en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/794277 Comments by Shawn White http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/01/15/vertical-cosmological-argument-formally-stated/#IDComment99157641 Larry - I do make that distinction between origination causation and sustaining causation. Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:08:28 +0000 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/01/15/vertical-cosmological-argument-formally-stated/#IDComment99157641 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/04/27/william-lane-craig-critiques-bart-ehrman-part-1/#IDComment72094222 Hi Stephen - I'm not sure what you heard in Craig's critique that would lead you to believe that he admist that the Bible is not inerrant, but that is not what Craig says, nor is it what he believes. What is your understanding of the doctrine of Inerrancy? Mon, 3 May 2010 16:51:25 +0000 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/04/27/william-lane-craig-critiques-bart-ehrman-part-1/#IDComment72094222 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/04/26/did-jesus-exist/#IDComment70716455 Phil - I agree with all your points in your final post. I also agree with the examples you mention above (Buddha, Socrates, etc.) I was actually thinking of Socrates when I was watching this clip and then didn't bring him up in my little post. You do ask a pretty interesting question about purely fictional characters. That looks like a good topic to pursue as it relates to the Jewish community. I would imagine a rejoinder would follow the lines of something like: "Other cultures at that time were creating purely fictional stories (like the Greeks) and maybe they influenced the Jewish community since the Jews did not live in a cultural vacuum." Now, that would have to be proved, of course, but I could see someone objecting in that manner. Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:50:21 +0000 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/04/26/did-jesus-exist/#IDComment70716455 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/04/13/refuting-the-resurrection-part-6-the-other-tombs-that-opened/#IDComment67764447 I think poor historical skills are the smaller of Tooltime9901's issues Phil. However, setting all those issues aside, the question ultimately is, "what follows from the Matthew account?" If it's not true - how does that affect the whether the Resurrection of Jesus really occurred? It doesn't. There is nothing logically linking the two events. Now, I don't think Matthew was making anything up, but that's beside the point. It obviously is peripheral to the story otherwise the other three evangelists would have included it in their Gospel accounts as well. Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:05:23 +0000 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/04/13/refuting-the-resurrection-part-6-the-other-tombs-that-opened/#IDComment67764447 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/04/09/refuting-the-resurrection-part-4-secular-evidence-and-the-crucifixion/#IDComment67755510 Ah, yes - you are correct Phil - two millennia. Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:49:18 +0000 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/04/09/refuting-the-resurrection-part-4-secular-evidence-and-the-crucifixion/#IDComment67755510 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/04/09/refuting-the-resurrection-part-4-secular-evidence-and-the-crucifixion/#IDComment67097016 Obviously I think there are great reasons to believe that what the eyewitnesses believed they saw was the physical risen Jesus. We can discuss that later if you want, after your debate with Vocab. The topic of Jesus being God is an entirely different topic altogether. I'll be teaching a 5 week class on the deity of Jesus this coming fall and there is one thing for sure: whether he actually was or was not God is one thing, but he definitely considered himself to be God as did his followers. Also, I think the word you were looking for is hagiographical - the study of saints. Friends all the way around - I love these types of discussions. :) Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:26:28 +0000 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/04/09/refuting-the-resurrection-part-4-secular-evidence-and-the-crucifixion/#IDComment67097016 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/04/09/refuting-the-resurrection-part-4-secular-evidence-and-the-crucifixion/#IDComment67032144 Ah, but I'm not debating your position - I'm critiquing Tooltime9901's position and his contention is that there were no eyewitnesses. Saying that there were no eyewitnesses is nearly tantamount to saying that the entire enterprise is fictional. With what Tooltime9901 has said, we do not even enter into the discussion of whether the evidence is well documented or not, because he does not even consider the evidence as being valid. Now, if you wish to debate on different grounds than Tooltime9901, that's fair, but I'm only critiquing his video based on what he has said. Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:14:53 +0000 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/04/09/refuting-the-resurrection-part-4-secular-evidence-and-the-crucifixion/#IDComment67032144 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/04/09/refuting-the-resurrection-part-4-secular-evidence-and-the-crucifixion/#IDComment66903239 True that corroborating evidence is helpful in determining the truthfulness of an eyewitness account, however, that alone is not sufficient. But if one has evidence for an event that is well documented, yet all naturalistic causes fail in explaining it, you just don't have the luxury to dismiss the evidence. Rather, the reasonable thing to do is to go back and re-work the hypothesis and so far the most reasonable hypothesis is the Resurrection Hypothesis: God raised Jesus from the dead. Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:21:52 +0000 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/04/09/refuting-the-resurrection-part-4-secular-evidence-and-the-crucifixion/#IDComment66903239 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/04/09/refuting-the-resurrection-part-4-secular-evidence-and-the-crucifixion/#IDComment66807774 Another thing to keep in mind. If Tooltime9901 is correct that Josephus and Tacitus and other ancient historians received their information from Christians, then so what? If we keep with Tooltime9901's criteria, then do we discount all the information we have received from the Jew's who survived the holocaust? Tooltime9901's bias really comes to the forefront in this particular clip. Essentially he has said this: 1. You cannot trust the Gospels because they were not written by eyewitnesses 2. You cannot trust non-Christian historical sources because they received their information from alleged eyewitnesses 3. Therefore, you cannot trust anything recorded about Jesus Oh the slippery eel... Fri, 9 Apr 2010 14:22:25 +0000 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/04/09/refuting-the-resurrection-part-4-secular-evidence-and-the-crucifixion/#IDComment66807774 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/04/01/online-debate/#IDComment65721982 No problem - it's my pleasure to host it. I think the Q&A could be fun if we have some people will to participate. I'll see what I can drum up. Sat, 3 Apr 2010 07:07:16 +0000 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/04/01/online-debate/#IDComment65721982 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/03/09/nt-wrights-minimal-facts-method/#IDComment65557160 You bet. Wright has some good insights. Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:19:59 +0000 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/03/09/nt-wrights-minimal-facts-method/#IDComment65557160 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/03/23/who-do-you-say-that-i-am/#IDComment64475254 If there is a lack of discipling, then these responses ought to be what is expected. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I will reject you from serving as My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I will also forget your sons." ~ Hosea 4:6 Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:26:50 +0000 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/03/23/who-do-you-say-that-i-am/#IDComment64475254 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/03/23/who-do-you-say-that-i-am/#IDComment64473663 Yeah, that about sums that up! Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:08:51 +0000 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/03/23/who-do-you-say-that-i-am/#IDComment64473663 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/03/12/questing-for-jesus-a-brief-historical-look/#IDComment62230536 Is Jesus, the Nazarene carpenter, the Christ? Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:10:35 +0000 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/03/12/questing-for-jesus-a-brief-historical-look/#IDComment62230536 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/03/09/nt-wrights-minimal-facts-method/#IDComment60878054 I think other contributing factors affected modern Judaism. One being Rome destroyed their temple in 70 AD, which wiped out their sacrificial system and scattered the Jews all over the place. However, I believe all the Wright is saying is that the resurrection of Jesus was so unexpected that Judaism cannot account for it and therefore it cannot have been made up. It was such a radical event, that those Jews who witnessed brought about a seismic shift in their theological thinking and their daily practice as they lived out there faith. Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:26:20 +0000 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/03/09/nt-wrights-minimal-facts-method/#IDComment60878054 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/03/09/nt-wrights-minimal-facts-method/#IDComment60865061 Great question Mike. I am going to edit the post and include the 7 changes. Give me a few minutes and I'll have it up for you. Tue, 9 Mar 2010 22:46:07 +0000 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/03/09/nt-wrights-minimal-facts-method/#IDComment60865061 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/02/19/6-tests-for-historical-hypotheses/#IDComment58499499 Hi Robert. Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to post. I'm not really sure what you are talking about or the point you are making. That seemed to be a long and mostly incoherent post. Are you claiming that the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth was not a real, historical bodily resurrection? Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:27:53 +0000 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/02/19/6-tests-for-historical-hypotheses/#IDComment58499499 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/02/11/debate-the-case-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-mike-licona-vs-richard-carrier-2004/#IDComment57446487 I'm sorry, I'm not in the habit of defending positions that I don't hold. No where did I say that Dr. Flew is a Christian nor did I say that he believes in the Resurrection. I simple stated that he was swayed out of his atheism - period. Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:46:49 +0000 http://blog.livingdeadman.org/index.php/2010/02/11/debate-the-case-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-mike-licona-vs-richard-carrier-2004/#IDComment57446487