|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Truth of resurrection and death of the apostles (for Willowtree) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarde Inactive Member |
That gave me a good laugh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7211 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
Crashfrog writes:
But CRAAAAA-aaaaash, we all know that Tim McVeigh wasn't a TRUE Christian.
Tim McVeigh was a Christian, for instance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NotAHero Inactive Member |
If a title alone makes you exactly that, then we're all in trouble. Obviously, someone who does a wicked act in the name of "God" that directly opposes the teachings of the subscribed faith practice is either 1. Psychologically impaired and not capable of making rational decisions, or 2. Is not a true follower. The Bible says you will know true believers by the fruit they produce, one of which is not murder.
I love how abortion clinic bombings and the like are so easily associated with "Christians," but when it comes to the countless charitable acts done all over the world, they're hardly mentioned or laced with ideas that they're done for self-serving purposes of "forcing" religion down someone else's throat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If a title alone makes you exactly that, then we're all in trouble. Silly me, I usually take somebody's word at face value when they identify their own religious beliefs. As for not following the rules, you are aware that they make the same claim about you, right?
I love how abortion clinic bombings and the like are so easily associated with "Christians," but when it comes to the countless charitable acts done all over the world, they're hardly mentioned or laced with ideas that they're done for self-serving purposes of "forcing" religion down someone else's throat. Hey, I'm an atheist, and I'll be the first to admit that Christians do great deeds around the world for the disenfranchised - all the more noteworthy for a faith that denies that good deeds get you into heaven. They're just as truly altruistic as the atheist, in that way. But obviously Christians have neither the monopoly on charity or on hatred. Generally we're only pointing out these bad Christians to counter claims that Christians are better than everybody else, which is obviously false. Some Christians are good, and some are bad. I'm content to let their actions mark which is which.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NotAHero Inactive Member |
Well, first of all, I don't know any true Christians who would ever claim to be "better" than anyone else. Sounds to me like you've run into a lot of the self-righteous types whom I, before becoming a Christian, despised. The Bible definitely doesn't teach that sort of attitude, so needing to point out "bad Christians" isn't necessary to counter those claims because those claims are false to begin with and aren't Christian. Secondly, a simple reading of the Bible does tell us that we are not saved by works, but by faith alone. However, that same simple reading tells us that genuine faith PRODUCES good works, such as charity, taking care of the homeless, etc.... Therefore, not quite sure why you think good works done by Christians somehow negates our belief in salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. In fact, I believe it strengthens it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3732 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
I suggest that you check out Messages 73 and 75 in this thread. it will put into context what Crashfrog was getting at. It was a perfectly valid point to make, given the initial statement that began this exchange. In fact, if Crash hadn't made it, then I would have, but I don't think I'd have been so gentle and I'm a Christian!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
For my darling Asgara, I hope you can truly embrace Jesus somehow, someday, notice I said Jesus and nothing else....your Willowtree.
The important aspect of the apostles death, is the fact that they died alone, horribly, while possessing the ability to escape death by recanting, this tri-fold circumstance is the common denominator in all the sources/accounts/legends/stories/bios of their deaths. This particular evidence is also offered under the challenge for anyone to uncover any source/account/legend/story/ or bio about their deaths that even remotely implies that they did not die alone, horribly, or recanted. Strewn across N.T. geography are hundreds of sites that claim by tradition, legend, archival records, architecture, inscriptions, of the apostles/disciples presence. There are tens of thousands of books writtten about the apostles/disciples. The entire Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Church worlds verifies their existence/martyrdom. Scholars who believe in there existence and martyrdom out number the few "oddballs" who don't 500 to 1. Many differences are argued concerning the details of their lives, journeys, and deaths. But there is no evidence, not a shred of credible evidence in existence that says they did not die for the report of the Resurrection. The common denominator that history records concerning the apostles/disciples is that they were martyred alone for their Resurrection report. The sources of scholarship for the entire church world agree in unison that they died alone, horribly, for the Resurrection report.Non church scholars agree at a rate of 500 to 1. (estimated), the point is that there is no evidence to contradict the checkmate evidence. I define evidence to be "pieces of proof supporting a claimed fact". If someone arbitrarily says "traditions" are not evidence then this makes you an oddball in contrast to thousands of scholars who say it is. Traditions are based on cores of truth, common denominators among the traditions are then accepted as unverifiable historical FACT. But if your worldview places you in a state outside a reachable pale of objectively reviewing the evidence, then no amount will convince you. This is why I have refrained from posting the accessible to anyone checkmate evidence. The claim of fact is made, they died alone, horribly, for the witness of the Resurrection. Can someone please tell me what evidence exists to refute anything that I have said/evidenced ? McBirnie's "Search for the Twelve Apostles" was already entered in to evidence, and the urging to simply type "saints name martyrdom" into Google search, and now I add "The Oxford Dictionary of Saints" compiled by David Hugh Farmer. These three sources are all readily available to most everyone - nothing obscure here. They all evidence the claim that the apostles/disciples died alone, horribly, for the report of the Resurrection Atheist revisionism/mindset has completely erased the meaning and credibility of religious evidence. TO YOU, the collective sources and evidence for the apostles/disciples martyrdom simply ISN'T evidence. Atheism, in general, is completely brainwashed, diametrically opposed to the validity of theism and their sources. You hold the