Protestantism

» pink101 - No Way, Hosea!

In response to Main Contention posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Brian posts, "...it is YOU who is being anti-intellectual and obstinate.".
.
Come on, Brian. You absolutely know that the question here is not about the existence of a man named Jesus who was crucified; nor is it whether or not the crucifixion was performed. Most people appear to agree that he lived and that he died on a cross to satisfy the Jewish hierarchy that held so much sway with their Roman occupiers.
.
The question is, distinctly, whether or not Jesus was raised from the dead after he died on the cross. It is what you and Migisi have been arguing over.
.
You gave the link to the Craig video in support of your position. And, I am saying that Craig is attempting to pass off the resurrection as common agreement among a majority of scholars.
.
No way, Hosea!
.
A great number of Christians don't even believe that any more. Which brings up my question about where the other side of the debate in which Craig is firing his opening salvo can be seen.
.
Was that Spong?
.
He is a renowned biblical scholar and he doesn't believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - My narrow point

In response to No Way, Hosea! posted by pink101:

Pink, I'm not saying you're anti-intellectual for rejecting the resurrection of Jesus. My very narrow point is that it's anti-intellectual to reject the idea that there is wide consensus on certain facts surrounding the life, ministry, death, and alleged resurrection appearances of Jesus. I'm contending that there are certain facts which have been established to a very high degree of confidence and certainty, and these facts include those offered by Craig in his video.

Now...I'm not saying that the INTERPRETATION of those facts is the same across the board. I'm talking about the facts themselves, such as the crucifixion of Jesus, his burial in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, the fact that his women followers were those to first report the empty tomb, and then the fact that many of Jesus' followers (and a few who didn't at first) later claimed to see Jesus alive. THESE facts are widely agreed upon by scholars, and that's the point Craig is making.

p.s. I believe Spong is the guy in the video, yes. And I have been trying to track down the full debate online, so that I could see/hear his arguments. If I'm successful, I will post it here. If you find it, please do so yourself.

» pink101 - Brian's narrow point Pinned Down

In response to My narrow point posted by BrianTubbs:
.
The thinking you are displaying here about "facts" has to do with the logic that was taught in medieval times. "Facts" were used as a basis for winning arguments and may have had little or nothing to do with truth or reality of experience.
.
I'll grant you the idea of "facts" that were included in biblical accounts.
.
That still does not equate with reality or actual experience. However, factual or logical it may be.
.
Right?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Correspondence View of Truth

In response to Brian's narrow point Pinned Down posted by pink101:

Pink, I'm 100% committed to the correspondence view of truth - namely that truth is that which corresponds with reality. I utterly and passionately reject the postmodern extremists, who have called into question the very possibility of holding knowledge or discerning truth. If you have given yourself over to that relativistic view, then we're too far apart for there to be any hope of bridging the gap.

» pink101 - Correspondence View of Truth

In response to Correspondence View of Truth posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I don't see that the gap can be bridged as long as you continue to respond as you do..
.
Before the Enlightenment authority spoke truth into existence. But, with the Enlightenment the cartesian method of discerning truth came to be the accepted route.
.
You appear to be caught up in the idea that all truth emanates from Scripture. The gap between Scripture as the source of all truth and nature is obviously not going to be bridged. It cannot be done. I'm going to continue to doubt that which is not reasonable to accept and, it looks like, you might continue to see the Bible as your source of truth.
.
Is that the gap of which you speak?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Continued Misunderstanding

In response to Correspondence View of Truth posted by pink101:

You appear to be caught up in the idea that all truth emanates from Scripture.

I am able to set aside my faith perspective and my view of biblical authority in order to approach a subject academically and at least semi-objectively. I can do that. You obviously don't think I can, but your opinion doesn't determine truth.

As a Christian and pastor, I believe and preach that truth comes from God - and that God inspired the Scriptures. However, as a historian (and I've been discussing the resurrection primarily as a historian), I do NOT approach things that way.

As a historian, I don't say: "The Bible says it. That settles it." I don't say that (when I'm speaking or writing as a scholar or as a historian), and I don't expect others to believe that.

I've made the above point numerous times. Do you understand what I'm saying?

The gap between Scripture as the source of all truth and nature is obviously not going to be bridged.

Again, in THIS PRESENT CONTEXT, I'm not asking you to embrace the Scriptures as the source of "all truth." But I AM saying that the New Testament should be viewed as a set of ancient writings. As such, we should approach it with the recognition that these writings DESERVE to be weighed and evaluated as ANY OTHER DOCUMENT OF ANTIQUITY.

Do you agree? Do you understand what I'm saying?

As a Christian and as a pastor, I believe the Bible to be the Word of God. BUT...as a scholar and as a historian, I am NOT approaching the Bible that way. And I'm not approaching it that way in this discussion. I am asking you to see the Bible as a set of ancient writings and to accord it the same respect that credentialed scholar-historians give to every other document of antiquity.

