bornagainathiest Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Why didnt they have a mass conversion if they had no rebuttal to the resurrection in the first century? Considering the time period the Christian faith did grow quickly. Acts 2 records three thousand or so converting. The good news of a crucified dead man returning to life was a message that appealed to people. Circular argument, Ironhorse! You are appealing to the Bible (Acts 2) to validate what the Bible says elsewhere about Jesus' resurrection. Furball is right to ask for extra-Biblical evidence of these claims. Can you provide them please? BAA. (Bump!) (Re-Bump!) (Re-re-bump!) (Re-re-re-bump!) (Re-re-re-re-bumpity-bump!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 “The oldest book of the Bible, according to most scholars, is either Genesis or Job, both thought to have been written by Moses and completed around 1400 BC, about 3,400 years ago.” My error was using the word most to the number of scholars. I should have used the word some. I agree that many liberal scholars question whether Moses wrote any of the first five books or only parts of them. There are also still conservative scholars (Jewish and Christians), who support the arguments for Mosaic authorship. I agree that many present-day Fundamentalists and other Evangelical Christians continue to believe that Moses wrote the entire first five books of the Bible. Some Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians have deviated from traditional Christian teachings. They believe that selected passages were written by persons other than Moses. Despite IH's admission of error, the above is proof that he does not, and never has done, conduct a skeptical analysis of the Bible's claims or Christianity's claims or what have you. Since Julius Wellhausen, the MAIN STREAM of academic study of the Pentateuch has worked from the assumption that the Masoretic text is an amalgam of different strands, put together by editors, probably in Babylon, after the sack of Jerusalem in 586. Even Catholic scripture scholars sign on to this. The evidence is right there in the texts. Church confessional commitments have nothing to do with textual analysis, and scholars understand this. NO ONE but some fundamentalists holds that the present-day Pentateuch was authored by Moses. No academic outside of fundamentalist institutions thinks that the Exodus story depicted in Exodus is historical. Anyone who does a skeptical analysis of the Bible will be aware of the scholarly "lay of the land." Either Ironhorse never conducted any skeptical analysis or Ironhorse is lying. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted May 31, 2016 Super Moderator Share Posted May 31, 2016 How could he defend himself against such allegations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Well, Prof, he could use the time-honored, Christian/Ironhorse device of redefinition. There is "skeptical analysis" as it is understood in the academy, in journalism, by most people here on Ex-C, and then there is special Christian "skeptical analysis". I do not go on to try to describe special Christian skeptical analysis, because it is neither skeptical nor is it analysis. Similarly: there is the Hebrew word "evil" and then there's the special Christian Hebrew word "evil" that Isaiah used when he has God say that God creates evil. There's the Greek word "draw" and then there's the special Christian Greek word "draw" that Jesus used when Christians don't want Jesus' quotations from John to contradict other quotations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Mysterious ways duh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 “The oldest book of the Bible, according to most scholars, is either Genesis or Job, both thought to have been written by Moses and completed around 1400 BC, about 3,400 years ago.” My error was using the word most to the number of scholars. I should have used the word some. I agree that many liberal scholars question whether Moses wrote any of the first five books or only parts of them. There are also still conservative scholars (Jewish and Christians), who support the arguments for Mosaic authorship. I agree that many present-day Fundamentalists and other Evangelical Christians continue to believe that Moses wrote the entire first five books of the Bible. Some Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians have deviated from traditional Christian teachings. They believe that selected passages were written by persons other than Moses. Despite IH's admission of error, the above is proof that he does not, and never has done, conduct a skeptical analysis of the Bible's claims or Christianity's claims or what have you. Since Julius Wellhausen, the MAIN STREAM of academic study of the Pentateuch has worked from the assumption that the Masoretic text is an amalgam of different strands, put together by editors, probably in Babylon, after the sack of Jerusalem in 586. Even Catholic scripture scholars sign on to this. The evidence is right there in the texts. Church confessional commitments have nothing to do with textual analysis, and scholars understand this. NO ONE but some fundamentalists holds that the present-day Pentateuch was authored by Moses. No academic outside of fundamentalist institutions thinks that the Exodus story depicted in Exodus is historical. Anyone who does a skeptical analysis of the Bible will be aware of the scholarly "lay of the land." Either Ironhorse never conducted any skeptical analysis or Ironhorse is lying. Whether the first five books were written by Moses alone or if he used text from previous documents to compile them, I don’t know the answer to every question. I do view these five books as being inspired by God. “In 2004 fragments of the Hebrew Bible dating to the 7th century BCE, and thus to before the Babylonian captivity, suggests that at least some elements of the written Torah, were current before the Babylonian exile.” ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah “No academic outside of fundamentalist institutions thinks that the Exodus story depicted in Exodus is historical.” ~ ficino A different view: http://www.reformjudaism.org/exodus-not-fiction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted June 3, 2016 Super Moderator Share Posted June 3, 2016 Ironhorse, does the gospel of Mark mention the resurrection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 Why didnt they have a mass conversion if they had no rebuttal to the resurrection in the first century? Considering the time period the Christian faith did grow quickly. Acts 2 records three thousand or so converting. The good news of a crucified dead man returning to life was a message that appealed to people. Circular argument, Ironhorse! You are appealing to the Bible (Acts 2) to validate what the Bible says elsewhere about Jesus' resurrection. Furball is right to ask for extra-Biblical evidence of these claims. Can you provide them please? BAA. (Bump!) (Re-Bump!) (Re-re-bump!) (Re-re-re-bump!) (Re-re-re-re-bumpity-bump!) (Re-re-re-re-re-bump!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 “No academic outside of fundamentalist institutions thinks that the Exodus story depicted in Exodus is historical.” ~ ficino A different view: http://www.reformjudaism.org/exodus-not-fiction Another fail. I said, "the Exodus story depicted in Exodus." Your link does not support the story in Exodus. It simply quotes some guy who whittles down the number of escaping Hebrews to a group small enough to "explain" why they left no archaeological evidence. He's NOT defending the story in Exodus but a different story. Again, you are doing EXACTLY what I find you doing over and over. You are trying to spin a claim of Christianity in such a way that it is not falsifiable. No one can prove an Exodus of, say, several thousand Hebrews didn't happen. An Exodus of the numbers recorded in the text is what is at issue. Why??? Because the Bible makes false statements about history and science. Just come clean and admit it. And so it has no credibility when it makes statements about theological or moral points, where it can't be verified. I am not buying what you're trying to sell (oh, sorry, I forgot you're not selling anything, you're just here in the Lions Den to ... I actually can't complete the sentence.). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 IH do you even retain and reflect on these corrections you receive or do you just keep chugging along? It seems he spends most of his time looking for webpages that are "close enough" to support the spin or apologetic he wishes to present. No retention. No reflection. Just chugging along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 Ironhorse, does the gospel of Mark mention the resurrection? Good question. How will IH spin this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 For Ironhorse: I just came across this non-academic discussion, or dissection, of the Exodus story AS it is written up in Exodus.Good job of showing how false and absurd it is. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2016/06/04/the-exodus-from-egypt-as-exceedingly-ridiculous/ But the apologist has to have the Exodus story as historical. Especially the part where G-D speaks out of the cloud and the whole nation of Israel swears to keep the covenant G-D makes with them. No Mt. Sinai covenant, no Jesus' cross and atonement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted June 4, 2016 Super Moderator Share Posted June 4, 2016 Ironhorse, does the gospel of Mark mention the resurrection? Good question. How will IH spin this? He won't. He'll ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 Why didnt they have a mass conversion if they had no rebuttal to the resurrection in the first century? Considering the time period the Christian faith did grow quickly. Acts 2 records three thousand or so converting. The good news of a crucified dead man returning to life was a message that appealed to people. Circular argument, Ironhorse! You are appealing to the Bible (Acts 2) to validate what the Bible says elsewhere about Jesus' resurrection. Furball is right to ask for extra-Biblical evidence of these claims. Can you provide them please? BAA. (Bump!) (Re-Bump!) (Re-re-bump!) (Re-re-re-bump!) (Re-re-re-re-bumpity-bump!) (Re-re-re-re-re-bump!) (Re-re-re-re-re-re- bump!) I can keep bumping this longer than you can keep dodging it Ironhorse, so if you never intend to answer, please say so. I can also begin PMing this to you. Your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 Just PMed to Ironhorse... Shinzon, on 11 Apr 2016 - 02:28 AM, said: Why didnt they have a mass conversion if they had no rebuttal to the resurrection in the first century? Considering the time period the Christian faith did grow quickly. Acts 2 records three thousand or so converting. The good news of a crucified dead man returning to life was a message that appealed to people. Circular argument, Ironhorse! You are appealing to the Bible (Acts 2) to validate what the Bible says elsewhere about Jesus' resurrection. Furball is right to ask for extra-Biblical evidence of these claims. Can you provide them please? BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 There is no evidence, I could find, outside of Acts 2 concerning the events described in the text. It is a fact that the day of Pentecost (fifty days after Passover) was observed by Jews in Jerusalem and many would travel there from other countries. It is a fact the early church did grow quickly. The following are some passages from two sources. (Links given) “Pliny's letter is the earliest pagan account to refer to early Christians and provides a key description of Roman administrative process and problems.[5][6] The correspondence between Pliny and Emperor Trajan shows that the Roman Empire, as a government entity, did not at this time “seek out” Christians for prosecution or persecution.[23] Although Emperor Trajan gave Pliny specific advice about disregarding anonymous accusations, for example, he was deliberate in not establishing any new rules in regards to the Christians.[6] In doing so, Trajan allowed Pliny to try cases according to his discretion.” “The letter supports the existence of the early Christian Church and its rapid growth and speaks to its belief system. It also provides valuable evidence as to the attitudes of the Roman authorities with regard to early Christianity.