sacred doctrines and claims of the Church to a scientific standard of evidence. But have no trouble when it comes to science deducing unseen things with the flimsiest of evidence. The amount of phsical evidence, by volume, that exists to claim man evolved from an ape is utterly "meagre". Previously, in this topic, I argued that my opponents/atheism "is beyond the pale", the boundary of being affected by anything theist. What I am saying is that atheism and theism are too far apart. I don't want to argue about what evidence is, since I KNOW that any church source is automatically more objective than a non church source, and I know you/the room consider church sources/traditions to be laughable - we are too far apart. This isn't an insult - just an honest assessment. In sum: Besides the "checkmate evidence/claims" the totality of ALL the evidence is convincing enough to conclude Jesus rose from the dead.One section of evidence in isolation is not sufficent. Sources: Post 1 of my Resurrection topic: http://EvC Forum: RESURRECTION : THE EVIDENCE (+ Apostolic Martyrdom considerations) -->EvC Forum: RESURRECTION : THE EVIDENCE (+ Apostolic Martyrdom considerations) Or get it straight from Dr. Scott himself: Pastor Melissa Scott presents Dr. Gene Scott - The Official SiteNavigate to media systems and choose any of the Resurrection messages. Books: "Who Moved the Stone ? " Frank Morison "Evidence that Demands a Verdict Vol.1 and Vol.2 " Josh McDowell "Sherlock's Tryal (intentional misspelling) of the Witnesses" Bishop Sherlock Jesus Christ : Super Nut or Super Natural ? (6 volumes) Dr. Gene Scott Once again Asgara, the circumstances of the deaths of the Apostles/disciples is via traditions which historians call unverified historic fact. Which traditions should be believed and which shouldn't ? That takes research which looks for corroborating evidence, and the corroborating evidence in this case is the entire body of evidence. And in the case of traditions, historians also take into account traditions that contradict or evidence against, but in the apostles case there exists none to contradict so this in itself is also evidence in favor of the traditions themselves (commom denominators) being true. P.S. Would you please close my Resurrection topic - I am no longer interested in defending it. Would you please close "Philosophy is King" AFTER Quetzal responds to post #90 ? Thank you, WT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
matt_dabbs Inactive Junior Member |
Willowtree said:
You hold the sacred doctrines and claims of the Church to a scientific standard of evidence. But have no trouble when it comes to science deducing unseen things with the flimsiest of evidence. The amount of phsical evidence, by volume, that exists to claim man evolved from an ape is utterly "meagre". The "meager" evidence is still far greater then the evidence of the Resurrection, which amounts to only a single book called the Bible, which claims truth based on the fact that it is the word of God because the Bible said so... I suppose I could write a book claiming Al Sharpton was the new Messiah. And then claim it was the inspired work of God. Because it says so in the book. Would that make Al Sharpton the Messiah?
I don't want to argue about what evidence is, since I KNOW that any church source is automatically more objective than a non church source It is? Please define your definition of objective for us then. I honestly would like to hear it very much. [edit: spelling] This message has been edited by matt_dabbs, 05-07-2004 05:32 PM "The religion of the invisible pink unicorn is based both on faith and logic...through faith we know that the unicorn is pink, while logic tells us it is invisible."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Matt Dabbs quote:
______________________________________________________________________ It is? Please define your definition of objective for us then. I honestly would like to hear it very much ______________________________________________________________________ IF God IS, (and He is) then His subjective views as found in His eternal word (the Bible) BECOME objective truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2329 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
Willow,
Thank you for finally telling me your "evidence". It isn't what I initially asked for but I do see what you are saying. I don't agree that it is "checkmate" evidence but I do see where you are coming from. I'm not going to debate the issue with you anymore, but I do want to point out that several of the men listed in my initial question http://EvC Forum: Truth of resurrection and death of the apostles (for Willowtree) had stories attached to their deaths that listed natural causes. I still have nothing except tradition to tell me how, when, or where any of them died. That was my point in starting this thread. I wanted to know if anyone had any actual evidence OTHER than tradition. Though at one point you had claimed to "know", I now see that you don't really. I do understand your point that the common denominator seems to be martyrdom, but repeating a story many times does not make this story true. I will give you your point though, but will refrain from admitting it to be "checkmate" evidence. It seems closer to "stalemate". Thank you again Willow. Asgara "Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
matt_dabbs Inactive Junior Member |
IF God IS, (and He is) then His subjective views as found in His eternal word (the Bible) BECOME objective truth. I'm not sure if you have the definition of objective correct. Also, regardless of whether or not God actually exists (and I'm not saying he doesn't), it is not, nor can it be, proven. So any views or opinions that a "Church Source" puts forward would be subjective because it would be based upon the assumption that God does exist and the Bible is literal truth. Non-Church Sources, regardless of whether or not they are wrong about evolution or whatnot, at least approach the problem from an objective standpoint. Non-Church seems to gather evidence THEN draw their conclusions (whether right or wrong), based on the evidence. "Church Sources" on the other hand, begin with the view that the Bible is infallible and literal, then attempt to show how the evidence supports their position. I wouldn't call this objective in the least. Even if the church were right about everything, they would still most definitely be a subjective source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
thank you too.....but what about us ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2329 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
Us??
Asgara "Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Matt:
You are referencing the difference between two worldviews and their methods at determining truth. The only problem with the scientific worldview is their belief that their methodologies be the ONLY avenue to truth. This subject is kind of being debated here: http://EvC Forum: PHILOSOPHY IS KING -->EvC Forum: PHILOSOPHY IS KING
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024