luke warm Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 while it's true that not much can be determined yet about this story, i think it's interesting nonetheless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted July 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 QUOTE (Winstonm @ Jul 5 2008, 10:08 PM) The only difference is that I don't see it so much as a choice but as an acceptance of the better argument. i take this to mean that the argument from silence is the 'better argument' to you, better than the many references to Jesus' existence found in various writings... fwiw, the afs can be and is used quite a lot, but it's still fallacious Actually, I have no position as I have not read the book so I don't know if I believe his argument from best explanation is valid - as for the argument from silence, I put it at 50-50. it seems to me that the argument to the best explanation you use is based almost entirely on the fallacious afs... finally, and not to be too critical, the review leaves a lot to be desired, and if it is an accurate representation of the book then that also seems to leave a lot to be desired Perhaps - but I think the important point is to be able to look at any controversy with an open mind and not try to defend a position. It is the truth that will make you free, remember, not a belief in a fallacy. there were various posts pointing to several 'christians' as having said that the historical Jesus is not necessary to christianity... that is absolutely false... he either lived, died, and was resurrected or christianity is a lie... there is no middle ground... "if Christ is not raised, your faith is in vain (it avails you nothing)" This is strong comment that doesn't apply to all who call themselves christians - to wit, here is an interview by Valerie Terico of Dr. Tony Nugent, scholar of world religions and mythology. Dr. Nugent is a symbologist, an expert in ancient symbols. He has taught at Seattle University for the past fifteen years in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies and is a Presbyterian minister. Tarico: No rudeness intended, but how can you call yourself a Christian? Rev. Mark Driscoll, at Mars Hill megachurch in Seattle told his congregation: “If the resurrection of Christ didn’t literally happen, there is no reason for us to be here.” Nugent: Well, many Christian theologians see the crucifixion and resurrection as a spiritual story about hope beyond despair, redemption and new life, but they are not the ones who get the media attention. I consider myself to be a Christian in a spiritual sense, not in a doctrinal sense. This means my Christianity is defined by values, spiritual practices, and faith rather than belief in a specific set of doctrinal agreements. Before the 4th Century orthodoxy was established Christianity was characterized by heterodoxy -- many different forms of belief. If the resurrection of Christ didn't literally happen, or if there is no life beyond this one, that has no bearing for me on whether life now is worth living. Nor is Christianity for me the only true religion. I think Judaism, Islam, and other faith traditions are just as true and holy as Christianity. From my vantage, where values and practices are the heart of Christianity, what is strange to me is how people like our president who think it's ok to practice torture can sincerely call themselves Christians. Like the bumper sticker says, “Who would Jesus waterboard?” If Christ’s torture and crucifixion mean anything, I think they mean that we should put an end to such practices in human affairs. Right-wing evangelical Christianity is really the opposite of what Christ was about. The intolerant and arrogant form of Christianity is in a real sense, to me, the religion of the Antichrist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 This is strong comment that doesn't apply to all who call themselves christians - to wit, here is an interview by Valerie Terico of Dr. Tony Nugent, scholar of world religions and mythology. Dr. Nugent is a symbologist, an expert in ancient symbols. He has taught at Seattle University for the past fifteen years in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies and is a Presbyterian minister. with respects to the good doctor, i'll stick with the apostle paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Oh yeah, good ol' Paul of Tarsus....I was channeling him just the other day.....he said to say "Hi"... :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 'Christ' means 'Messiah'Christ O.E. crist, from L. Christus, from Gk. khristos "the anointed" (translation of Heb. mashiah, see messiah), from khriein "to rub, anoint," title given to Jesus of Nazareth. The L. term drove out O.E. hæland "healer" as the preferred descriptive term for Jesus. A title, treated as a proper name in O.E., but not regularly capitalized until 17c. Pronunciation with long -i- is result of Ir. missionary work in England, 7c.-8c. The Ch- form, regular since c.1500, was rare before. Christmas is O.E. Cristes mæsse and retains original vowel sound; Father Christmas first attested in a carol attributed to Richard Smart, Rector of Plymtree (Devon) from 1435-77. Christmas tree first attested 1835 in Amer.Eng., from Ger. Weihnachtsbaum. Christmas cards first designed 1843, popular by 1860s.It's hard to prove historical claims, even about recent events. David Irving is a brilliant historian who denied the Holocaust and advanced many plausible arguments in support of his theories. Nevertheless, I believe the Holocaust was an historical event. It's harder to establish facts about events that allegedly occurred thousands of years ago. Notwithstanding such reservations, the balance of evidence for a historical Jesus convinces me (and many non-Christians). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 David Irving is a brilliant historian who denied the Holocaust If that is the case, brilliant is not the right word. Delusional or crazy come to mind, and possibly dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 David Irving is a brilliant historian who denied the Holocaust If that is the case, brilliant is not the right word. Delusional or crazy come to mind, and possibly dangerous. i think if the WC has proved anything it's that being brilliant and being wrong are not mutually exclusive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyDluxe Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 Never mind... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.