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.
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.
I applaud your post. I doubt it will do much good but i would be happy to appoint to fallacy -inspector - general to this forum. Point 'em up when you see 'em, no matter which side is making 'em.
I might point out that Mike's appeal to authority has some validity if it is an authority in the field. If it is an authority on that subject it is correct to refer to them. The problem I have has is that the response to an argument about Dating Paul's letters I was presented with a post saying that Bart Erhmann conceded that all historians accepted that Jesus really existed. Not exactly addressing the question. So that is I think the fallacy of non sequitur rather than ad verecundiam (I looked it up) or appeal to authority.
P.s I looked at p 1. Woo. We were off the subject half way down. Has there been any consideration of the validity of the prophecy claims?
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.
Yes, just so I don't find fault...you know how much I do that...
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.
You're misrepresenting me again, Mike. I specifically used the word "modern". "Modern" apologetics didn't come into being until roughly 300 years ago. Or if you prefer, apologetics didn't resurface until 300 years ago after a millennium-long absence. Actually it was more recent but why quibble over a few hundred years in the scheme of things?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
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.
But there is no earthly reason for Jesus to withhold his Godhood in Mark and then brag endlessly about it in John. Can't you see that there was a gradually process through the gospels turning Jesus from a man into a god? What mother would say of a son she knew to be divine, "Do not listen to him. He's crazier than a Mad Hatter!" Mark 3:21
Quote:
When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He's gone mad."
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.
While I disagree with Mike's assessment of the story of Tyre being about a prophet who didn't know he was prophesying 250 years into the future, he is correct about early Christian apologists.
Quote:
Origen (185-254) was an early church Father and apologist for Christianity. He was heavily influenced by Platonic and Gnostic thought.
In this environment, Gnosticism flourished, and Origen was the first truly philosophical thinker to turn his hand not only to a refutation of Gnosticism, but to offer an alternative Christian system that was more rigorous and philosophically respectable than the mythological speculations of the various Gnostic sects.
While he had what we now consider some unorthodox ideas (such as the pre-existence of souls), he also understood the allegorical nature of much scripture. But he was defending the faith while it was still in its infancy.
You're misrepresenting me again, Mike. I specifically used the word "modern". "Modern" apologetics didn't come into being until roughly 300 years ago. Or if you prefer, apologetics didn't resurface until 300 years ago after a millennium-long absence. Actually it was more recent but why quibble over a few hundred years in the scheme of things?
But there is no earthly reason for Jesus to withhold his Godhood in Mark and then brag endlessly about it in John. Can't you see that there was a gradually process through the gospels turning Jesus from a man into a god? What mother would say of a son she knew to be divine, "Do not listen to him. He's crazier than a Mad Hatter!" Mark 3:21
Actually you have quoted Mark 3:21 out of context of the story in which it rests. And that story certainly would lead one to the conclusion that at the very least, Jesus was a partaker of God's glory.
Listen to His own word when He refutes the criticism:
Quote:
When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, "He has lost His senses." The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons." And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan?…
Mark 3:21-23
With His statement does not any logic lead you to some other conclusion given that Jesus was the one "casting out Satan?"
Actually you have quoted Mark 3:21 out of context of the story in which it rests. And that story certainly would lead one to the conclusion that at the very least, Jesus was a partaker of God's glory.
Listen to His own word when He refutes the criticism:
Mark 3:21-23
With His statement does not any logic lead you to some other conclusion given that Jesus was the one "casting out Satan?"
My understanding of the story set in the proper context (I may be wrong) is that Jesus' was saying such revolutionary things that his own family members (brothers, sisters, mother) said, "He is crazy." The translation "His own people" is somewhat misleading because it implies beyond the scope of immediate family. Apparently what Jesus was teaching so off the wall that Jesus was creating a furor leading to a riot. His family came to take him away and tried to calm the crowds saying, "Do not listen to him. He's crazy". Most translations at BibleHub say "family":
New International Version
When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."
New Living Translation
When his family heard what was happening, they tried to take him away. "He's out of his mind," they said.
English Standard Version
And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.”
Berean Study Bible
When His family heard about this, they went out to take custody of Him, saying, "He is out of His mind."
