Open with the same message I did in RD room.

[krkey]

hey folks, how are we doing in here. For those who do not know me let me identify the points I am quite willing to defend.

a.) the resurrection of Jesus

b.) that the transcendantal theory is the best explanation for the Near Death Experience ( as opposed to the dying brain theory)

I would simply ask that if anyone challenges me on these points, they do it in a scholarly, well thought out manner. I also ask that they be willing to defend an alternative view, thus requiring both of us to argue from the positive. I will stick with bible scholars ( such as N.T Wright, William Lane Craig etc) regardless of theologicial strip to make my point. a very abreviatted form of my argument for the resurrection would be as thus. All NT Scholars, regardless of religious views agree on the four following points.

a.) Jesus existed

b.) Jesus was crucified and died in the process

c.) there is no body

d.) the apostles had post mortum experiences How they differ is the best explanation( Craig-resurrection, Ludemann-Hallucinations)

As for the Near death experience (NDE) I will refer strickly to the peer reviewed article on it in the Dec 2001 Journal of the Lancet to make my points, and also to literature that article saw as fit to site( such as Michael Sabom's Recollections of Death) a brief out line of my argument would be as thus.

a.) the people who experienced it believe it was a real experience.

b.) they have documented vertical evidence ( Lancet Journal)

c.) They have documented cases with NDEers gaining new knowledge( Sabom Study)

d.) visual based NDEs have occured in the people born blind ( Ring study) T

he dying brain hypothesis cannot allow points b, c, or d, thus the transcental theory most be the correct one. Thus the soul exist The dying brain theory cannot be correct.

Might wait around for a little while, to see some responses.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

A simple question regarding the divinity of Jesus relative to Eden.

I find the evidence for the Eden Narrative uncompelling and the Tree of Knowledge Narrative even more so. If one has concluded the Tree in Eden didn't exist, then does what happened on the Tree on Golgotha matter?

And a public welcome to the Forum. I'm sure some of the other RD raiders will greet you soon.

 

[Phil]

krkey,

I live in CST zone, so it is after 1am here, and I'm just off to bed with unfortunately no time to reply in full. Don't despair, however, because I'm sure other JREFers will be responding in due time.

In the meantime, I'll caution you about a couple of things, and then leave you to your own devices: Anecdotal evidence and appeals to authority will get you nowhere on this forum. You might as well not present any such arguments, because you'll be wasting your time, and everyone else's.

Also, if you haven't already done so, you might consider doing a search on this site for the Pam Reynolds case. There was a great thread not long ago that delved into many of the points of NDE you mention.

 

[krkey]

Unrep.- Christ rose if the Garden of Eden existed or it did not, what is important is what happened on easter sunday, not Gen 1.

I am willing to engage in constructive criticism, and I am puzzled why anyone in this forum would be opposed to me using the appropriate scholars and scholarships within these areas to make my points.

I do not believe in intellectual anarchy. I believe in the process of peer review, scholarly concensus etc. If people in here are not willing to accept peer reviewed scholarship, appropriate medical references etc then kindly let me know, I will simply leave.

For example if someone says Jesus is a copy of a pagan diety I will simply point out this argument has been dropped for over 100 years and has no scholarly support. That should be enough.

this here reflects my view on most bible critics. http://www.tektonics.org/calcon.html

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Unrep.- Christ rose if the Garden of Eden existed or it did not, what is important is what happened on easter sunday, not Gen 1.

But if a sinful nature were never infused into humanity by eating of the Fruit of Knowledge, what was Jesus' resurrection supposed to accomplish? Or do you feel that sin is an inherent aspect of human nature and so the Tree Narrative can be approached as metaphorical?

 

[krkey]

Unrep.- Christ rose if the Garden of Eden existed or it did not, what is important is what happened on easter sunday, not Gen 1.

I am willing to engage in constructive criticism, and I am puzzled why anyone in this forum would be opposed to me using the appropriate scholars and scholarships within these areas to make my points.

I do not believe in intellectual anarchy. I believe in the process of peer review, scholarly concensus etc. If people in here are not willing to accept peer reviewed scholarship, appropriate medical references etc then kindly let me know, I will simply leave.

