juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Lets try this out:
I am able to be abducted by aliens
I say I was abducted by aliens
So I was abducted by aliens
Ok. Is this supposed to be a logical proof? What is it? What are you trying to show me?
So, anyone who says they are God necessarily resurrected???There are many logical ones.
A simple one is:
God is able to resurrect.
Jesus says He is God,
So Jesus resurrected.
This simple argument WILL NOT apply to all your other examples.
So, anyone who says they are God necessarily resurrected???
Thats what your 'logic' implies.
Even if I grant you the second premise 100% (that Jesus says he's God), your logic STILL implies that anyone who says they are God necessarily resurrectedIt is a simple format.
The second premise needs some background supports. If one has equivalent supports like Jesus had, then the syllogism is valid.
In fact, the idea of resurrection is absurd. That is why nobody else except those in Christianity care to make such claim. You can not find a second equivalent case like that.
Even if I grant you the second premise 100% (that Jesus says he's God), your logic STILL implies that anyone who says they are God necessarily resurrected
I said it is a simplified version.
the premise 2 is, in fact, the conclusion of a separated argument, in which, not everyone is applicable.
Even what you said is true, it is still valid for the purpose of giving a reply to the OP. He just wanted a logic proof. He got one.
You haven't refuted anything. All you made was a counter-claim with no evidence for it. Policies can change, but you have not shown that how Romans persecuting Christians did change with the death of Nero. I'm still waiting to hear your evidence for that. In the meantime, I have a pattern of history from later centuries, which likely began with Nero's persecution. I also know that the Romans took in Josephus when he turned coat on the Jews after having taken place in an armed rebellion, only a few years later. From a historical perspective, this to me strengthens the likelihood that the Apostles were given a chance to recant by the Romans - while those powerful enough to make these decisions were certainly cruel, they were not beneath giving some measure of pardon to those who gave them the allegiance they were looking for.I already explained to you that policies can change abruptly when you transfer power from one emperor to another. You have done nothing to address this point; in debate, that is commonly understood as an admission that your opponent is right. Therefore I am confused on why you are persisting with this topic that I have already refuted.
What I highlighted from your original post are claims you made, whether or not you intended to make them. What I quoted later are more claims. What it comes down to is this: I have the pattern of how Roman persecutors generally treated Christians, I have the pattern of the Sanhedrin's proceedings, even at its most corrupt, I have outside evidence of a different monotheist who took part in an armed rebellion who somehow didn't die for it but was well-treated after his surrender. To me, these circumstances make it more likely that the Apostles would have had a final chance to recant. You're claiming that it's just as plausible that they didn't, without any supporting evidence. One could say that either my claim or yours is logically possible, but you haven't offered anything relevant from history to buttress the possibility you are suggesting. In other words, while I might not have everything, I do have something and you have nothing. To me, it is less reasonable to take your alternative seriously than it is to take the traditional narrative. For me to take your alternative seriously, you need to present more than just its logical possibility.I am not claiming anything. I am positing a sequence of events as being plausible.I then discovered that this is a complete lie. There is no actual documented claim - whether in the Bible, in noncanonized texts, in Christian tradition, or even in secular history - which claims that the disciples were actually given the opportunity to go free if only they recanted their faith. We have no dialogue, and barely even any details of what actually happened.
I always imagined a Roman saying, "Recant your faith or you will be tortured and executed," but the line of questioning could've just as easily been something along the lines of, "You were preaching the gospel, weren't you? Deny this, and you'll be tortured until you admit to it. You will be executed at the end regardless of what you say." In either case, it would be recorded that the disciple "died for his faith."You have no evidence that the twelve were given the chance to recant and go free, so even if you are Christian you are unwarranted in believing that.
So when they went out and preached again, they'd be punished for preaching and the Romans wouldn't care if they recanted just like they didn't care the first time.
That's not how mail delivery worked. You gave your letter to a trusted individual who in the case of the church would have likely known where to go or who to meet.How does that even make sense? Paul has to tell them where to deliver the letter. What is it that you're suggesting? The Romans left the letters at a dead drop?
Possible, but it's harder to find the safehouse or the leaders that way.They still could have simply left guards to ambush the Christians that retrieve the letter.
The conclusion is that the Sanhedrin gave early Christians a chance to recant. James was also killed following a Sanhedrin trial. While it's possible that they broke with the pattern of behavior they demonstrated with Jesus, Peter, John, and Stephen, I find it unlikely. Therefore, I find it very likely that he had the same chance that all four of them had to deny that that Jesus was the Son of God and declare their devotion to the Law of Moses as the Jewish leaders interpreted it. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that they went further from the Law than they did at the trials of Jesus, Peter, John, and Stephen. Also, considering the persecution that followed Stephen's death, Saul was a front-running figure - who by his own admission, tried to force people to blaspheme. I find it more likely that he was referring to telling people to say that Jesus was only a man, and a false teacher rather than telling them to blaspheme the Father directly.And what is the point? It wasn't just the Romans that were after the Christians, but also the Jews? What is the conclusion of this point?
1) You don't know that. While his name was Greek, he could have been part of the crowds that converted at Pentecost, but he also could have been one of the one hundred forty, some of whom had seen the risen Jesus, most if not all had followed Jesus before his death. Phillip for instance, was a Greek-speaking Apostle, Stephen might have been a Greek-speaking disciple. It's an outside possibility admittedly, but you seem to be very emphatic that he was not an eyewitness - more so than the information available to us warrants.I don't care about Stephen because he was not an eyewitness in any physical sense. What he saw was not seen by the others present at the event.
Well done sir, although I would disagree on one point. The whole "new religion is shameful". I've heard it explained before...but I didn't hear it explained as shameful. Romans had the idea that they owed the success of their society to their gods. As long as respect was given to the old gods...there wasn't anything particularly wrong with new gods (it just seemed ignorant since it broke with tradition). Christians didn't pay respect to the old gods...so they were breaking with tradition and putting society in danger. It was a lack of respect for Roman society itself.
You add to that the "weird" things said about these new christians (they ate their savior, had love feasts) and it was frightening to think a cult of orgiastic cannibals were invoking the wrath of the old gods. Still, they weren't prosecuted for being christian...they were prosecuted for not paying respect to Roman gods (done by burning incense...a small gesture of respect) so no amount of recanting their faith would change anything about their situation....let alone save them from execution. I could be wrong of course...that's just how I remember reading it.
That's why I said they were aware of the danger and had the opportunity to recant, but didn't choose to do so.
I think 1 is correct, I'm not sure why 2-3 are conjecture, I've repeatedly contested 4, and I see no evidence for 5.
Sounds imaginative and again misses the point.
There's no evidence for my side only after you hand wave the evidence for my side.
And again, faith is not an epistemology. If belief in the resurrection were not based on reason, then there wouldn't be anyone who held that belief.
If you're interested in reading a scholarly book that deals with this issue, then I still recommend it. If you're not interested in scholarship on the issue, then please stop inaccurately claiming that there is little evidence.
I'm friends with Nick Peters and he's not the type of person who would hide behind that excuse. The chances are far greater that he simply forgot to get back to you, so I'd send him another message.
The same day, he replied simply this:Hi Nick,
I was just wondering whether you had forgotten about our correspondence, or if you were still involved with your personal issue, or if you were no longer inclined to continue this conversation.
Haven't forgotten.
I don't see why that's a problem.
The empty tomb is granted by the vast majority of Christian and non-Christians scholars.
So why didn't Christianity die out like all of the other Messianic cults did after their leader died? Something obviously changed.
Who would follow a someone who was executed by the Romans as their Messiah when they expected one who would instead conquer the Romans and reign over them?
Again, saying that they were all given a last opportunity recant and go free or die is overstating the case, but that doesn't change that they were martyred for their faith.
Again, feel free to read scholarship on the issue, but if you choose not to, then at least stop making stuff up about it.
That didn't negatively affect the accuracy of the transmission unduly, so why wouldn't it be?
There are many "stories" in the Bible that backup the claims of Jesus that Jesus is God.
In your case, there is nothing to back you up. That is what's wrong about your irrelevant argument.
If you find a similar case to that of Jesus, then your argument could be considered.
I said it is a simplified version.
the premise 2 is, in fact, the conclusion of a separated argument, in which, not everyone is applicable.
Even what you said is true, it is still valid for the purpose of giving a reply to the OP. He just wanted a logic proof. He got one.
You haven't refuted anything. All you made was a counter-claim with no evidence for it. Policies can change, but you have not shown that how Romans persecuting Christians did change with the death of Nero. I'm still waiting to hear your evidence for that. In the meantime, I have a pattern of history from later centuries, which likely began with Nero's persecution. I also know that the Romans took in Josephus when he turned coat on the Jews after having taken place in an armed rebellion, only a few years later. From a historical perspective, this to me strengthens the likelihood that the Apostles were given a chance to recant by the Romans - while those powerful enough to make these decisions were certainly cruel, they were not beneath giving some measure of pardon to those who gave them the allegiance they were looking for.