In this context Jesus cannot be divine. No family member who knew their brother was divine would dare try to seize him and lead him back to the house like a loony brother off his nut. Mark had absolutely no idea whether Jesus was divine or not. This idea surfaced decades later as church members tried to make a deity out of Jesus at converts' insistence, "We want a god to worship or we won't join your new faith". So the church leaders obliged.
My understanding of the story set in the proper context (I may be wrong) is that Jesus' was saying such revolutionary things that his own family members (brothers, sisters, mother) said, "He is crazy." The translation "His own people" is somewhat misleading because it implies beyond the scope of immediate family. Apparently what Jesus was teaching so off the wall that Jesus was creating a furor leading to a riot. His family came to take him away and tried to calm the crowds saying, "Do not listen to him. He's crazy". Most translations at BibleHub say "family":
New International Version
When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."
New Living Translation
When his family heard what was happening, they tried to take him away. "He's out of his mind," they said.
English Standard Version
And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.”
Berean Study Bible
When His family heard about this, they went out to take custody of Him, saying, "He is out of His mind."
In this context Jesus cannot be divine. No family member who knew their brother was divine would dare try to seize him and lead him back to the house like a loony brother off his nut. Mark had absolutely no idea whether Jesus was divine or not. This idea surfaced decades later as church members tried to make a deity out of Jesus at converts' insistence, "We want a god to worship or we won't join your new faith". So the church leaders obliged.
But you used his MOTHER as your example. I doubt if his brothers had a clue about Him. James didn't even come to the forefront until after the crucifixion.
Yet you are doing the same thing as fundamentalists by viewing a verse or two outside the context of the entire writing. Look how much more sense it makes if you read Mark 6:3-5. Jesus knew who He was dealing with:
Quote:
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him. Jesus said to them,"A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household." And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them.…
And apparently it was enough to limit what He could do for the people in His hometown.
As I've stated many, many times---God works through people--when they let Him. And He doesn't when they won't.
Biblical prophecy (as we understand it to be prognostication) is quite debatable. But that God used prophets to speak to His people in the here and now of that particular moment simply isn't. We have what they preached (Hebrew prophesying) to their own people.
Jesus may be debatable by some regarding His divinity--perfectly understandable, if, imo, not laudable. But arguing against His existence is a non sequitur. Believing He is "make-believe" requires a belief in the conspiracy of hundreds of people, if not thousands. And though the people then may have been ignorant by our standards, a conspiracy to start a religion makes them appear to be geniuses. And that makes no sense at all. It really sounds similar to fundamentalists arguing for talking snakes and God strolling through a garden.
let's see. A smart human looks around him and predicts someone from obscurity will rise up and lead a large group of people to over throw the powers to be of his times. wow, that is clairvoyance if I ever saw it.
I would say then the founding fathers of the USoA are the true "Accurately fulfilled prophecy" of our times then. Among some others to be sure. But alias, their notions are being overthrown as we speak.
It's a sad reality that historic facts never get in the way of a Christian's reasoning capabilities. I've seen this time and time and time again in debates on YouTube. Pro debater apologists like Lane Craig have invented their own techniques for getting around bald-faced truth and sound convincing in the process. But anyone with an open mind who can honestly weigh the facts against the unproven legends would come away convinced as I had to that the Bible is just not to be trusted for any historic reliability. Historians have said this time and time again. For a Christian fact can be anything the Christian chooses it to be.
Here's where your argument fall apart, jeffbase: if Jesus was an indisputable fact then there wouldn't be a need for a field of apologetics. Apologetics didn't exist 300 years ago. It wasn't until writers began to write books claiming Jesus was not a historic person and producing historic evidence to show this that Christian apologetics came into being to defend Jesus. Why does anybody need to defend the truth? They only need to defend a set of beliefs if enough evidence has surfaced to serious question the veracity of those beliefs. And more than enough evidence has surfaced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
You keep posting misinformation which is demonstrably false. You claim that apologetics didn't exist 300 years ago. But apologetics existed in the second century. In fact Justin Martyr wrote two apologetic works.
You have no credibility whatsoever Thrillobyte. And it is not scholars such as William Lane Craig and others who have invented techniques for getting around the truth. It's people such as yourself who have done that. Frankly, your rants are a bore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
You're misrepresenting me again, Mike. I specifically used the word "modern". "Modern" apologetics didn't come into being until roughly 300 years ago. Or if you prefer, apologetics didn't resurface until 300 years ago after a millennium-long absence. Actually it was more recent but why quibble over a few hundred years in the scheme of things?
No, you did not use the word 'modern.' I replied to post #94. And as shown above, you specifically said ''Apologetics didn't exist 300 years ago. It wasn't until writers began to write books claiming Jesus was not a historic person and producing historic evidence to show this that Christian apologetics came into being to defend Jesus.'' And that statement as it is phrased is simply not true. Apologetics existed in the second century of the church. I have already posted Justin Martyr's first and Second Apologies.
Now it is true that the myth that Jesus didn't exist began about 300 years ago. It is not true however that apologetics defending Jesus, and the Gospel didn't exist until then.
And again, there is no evidence that Jesus is not God. The synoptic Gospels not recording the same details that John did is not evidence. See below.
Quote:
But there is no earthly reason for Jesus to withhold his Godhood in Mark and then brag endlessly about it in John. Can't you see that there was a gradually process through the gospels turning Jesus from a man into a god? What mother would say of a son she knew to be divine, "Do not listen to him. He's crazier than a Mad Hatter!" Mark 3:21
Jesus did not withhold His Godhood in Mark and then brag about it in John. Mark and John, as well as Matthew and Luke all wrote about Jesus' ministry. Each of them emphasized different aspects of Jesus' ministry. While John emphasized Jesus' deity the other writers did not, and therefore did not include in their Gospel accounts the same things which John included in his account. For instance, Jesus made all of the 'I am' statements that John records but which the other writers don't. That Matthew, Mark, and Luke don't record the same things that John records in his Gospel account doesn't mean that Jesus didn't say them. They simply didn't record those particular statements of Jesus in their accounts.
And as I said, Paul stated that Jesus was God. And Paul wrote either before, or around the time that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote. What that means is that since Paul stated that Jesus is God, then since he wrote either before or around the same time as Matthew and Mark then the fact that Jesus is God was being stated long before John wrote his Gospel account.
As for Jesus' mother, even though she knew Jesus was the Son of God, and had been that by the angel Gabriel, she didn't fully understand Him. During His ministry Jesus' brothers did not believe that He was who He claimed to be. But it is a matter of historical fact that James the brother of Jesus came to realize that He was indeed who He claimed to be, and went to His martyrdom believing that. The reason why could only be because Jesus had been resurrected.
Last edited by Michael Way; 11-20-2015 at 07:17 AM..
No, you did not use the word 'modern.' I replied to post #94. And as shown above, you specifically said ''Apologetics didn't exist 300 years ago. It wasn't until writers began to write books claiming Jesus was not a historic person and producing historic evidence to show this that Christian apologetics came into being to defend Jesus.'' And that statement as it is phrased is simply not true. Apologetics existed in the second century of the church. I have already posted Justin Martyr's first and Second Apologies.
Now it is true that the myth that Jesus didn't exist began about 300 years ago. It is not true however that apologetics defending Jesus, and the Gospel didn't exist until then.
And again, there is no evidence that Jesus is not God. The synoptic Gospels not recording the same details that John did is not evidence. See below.
Jesus did not withhold His Godhood in Mark and then brag about it in John. Mark and John, as well as Matthew and Luke all wrote about Jesus' ministry. Each of them emphasized different aspects of Jesus' ministry. While John emphasized Jesus' deity the other writers did not, and therefore did not include in their Gospel accounts the same things which John included in his account. For instance, Jesus made all of the 'I am' statements that John records but which the other writers don't. That Matthew, Mark, and Luke don't record the same things that John records in his Gospel account doesn't mean that Jesus didn't say them. They simply didn't record those particular statements of Jesus in their accounts.
And as I said, Paul stated that Jesus was God. And Paul wrote either before, or around the time that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote. What that means is that since Paul stated that Jesus is God, then since he wrote either before or around the same time as Matthew and Mark then the fact that Jesus is God was being stated long before John wrote his Gospel account.
As for Jesus' mother, even though she knew Jesus was the Son of God, and had been that by the angel Gabriel, she didn't fully understand Him. During His ministry Jesus' brothers did not believe that He was who He claimed to be. But it is a matter of historical fact that James the brother of Jesus came to realize that He was indeed who He claimed to be, and went to His martyrdom believing that. The reason why could only be because Jesus had been resurrected.
And a lot of folks went to their deaths believing that David Koresh was G-d...
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.