When you see the New Testament as a set of ancient writings and evaluate it with mainstream scholarly standards, what you will discover is that there ARE facts which can be ascertained from the writings. For example...

We have four ancient documents (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) that say (among other things) that:

*Jesus was crucified
*His body was buried by Joseph of Arimathea
*Jesus' women followers were the first to discover the tomb empty

Now, Pink, given the common standards of analysis of historical documents, the fact that we have MULTIPLE ATTESTATION (in this case - FOUR documents!) of the above facts is ENOUGH to establish these as historically true!

Where faith comes in is when the ancient documents make supernatural claims (virgin birth, actual resurrection, walking on water, etc.). In those cases, a more critical eye is required - from a historial perspective. But when it comes to basic reporting of events and people, there's no compelling reason for historians to ignore these things.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

» pink101 - Continued Misunderstanding

In response to Continued Misunderstanding posted by BrianTubbs:

.
As a historian, I don't say: "The Bible says it. That settles it." I don't say that (when I'm speaking or writing as a scholar or as a historian), and I don't expect others to believe that.
.
I've made the above point numerous times. Do you understand what I'm saying?
.
I am not sure I understand what you are saying.
.
It does seem that you are saying that the Bible is the source of all truth on the one hand; but, on the other, you are saying something like you can entertain other thoughts even though you will not accept them if they disagree with the Bible.
.
That's a little confusing.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Continued Misunderstanding

In response to Continued Misunderstanding posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Where faith comes in is when the ancient documents make supernatural claims (virgin birth, actual resurrection, walking on water, etc.). In those cases, a more critical eye is required - from a historial perspective. But when it comes to basic reporting of events and people, there's no compelling reason for historians to ignore these things.
.
How do you discern what's a 'fact' and what's a 'supernatural claim'? It appears that you're picking and choosing what you'll believe, and willing to believe some (but not all) of the supernatural claims simply because these claims are repeated in four documents. A fabrication, myth, legend multiplied 4 times is still a fabrication, myth, legend. Repeating a supernatural claim (i.e. virgin birth, raising dead people, water walking, multiplying fish/loaves, resurrection, physical ascension, appearances post-death etc.) a thousand times does NOT make it true - not even when those claims are intermingled with facts regarding places, people, and known historical events.
.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Offer An Explanation

In response to Continued Misunderstanding posted by Migisi:
.
Forgive me for butting in here; but, I can offer an explanation as to how Brian is able to "get away so easily" on this issue.
.
Truth in Medieval education was based on accepted authority. That time was before the Enlightenment when men began to use observation as the basis for discovering what was considered to be truth. The fact that anyone had power or possessions proved that they were living as God's representatives to the rest of society. Millions of Americans continue to believe that simple-minded idea about truth. "It's in the book!"
.
Beside the fact that truth was based on authority, education taught Aristotle's method of argument. Authority was the written word of the Scripture and logic was used to come to conclusions. I say, pretty much, that is where Brian is as far as his thinking is concerned. I don't mean that to be insulting; but, it is the truth in so far as I have been able to discern. Brian's objections to the contrary. He, eventually, comes back to what God has to say on any issue.
.
So, the question of whether or not the God/Man Jesus was resurrected from the dead is founded 100% on Scripture carried out with the logic of Aristotle.
.
The Roman Catholic Church~~for centuries~~refused to allow any dissent for its claim to be the ultimate authority regarding truth. Hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children were burned alive at the stake to enforce its requirements regarding what was considered truth and what was not.
.
But, the Enlightenment came along and since then, men of REASON have been reconsidered authority. Renee Des Carte started something big with his treatise on doubt as a route that could lead men of REASON to seek truth.
.
These arguments the group of us are having here prove that we are AMERICANS in the way we think. Religion on common sense REASON have always been at odds with each other since the beginning of the Enlightenment. And, that IS the history of America--that we argue about truth. Is it based on Jewish and Christian ideologies or is it based on nature and observation?
.
It is very good to argue over such issues are are on the table in this thread.
.
I'm siding with your more reasoned approach while Brian continues to stand on his belief in the authority of the Bible.
.

.
We are having some very good discussions.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Offer An Explanation--ERATA

In response to Offer An Explanation posted by pink101:
.
This line, "Religion on common sense REASON have always been at odds with each other since the beginning of the Enlightenment."
.
Should have read:
.
"Religion and common sense REASON have always been at odds with each other since the beginning of the Enlightenment."
.
And this line, "But, the Enlightenment came along and since then, men of REASON have been reconsidered authority."
.
Should have read:
.
"But, the Enlightenment came along and since then reason and observation led society toward truth.
.
(Corrections emphasized)

-- posted by pink101