For example if someone says Jesus is a copy of a pagan diety I will simply point out this argument has been dropped for over 100 years and has no scholarly support. That should be enough.

this here reflects my view on most bible critics. http://www.tektonics.org/calcon.html

 

[krkey]

Thats odd, it double posted me. My personal opinion on the doctrine of original sin, it is one of the most obvious truism ever. It is obvious that one person had to do the orginal evil deed, whatever it may have been. It is painfully obvious to all that this pattern has continued. All people can imagine a world without war, violence etc and we all know that these things arise by not loving one another, thus the world we live in is our fault. If mankind, way back when, had not choosen to go down the path of violence, etc, perhaps we might be in that ideal state.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

O.k. Laying aside Sin for a moment I'd like to get to something I brought up in RD forum and I believe you replied but I've slept since then.

If NDE's are to be held up as evidence for the validity of Christian tenets, why do some people, such as Buddhists have culturally specific NDEs? Wouldn't there be a universal experience, and one wholly in keeping with Christian tenets?

Additionally, NDEs and Reincarnation are held as evidence by New Agers like Victor Zammit a bolstering their claims about the soul, the afterlife and such. If NDEs can validate New Ager claims, how then can they also validate Christian claims?

 

[LW]

All NT Scholars, regardless of religious views agree on the four following points.

Actually, not all scholars agree to them.

a.) Jesus existed

I personally find it more plausible that Jesus was a real historical figure than not, but be prepared for lenghty argument on this subject when triadboy finds this thread.

But anyway, there are people who believe that Jesus was a completely mythological person who was basically put together from old myths.

b.) Jesus was crucified and died in the process

Those who don't believe that Jesus existed obviously don't agree on him being crucified. Also, one school of thought is that Jesus didn't die but was still alive when taken down from cross and later recovered.

c.) there is no body

True. However, the same thing might be said for the vast majority of historical figures. We don't even really know where Jesus's tomb was.

d.) the apostles had post mortum experiences

Again, not all agree on this one. Some people argue that the resurrection stuff and the like was added to Christianity only after Paul started to force-fit his mysticism into the person of Jesus.

So, in only one point of four is really agreed on.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

krkey,

Here is a site that will keep you busy for a while..

Did Jesus Exist ?


A lot of scholarly sources there, disagree with you..


About the original sin thing.


If man was originally without sin ( created perfect by a God ), how was man able to gain the knowledge of evil, without God playing a role, i.e. making it happen?

 

[Hexxenhammer]

Hey krkey! Glad to see you jumped over here from the readers digest forums. I won't type in any funny caveman voices over here (to give you a hint who I was on the readers digest boards). Welcome!

 

[krkey]

various responses

a.) name the historian or NT Testamant scholar who denys the historicial existance of Christ. No relevant scholar or historian disagrees with my views on the first one. I am aware of Christ Mythers, but not a single one of the current batch is in any way a qualified historian and I will simply choose to do what NT scholars do, ignore them. They are little better then holocaust deniers. I will be extremely disappointed if any poster in this forum engages in the Pseudo Historicial nonsense. Why would anyone want to engage in such pseudo history anyways. It does not help the spread of scholarship

b. The swoon theory has been not been used in scholary circles again for over 200 hundred years. It was abandoned because a half dead Jesus would have convinced nobody, and it doesnt deal with his treatment before death ( being whipped lose of blood, then crucifixion) and offers no explanatory power for the conversion of James and Paul. I will also state that the pagan myth theory has been dead since the 1890s. What is the point in trying to revive these long dead ideas? They have no scholarly value.

The issue becomes relevant because their was no body in ancient times either. All the Sanhedrin had to do stop Christianity was produce the body.

If you arguing Paul teaches a spritual resurrection then you are simply wrong. That idea had no meaning in Judaism, verse 15:12 of 1st Cor. would not have been asked had this been true( Pagans did believe in a spiritual resurrection) and lastly the word he uses in verse 44 is that of Suma, which always refers to something physical in Greek( Soma in biblicial Theology by Robert Gundry) The only difference between Paul and his fellow Pharisees was Pauls belief that for Jesus the, resurretion had already occured.

My four point are agreed upon among NT scholars, you might be wise to use them.

