Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If someone says to me, "Aliens came to me last night and said...
do this and when you do you will be so happy."
If I practice their instructions and find I am happy by doing them.
I do not care where the advice came from or where they came from.
I practice what Jesus instructed...as in Do not worry, cast your cares,
Be not afraid, be anxious for nothing, ask believe and receive,
Let not your heart be troubled, give God your burdens...in other words,
I rely on the Father/Universe/the Source of my life...the Divine.
The instructions worked...like a Secret Formula.
That's all I care about.
Do I really care if there was a whale or a wall of Jericho, I really don't.
It wasn't called apologetics back then, Mike. My meaning is clear. When the church was young and had no power, of course people attacked it. Once the RCC became the center of power nobody dared disputed Christianity or they were burned or tortured. Naturally apologetics disappeared. But one the RCC lost its power a millennium later when the Age of Reason emerged people weren't afraid to question Christianity's foundational belief that Jesus was crucified died and resurrected. That's when modern apologetics emerged.
Since then hundreds of reputable historians with PhD's, like Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University) and Robert Price (PhD in Systematic Theology (1981) PhD in New Testament (1993) have produced more than enough verifiable evidence that Jesus at least was an ordinary man, not a god and at worst for Christians did not exist at all.
These historians would have no platform to stand on if the evidence for Jesus was so indisputable it could not even be questioned. That's the ONE fact you cannot argue against.
The word 'apologetics' is an English word and so obviously the English word 'apologetics' didn't exist. The Greek word is ἀπολογία - apologia (in defense of). And that's what apologetics is - a defense of the faith.
All you've done here is to change your claim that you were referring to modern apologetics rather than to apologetics.
While you point to someone such as Richard Carrier who doesn't even believe that Jesus existed, Bart Ehrman, himself an agnostic with atheist leanings points out that almost every trained scholar believes that Jesus existed and was crucified.
Despite this enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberus, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea.
[Ehrman, 'Did Jesus Exist?' p.12]
The idea that Jesus never existed is a modern myth. As to whether Jesus was, and is God, obviously there are those with PhD's who deny it. There are those with PhD's who say that Jesus is God. The writers of the Bible say that Jesus is God.
You obviously have never read Justin Martyrs apologies. He defends a number of different issues including the reality of Jesus' crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension. In other words, Justin defends the gospel in his apologetics.
JUSTIN MARTYR -- THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN
CHAPTER XXI -- ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST.
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. [Bolding mine]
Oh, and Justin also defends a physical resurrection.
JUSTIN MARTYR -- THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN
CHAPTER XVIII -- PROOF OF IMMORTALITY AND THE RESURRECTION.
Such favour as you grant to these, grant also to us, who not less but more firmly than they believe in God; since we expect to receive again our own bodies, though they be dead and cast into the earth, for we maintain that with God nothing is impossible.
CHAPTER XIX -- THE RESURRECTION POSSIBLE.
But as at first you would not have believed it possible that such persons could be produced from the small drop, and yet now you see them thus produced, so also judge ye that it is not impossible that the bodies of men, after they have been dissolved, and like seeds resolved into earth, should in God's appointed time rise again and put on incorruption.
This is an interesting discussion, but my goodness the number of logical fallacies in these supposedly logical arguments! I generally hate people bringing up logical fallacies, but you see why it becomes important when you read discussions like this.
I say this because this is a great discussion to read and it is watered down when it devolves into a load of fallacies. Just to give a few examples:
"Since then hundreds of reputable historians with PhD's" appeal to authority
"It wasn't called apologetics back then, Mike." ambiguity
"You keep posting misinformation which is demonstrably false." red herring. the core of his argument is not when apologetics first appeared...
"Show us a writing by Philo that mentions Jesus. Otherwise go away." false dilemma
Please keep these in mind for this important topic! I mean this in the most friendly way and do not wish to offend anyone with the request, only to see strong arguments on all sides to help everyone learn. Thank you.
Thrillobyte's stated claim is that apologetics defending Jesus didn't exist until 300 years ago. I went on to show in post #99 that apologetics defending Jesus existed in the 2nd century.
I notice you just slid right past my main point which was:
Skeptical historians would have no platform to stand on IF the evidence for Jesus was so indisputable it could not even be questioned.
So show me the evidence that Jesus was not God. Show me the evidence that Jesus didn't even exist. Those that knew Him came to know that He was God and certainly knew that He existed.
So come on then. Show me this evidence that Jesus is not God. Do it.
The word 'apologetics' is an English word and so obviously the English word 'apologetics' didn't exist. The Greek word is ἀπολογία - apologia (in defense of). And that's what apologetics is - a defense of the faith.
All you've done here is to change your claim that you were referring to modern apologetics rather than to apologetics.
While you point to someone such as Richard Carrier who doesn't even believe that Jesus existed, Bart Ehrman, himself an agnostic with atheist leanings points out that almost every trained scholar believes that Jesus existed and was crucified.
Despite this enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberus, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea.
