like to point out that if we use the same standards on historical figures like Socrates, we would come up short of establishing that he existed... but no one really believes Socrates wasn't real, right?
Well, there aren't many references to him, so it IS likely that he was an invention of Plato, in his plays, to put though a point.
Well, you're in the vaaaaaaast minority, but at least you're consistent.
aglassdarkly wrote:
Before you go into all that, I'd like to point out that if we use the same standards on historical figures like Socrates, we would come up short of establishing that he existed... but no one really believes Socrates wasn't real, right?
Well, there aren't many references to him, so it IS likely that he was an invention of Plato, in his plays, to put though a point.
Well, you're in the vaaaaaaast minority, but at least you're consistent.
I should clarify that he probably was real (there are several people who said they knew him personally), but what we know about him is the method, and what is told by Plato. How much was 'HIM' and how much as a literary device using his old teacher I don't know.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
East of Eden wrote:
Rather than getting sidetracked, how about if we just discuss the eyewitness testimony?
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Great idea. Where would we find this, exactly?
East of Eden wrote:
Matthew and John.
Matthew the apostle was said to have written a Gospel in Aramaic, but that clearly not the Greek Gospel of Matthew. Who wrote the Gospel of John exactly? Was it the apostle John, or John the presbyter?
Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense on Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
aglassdarkly wrote:
Before you go into all that, I'd like to point out that if we use the same standards on historical figures like Socrates, we would come up short of establishing that he existed... but no one really believes Socrates wasn't real, right?
Well, there aren't many references to him, so it IS likely that he was an invention of Plato, in his plays, to put though a point.
Well, you're in the vaaaaaaast minority, but at least you're consistent.
I should clarify that he probably was real (there are several people who said they knew him personally), but what we know about him is the method, and what is told by Plato. How much was 'HIM' and how much as a literary device using his old teacher I don't know.
We have several accounts of people who say they saw Jesus after He died. Are they somehow less credible than the people who say they knew Socrates?
aglassdarkly wrote:
We have several accounts of people who say they saw Jesus after He died. Are they somehow less credible than the people who say they knew Socrates?
You continue to make this claim, but you never provide the accounts when challenged to do so. At some point you really need to put up or...well, you know the rest.