That was a joke right Diogenes? The author of that website is a young infidel of 22 named Peter Kirby. He has no relevant degrees nor is in any ways is considered a bible scholar. I will put it to you this way, when those articles are presented to me in a peer reviewed NT Journal I will take them seriously. Not until then. This most certainly falls into the category of why we most be extremely careful when using web based resources. A well typed paper does not make it scholarship. Do all scholars believe the earth rotates..... well I found a website claiming that isn't true. Surely it is questionable after reading this. http://www.fixedearth.com/

I will say this one last time. I will not dignify any Christ Myther with a further response. I will treat you with all the respect due holocaust deniers, flat earthers etc.

Man was able to gain knowledge of evil because he was created by God with freewill.

Victor Zammit uses the NDE, along with many other things to argue for a new age view. Just because Zammit uses it this way does not mean that it is a appropriate use of the evidence. You might want to be careful with the culture specific argument for the NDE, researchers agree, especially in the case of Children's NDEs that there is a corp experience, unaffected by religious overviews. The reason an NDE would have a cultural influence is the reason why people view the world differently. I and an arab if seeing a women being beat would very likely come to a different conclusion and describe the event very differently, does that mean the event did not happen. The better approach here is to decide what offers the best explanation for the NDE, the Transcendental theory or the Dying Brain theory.

Whats up Mightor

 

[arcticpenguin]

a.) the people who experienced it believe it was a real experience.

Hi,

I believe it was a mistake to open a thread with two separate topics. Perhaps you feel they are related, but the discussion for the resurrection of Jesus and for evidence of NDEs are two separate subjects, and should be handled in separate threads.

As for your NDE point a, SFW? There are people who really, really believe they were kidnapped and probed by aliens. Is that evidence of the truth of their claim? Throw this one right out.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

That was a joke right Diogenes? The author of that website is a young infidel of 22 named Peter Kirby. He has no relevant degrees nor is in any ways is considered a bible scholar.

You are apparently an idiot..

You obviously did not bother to look at any of the material presented, and dismissed the site, based on your opinion of the organizer of the web site.

How scholarly of you..

 

[Phil]

Re: various responses

a.) name the historian or NT Testamant scholar who denys the historicial existance of Christ. No relevant scholar or historian disagrees with my views on the first one. . .

. . . My four point are agreed upon among NT scholars, you might be wise to use them.

I cautioned you about using appeals to authority here, but so far that's all you've done.

You say Jesus was ressurrected. I'm not really concerned with what a bunch of men with letters after their names think. Introduce the evidence for your statement, and let's discuss that. Same goes for NDE.

I will say this one last time. I will not dignify any Christ Myther with a further response. I will treat you with all the respect due holocaust deniers, flat earthers etc. . .

. . . Victor Zammit uses the NDE, along with many other things to argue for a new age view. Just because Zammit uses it this way does not mean that it is a appropriate use of the evidence. . .

Question: If you're going to continue to cite the unsubstantiated ideas of these 'experts' as proof of your claim, why do you consider only your appeals to authority to be worthwhile?

 

[Upchurch]

Forgive me for being slow, but what is the RD room?

 

[Phil]

Re: Re: Open with the same message I did in RD room.

Forgive me for being slow, but what is the RD room?

I think it's Reader's Digest.

 

[Hexxenhammer]

Re: Re: Open with the same message I did in RD room.

Forgive me for being slow, but what is the RD room?

Readers Digest. US and I tried to convince krkey to come over to the JREF a couple months ago after debating him on the RD boards.

 

[jimlintott]

I like physical evidence. I know, its a weakness.

To accept a bible scholar as an authority, wouldn't I have to accept the bible as some sort of authority? I don't accept the bible as any sort of scientific authorty any more than I would accept 'Moby Dick' as a text on marine biology.

Ever get smacked in the head and see stars? What causes that? Is it my soul tying to escape?

Why in the name of Occam's razor would you expect NDE to be anything but the brain dying?

What is the transcendental theory?

 

[Ladewig]

krkey - regarding NDEs

b.) they have documented vertical evidence ( Lancet Journal)

What is vertical evidence? I tried searching the web but cannot get a clear definition.