What I highlighted from your original post are claims you made, whether or not you intended to make them. What I quoted later are more claims. What it comes down to is this: I have the pattern of how Roman persecutors generally treated Christians, I have the pattern of the Sanhedrin's proceedings, even at its most corrupt, I have outside evidence of a different monotheist who took part in an armed rebellion who somehow didn't die for it but was well-treated after his surrender. To me, these circumstances make it more likely that the Apostles would have had a final chance to recant. You're claiming that it's just as plausible that they didn't, without any supporting evidence. One could say that either my claim or yours is logically possible, but you haven't offered anything relevant from history to buttress the possibility you are suggesting. In other words, while I might not have everything, I do have something and you have nothing. To me, it is less reasonable to take your alternative seriously than it is to take the traditional narrative. For me to take your alternative seriously, you need to present more than just its logical possibility.
...they were prosecuted for not paying respect to Roman gods (done by burning incense...a small gesture of respect) so no amount of recanting their faith would change anything about their situation....let alone save them from execution.
I could be wrong of course...that's just how I remember reading it.
That's not how mail delivery worked. You gave your letter to a trusted individual who in the case of the church would have likely known where to go or who to meet.
Possible, but it's harder to find the safehouse or the leaders that way.
The conclusion is that the Sanhedrin gave early Christians a chance to recant.
James was also killed following a Sanhedrin trial.
While it's possible that they broke with the pattern of behavior they demonstrated with Jesus, Peter, John, and Stephen, I find it unlikely.
Therefore, I find it very likely that he had the same chance that all four of them had to deny that that Jesus was the Son of God and declare their devotion to the Law of Moses as the Jewish leaders interpreted it.
To suggest otherwise is to suggest that they went further from the Law than they did at the trials of Jesus, Peter, John, and Stephen.
Also, considering the persecution that followed Stephen's death, Saul was a front-running figure - who by his own admission, tried to force people to blaspheme.
I find it more likely that he was referring to telling people to say that Jesus was only a man, and a false teacher rather than telling them to blaspheme the Father directly.
1) You don't know that. While his name was Greek, he could have been part of the crowds that converted at Pentecost, but he also could have been one of the one hundred forty, some of whom had seen the risen Jesus, most if not all had followed Jesus before his death. Phillip for instance, was a Greek-speaking Apostle, Stephen might have been a Greek-speaking disciple. It's an outside possibility admittedly, but you seem to be very emphatic that he was not an eyewitness - more so than the information available to us warrants.
2) Stephen seeing the vision doesn't invalidate him as a witness to the Resurrection. If you see it, you're a witness. We don't know if anyone was with James when he saw the risen Lord. Does that make him not a witness? Or are you claiming that seeing the heavenly risen Jesus is in some way less valid than seeing him before his Ascension? If so, why?
There are tons of myths similar to Jesus. Are you saying they are real because there are "stories" about them?
Can you give us the unsimplified version? All we are able to do is critique what you write down. If you don't write down your whole argument, you can't say we're wrong when we tear your argument to shreds.
And the other poster pointed out, why your logic fails.
Nihilist...maybe I should've worded it differently....but I wasn't saying the early church was full of cannibals. I'm saying ancient Romans who knew between little and nothing about christianity thought it was full of cannibals.
Interestingly, martyrdom had become something of a fad in ancient Rome. It was romanticized to a certain degree (some of the martyr stories reflect this. You see, dying as a christian martyr earned you a "martyr's crown" and you got to ascend straight up to heaven while all the other christians had to wait for the rapture. You can imagine how this might appeal to a zealous follower who is poor, sick, or destitute and had little to look forward to in life already.
As a result, christians were acting like jerks and demanding to be martyred. There's a particular Roman governor (in Asia Minor i think) who is quoted as saying (paraphrasing) "there are plenty of cliffs to jump from and trees to hang from if you all desire to die so badly."
Now to be sure, there were christians who were martyred for being christian...but it appears that was rare and sporadic. The christian accounts of martyrdom are suspect for several reasons...which anyone can find with a little effort. However, when you take into account the description of the behavior of early christians...it's not difficult to imagine why Nero chose them as scapegoats for the Roman fires, or why the Roman people believed it.
No. I am saying that there ARE stories about Jesus. Real or not.
If you like to be a god, you also need some stories been told about you.
Until then, your claim of being a god is not logically valid.
Review your examples about other real/imaginary figures in the OP, which one has stories which said that the figure is a god? If none, then my syllogism is valid.
Think: who has tons of myths similar to what Jesus has? Why none?
In fact, my syllogism does have big problem.
But, you can not see it.
Do you like to take a second look and try to catch it?
No one has myths similar to Jesus?
Jesus was born into Judaism. Judaism, like all religions, says there is a problem with the world and offers solutions. Jesus offered a new solution to the problem (forgiveness of sins by one sacrifice, instead of regularly animal sacrifice), and after his death he was deified by his followers.
The Buddha was born in Hinduism. Hinduism, like all religions, says there is a problem with the world and offers solutions. The Buddha offered a new solution (ascending above the birth-rebirth cycle), and after his death he was deified by his followers.
The ball is still in your court.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?