[24]” ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger_on_Christians The next one is an atheist’s explaining the rapid growth of Christianity. He attempts to show that it did not grow any faster than Mormonism. I disagree on his view on this because he does not take into account the methods Islam used to “convert” people. “In just 300 years, Christianity grew from a small Jewish sect in Galilee to become the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. How can we explain this?” “A popular explanation is mass conversion. Acts 2:41 reports that Peter converted 3,000 people with a single sermon. Early church historian Eusebius wrote that the apostles “went on to other countries and nations with the grace and cooperation of God, for a great many wonderful works were done through them, by the power of the divine Spirit, so that at first hearing, whole multitudes of men eagerly embraced the religion of the Creator of the universe.”1” "Modern thinkers tended to agree. Yale historian Ramsey MacMullen wrote that Christianity grew so quickly that it must have had “successes en masse.”2” "Christians explain these mass conversions with supernatural miracles; proof that Christianity is true! Even atheists think the early Christians must have been such good preachers they converted whole audiences. Whatever the explanation for mass conversions, it seems that Christianity could not have grown so fast without them.” ~ http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=95 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 There is no evidence, I could find, outside of Acts 2 concerning the events described in the text. Thank you Ironhorse for finally admitting that there is no extra-Biblical evidence. But shame on you for handing us that circular argument in the first place. Also, shame on you for holding out for eighteen (18) days before finally fessing up to the truth. I asked you seven (7) times in this thread and once by PM. If you knew that the truth was that there was no extra-Biblical evidence, why didn't you say right away? As a Christian, aren't you supposed to love and live in the truth, rather than be forced to yield it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 "As a Christian, aren't you supposed to love and live in the truth, rather than be forced to yield it up?" ~ BAA No one here is forcing me to do anything. I have and will continue to try to answer, if I can, every question I am asked. My answers or replies are not always instantaneous. Sometimes I will wait to give others a chance to read the thread or comments, other times I give the answer some thought before I reply. At times I am bombarded with a lot of questions. It does take time. I do try to check the threads here daily but I do not always do so because of other things I am doing in life. I am doing the best I can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted June 7, 2016 Super Moderator Share Posted June 7, 2016 I do try to check the threads here daily but I do not always do so because of other things I am doing in life. I am doing the best I can. "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." Philippians 4:13 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." ~ Philippians 4:13 I have seen and heard that verse being used, by some, to teach believers they can do anything or get anything they desire. I was watching a local religious program the other night and they were having a “Healing Service” and this was one of the verses they quoted. “If only you have enough faith! All things are possible. You will be healed!” That was not what Paul was saying. “I rejoiced greatly in the Lord that at last you renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you were concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do all this through him who gives me strength.” ~ ~ Philippians 4:19-13 (NIV) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Right so you can certainly handle the rigors of being an Internet martyr if this bible author can handle starvation. It holds up. Thanks for verifying that RedneckP used your bible accurately for you. Good thing RedneckP wasn't using it to talk about healing :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted June 8, 2016 Super Moderator Share Posted June 8, 2016 I have seen and heard a lot of people claim that the bible doest mean what it says. Some of these people actually go so far as to stand in awe of the blatant contradictions they have found in the bible. Oddly enough, these same people contend that the bible is the inerrant, infallible, divinely inspired word of god. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 "As a Christian, aren't you supposed to love and live in the truth, rather than be forced to yield it up?" ~ BAA No one here is forcing me to do anything. Thank you for pointing out that my usage of the word 'forced' was incorrect, Ironhorse. What I should have written was... "As a Christian, aren't you supposed to love and live in the truth and tell us the truth straight away (that there is not extra-Biblical evidence to back up your claim) ...rather than first handing us a circular argument... ...and then being asked seven times (eight if you count my PM to you) over a period of eighteen days to yield it up?" I have and will continue to try to answer, if I can, every question I am asked. My answers or replies are not always instantaneous. Sometimes I will wait to give others a chance to read the thread or comments, other times I give the answer some thought before I reply. At times I am bombarded with a lot of questions. It does take time. I do try to check the threads here daily but I do not always do so because of other things I am doing in life. I am doing the best I can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 TheRedneckProfessor, on 03 Jun 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:Ironhorse, does the gospel of Mark mention the resurrection? Good question. How will IH spin this? ~sdelsolray A young man there does mention that Jesus has risen. Like the other Gospels it does narrate the visit to the tomb of Jesus “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing (Mark 16:6-8). Good translations will footnote that Mark 16:9-20 is contained only in later manuscripts. Some think this was Mark’s original ending(v.8) others think the original ending (beyond verse 16:8) was accidentally lost. We don't really know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 ^just pick one ending and have faith IH. No different than any other arbitrary faith choice you make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts