You still have not answered the question. What is the point of THESE discussions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You still have not answered the question. What is the point of THESE discussions?

---

You got your answer - to expose YOU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You still have not answered the question. What is the point of THESE discussions?

---

Pontius Pilate said it best.

So we have arrived at a common understanding of truth? When did that happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So we have arrived at a common understanding of truth? When did that happen?

---

It hasn't happened. You have a serious problem with truth.

WG, isn't it apparent that we discuss and discuss and no one ever moves an inch?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

WG, isn't it apparent that we discuss and discuss and no one ever moves an inch?

---

The reason is very simple. It's your blind idolatry to a 2,000 year old series of books that you are unable to read with any understanding. You can hide but you can't ignore.

Most white evangelicals live in a universe that the majority of Christians have long since abandoned. Rather than play contrarian, this is an opportunity for you to learn some home truths about the Bible - a step many of your former co-religionists are gradually taking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

WG, isn't it apparent that we discuss and discuss and no one ever moves an inch?

---

You and I don't "discuss and discuss." If you disagree with me, you turn to insults rather than explore our differences.

You mean like you just did? You are not following your own moral conviction. Are you "exploring our differences"? I don't think so.

I still don't see the point in these discussions. I've been pondering this for weeks. We never arrive at any point of agreement on anything. They frequently turn ugly. I'll take some of the responsibility for that, but you and others also bear some of the load as your last post clearly shows.

So how can we make any progress?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You mean like you just did? You are not following your own moral conviction. Are you "exploring our differences"? I don't think so.

---

I was simply answering your question.

Quote:

---

I still don't see the point in these discussions.

So how can we make any progress?

---

Keep it simple. Make lists. Number them. Don't go into all sorts of verbiage; stick to the topic.

E.g., Name three historical events recorded in the Bible. What evidence is there that they are historical?

No you weren't. You were being insulting. Take responsibility for it and stop letting yourself off the hook. And why is it that you only direct these comments towards me? Is there anyone else here who is WILDLY insulting and should be corrected by WG? I just have trouble accepting your one-way "correction". When you become more inclusive, including yourself, then it will bear more weight.

I'll name one historical event and give evidence for it. The resurrection of Jesus.

Evidence.
1. change of Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday
2. many extra-biblical references to the resurrection
3. the willingness of the witnesses of the resurrection to undergo lives of great hardship to spread the message of that resurrection
4. the testimony of the NT
5. the incredible conversion of Saul of Tarsus
6. an empty tomb
7. prophesied in the OT
8. oral tradition recorded in 1 Cor. 15 which traces back to within 3 years of the resurrection
9. the absence of writings in the first century contradicting the resurrection
10. extraordinary transformation of the disciples from fearful men into fearless preachers of the Gospel
11. the tomb of Jesus was never turned into a shrine as His burial place
12. The absence of any other plausible explanation. For instance, if His body had still been in the tomb, then the Jewish leaders would simply have paraded it through town and the resurrection account would have been completely discounted.

Quote:

---

No you weren't. You were being insulting. Take responsibility for it and stop letting yourself off the hook. And why is it that you only direct these comments towards me? Is there anyone else here who is WILDLY insulting and should be corrected by WG? I just have trouble accepting your one-way "correction". When you become more inclusive, including yourself, then it will bear more weight.

---

Call it what you want, stop pretending you can see into my mind because you can't. And these things get directed at you because you're the one making the erroneous statements. It's that simple. Stop saying wrong things and that'll solve it.

Quote:

---

Call it what you want, stop pretending you can see into my mind because you can't. And these things get directed at you because you're the one making the erroneous statements. It's that simple. Stop saying wrong things and that'll solve it.

---

Calm down. I haven't said anything about you. Where you think I'm wrong, point it out. We can discuss it.

As to seeing into your mind, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Calm down. I haven't said anything about you. Where I'm wrong, point it out. We can discuss it.

As to seeing into your mind, I have no idea what you're talking about.

---

Your post #81

This is my post 81.

Quote:

---

When a large group of scholars say one thing, and DW says something else, then I'll let you decide who's probably wrong. That's not meant to be ugly, but you are asking a lot for me to believe you when you have no support.

Uhm...I think I just answered that. But I'll add that William Vine and Joseph Thayer do fine for me.

And this is what you do. When your position gets tenuous, you disappear.

---

What are you upset about?

I wish you would answer this. "And why is it that you only direct these comments towards me? Is there anyone else here who is WILDLY insulting and should be corrected by WG?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'll name one historical event and give evidence for it. The resurrection of Jesus.

Evidence.
1. change of Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday
2. many extra-biblical references to the resurrection
3. the willingness of the witnesses of the resurrection to undergo lives of great hardship to spread the message of that resurrection
4. the testimony of the NT
5. the incredible conversion of Saul of Tarsus
6. an empty tomb
7. prophesied in the OT
8. oral tradition recorded in 1 Cor. 15 which traces back to within 3 years of the resurrection
9. the absence of writings in the first century contradicting the resurrection
10. extraordinary transformation of the disciples from fearful men into fearless preachers of the Gospel
11. the tomb of Jesus was never turned into a shrine as His burial place
12. The absence of any other plausible explanation. For instance, if His body had still been in the tomb, then the Jewish leaders would simply have paraded it through town and the resurrection account would have been completely discounted.

---

Most Christians believe in a literal resurrection, for some Christians it's a spiritual resurrection, and for a handful it's a literary resurrection.

In any case, there is no “evidence” for the resurrection. It is a matter of faith.

Citing the NT as evidence/proof of itself is not evidence. Although your instances of heroic early Christians is certainly praiseworthy as a demonstration of their faith, it is not evidence of the resurrection.

Absence of writings denying the resurrection is obviously not evidence. It's not clear why you would claim that.

Your mention of “many extra-Biblical references to the resurrection” is definitely interesting. They would not necessarily be evidence, but they would surely be an indication that the resurrection was independently known outside of the disciples. But contemporary extra-Biblical references are almost non-existent as far as I can determine, certainly not “many”. If you have information about any, please let us know what they are.

You can start with Josephus. You can also go with Tacitus and Pliny. They don't agree that there was a resurrection, but they do attest that early Christians believed it to be so.

Not sure what you want for evidence. Everything I listed is valid historical evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

This is my post 81.

---

You were addressing DW, not me.

Then why are you concerned about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You can start with Josephus. You can also go with Tacitus and Pliny. They don't agree that there was a resurrection, but they do attest that early Christians believed it to be so.

---

You saved me the time. Yes, they don't agree that there was a resurrection.

Several generations after the fact, they are reporting the existence of Christians and, in the case of Pliny and Tacitus, I can find no attestation they reported that Christians believed in the resurrection. Tacitus' words have been interpreted as such by some, but they are not considered evidence of the resurrection. Tacitus is reporting what others believe, not an evident fact.

As to Josephus who also lived much later, he was initially cited as a believer in the resurrection, but those words were shown to be a later interpolation by Christians so that he, too, is left as a reporter of what others believed.

All three fail as evidence of the resurrection. The best that can be said is that all three wrote about the beliefs of others, not themselves.

Quote:

---

Not sure what you want for evidence. Everything I listed is valid historical evidence.

---

No, it is not valid historical evidence for the resurrection. If the report of someone believing in something were all that was needed for evidential proof, then all the believers of Zeus or Jupiter or some other god would be considered evidence of those gods. That is obviously not the case.

With something as remarkable as the resurrection, more is required than someone's say-so. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. It is a matter of faith.