[Ehrman, 'Did Jesus Exist?' p.12]
The idea that Jesus never existed is a modern myth. As to whether Jesus was, and is God, obviously there are those with PhD's who deny it. There are those with PhD's who say that Jesus is God. The writers of the Bible say that Jesus is God.
Does Mark have Jesus saying he is God? Last I checked it was the Son of Man, not God. Nowhere in Mark does Jesus even hint He is God.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 11-19-2015 at 11:36 AM..
The word 'apologetics' is an English word and so obviously the English word 'apologetics' didn't exist. The Greek word is ἀπολογία - apologia (in defense of). And that's what apologetics is - a defense of the faith.
All you've done here is to change your claim that you were referring to modern apologetics rather than to apologetics.
While you point to someone such as Richard Carrier who doesn't even believe that Jesus existed, Bart Ehrman, himself an agnostic with atheist leanings points out that almost every trained scholar believes that Jesus existed and was crucified.
Despite this enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberus, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea.
[Ehrman, 'Did Jesus Exist?' p.12]
The idea that Jesus never existed is a modern myth. As to whether Jesus was, and is God, obviously there are those with PhD's who deny it. There are those with PhD's who say that Jesus is God. The writers of the Bible say that Jesus is God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
So show me the evidence that Jesus was not God. Show me the evidence that Jesus didn't even exist. Those that knew Him came to know that He was God and certainly knew that He existed.
So come on then. Show me this evidence that Jesus is not God. Do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Does Mark have Jesus saying he is God? Last I checked it was the Son of Man, not God. Nowhere in Mark does Jesus even hint He is God.
Is that it? Is that all you've got for evidence?
Mark's Gospel account wasn't written to emphasize the fact that Jesus is God. Mark's purpose was to emphasize Jesus as a servant. Therefore Mark only indirectly referred to Jesus' deity when he recorded the occasion in which Jesus healed the paralytic after forgiving his sins. This is recorded in Mark 2:1-12.
Jesus, in the presence of a Jewish audience who believed that only God could forgive sins forgave the sins of the paralyzed man and then performed a miracle by healing him thus demonstrating that He had the divine authority to forgive the man's sins. Jesus was claiming divine authority because only God can forgive sins. This is also recorded by Matthew and Luke.
Furthermore, Paul, perhaps writing before Matthew and Mark, or at about the same time states that Jesus is God in Philippians 2:5-8. Before Jesus took the form of a bond-servant when He entered into the human race and became a man He pre-existed in the form of God. In other words, Paul stated that Jesus is God.
Last edited by Michael Way; 11-19-2015 at 11:55 AM..
If someone says to me, "Aliens came to me last night and said...
do this and when you do you will be so happy."
If I practice their instructions and find I am happy by doing them.
I do not care where the advice came from or where they came from.
I practice what Jesus instructed...as in Do not worry, cast your cares,
Be not afraid, be anxious for nothing, ask believe and receive,
Let not your heart be troubled, give God your burdens...in other words,
I rely on the Father/Universe/the Source of my life...the Divine.
The instructions worked...like a Secret Formula.
That's all I care about.
Do I really care if there was a whale or a wall of Jericho, I really don't.
I can relate to that. I may not agree with it or even think it a good way to live. But if it suits yiou...fine by me.
Just so you don't find fault with those who have a different approach dig around the history, archaeology and textual criticism. Because it interests us and the fact -finding is meaningful. We all have our aims and goals and, so long and nobody is going to hinder, if not help, then we can all get along.
You obviously have never read Justin Martyrs apologies. He defends a number of different issues including the reality of Jesus' crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension. In other words, Justin defends the gospel in his apologetics.
JUSTIN MARTYR -- THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN
CHAPTER XXI -- ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST.
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. [Bolding mine]
Oh, and Justin also defends a physical resurrection.
JUSTIN MARTYR -- THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN
CHAPTER XVIII -- PROOF OF IMMORTALITY AND THE RESURRECTION.
Such favour as you grant to these, grant also to us, who not less but more firmly than they believe in God; since we expect to receive again our own bodies, though they be dead and cast into the earth, for we maintain that with God nothing is impossible.
CHAPTER XIX -- THE RESURRECTION POSSIBLE.
But as at first you would not have believed it possible that such persons could be produced from the small drop, and yet now you see them thus produced, so also judge ye that it is not impossible that the bodies of men, after they have been dissolved, and like seeds resolved into earth, should in God's appointed time rise again and put on incorruption.
Again, Thrillobyte's claim, and yours, is demonstrably false.
Are you telling me that Justin is arguing with people who doubt the claims he is making? If not they you are wrong. If so, please direct me to some examples. I shall consider whether that looks like the sort of apologetics we got as soon as people began to question the gospels or whether it is just making a lot of claims to commend the Christians a good citizens. If the former, we shall have to disagree. Mind...this is really a minor point I mean ...that apologetics goes back further than Thrillobyte thought. Is that really important?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I mean ...that apologetics goes back further than Thrillobyte thought. Is that really important?
