tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post7046433821861145935..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Is Dr. H a fish? Is Thomas a Gospel?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-25691812545463313642012-05-25T13:40:23.299-07:002012-05-25T13:40:23.299-07:00Charles: I've just posted a couple attempted a...Charles: I've just posted a couple attempted answers to your questions in the new blog post. If you e-mail me, or give me your e-mail address, I'll forward Gary Habermas' chapters.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-86107967702326532952012-05-24T08:48:22.634-07:002012-05-24T08:48:22.634-07:00Since you offered absolutely nothing but rank asse...Since you offered absolutely nothing but rank assertion, and since the context is visible above and readers can see how I am tweaking you, who cares? <br /><br />I have shown that, far from making a "circular argument," my definition of "gospel" agrees with the dictionary definition. Dr. H's attempt to argue to the contrary failed miserably, when even his own chosen source proved to support that point. <br /><br />I also point out that Thomas does not, in fact, speak of Jesus' life, death, or resurrection, thus failing to rank as a "Gospel" by Dr. H's own chosen standard. To this, of course you have no response. There is no response, this is the plain truth. <br /><br />I also show that going by etymology, Thomas can hardly be a "gospel," <br /><br />Finally, I show that not just these four qualities that Dr. H's dictionary focus on, but looking at 50 defining qualities of the gospel, demonstrate that Thomas is not a "similiar" text, as Dr. H's definition demands. <br /><br />So not only is my definition not circular, not only does it clearly derive from several converging lines of evidence, but it is also strongly supported by Dr. H's own chosen textual authority. <br /><br />I can well believe you have nothing to add to Dr. H's creative and always energetic, but rather fumbling attempts to deny these clear and undeniable facts.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-87164675020861261812012-05-24T08:38:34.556-07:002012-05-24T08:38:34.556-07:00I see you've responded by taking me WAY out of...I see you've responded by taking me WAY out of context. How Christian Apologist of you. ;-)Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-39803733385271913492012-05-24T08:17:00.125-07:002012-05-24T08:17:00.125-07:00Mark: "I dont think i can add much . . . &quo...Mark: "I dont think i can add much . . . "<br /><br />This, I can believe.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-31373230015427584762012-05-24T07:56:46.939-07:002012-05-24T07:56:46.939-07:00Your attempted rebuttal was fun to read. Dr. H pok...Your attempted rebuttal was fun to read. Dr. H poked holes in every one of your arguments. He demonstrated that your arguments are just circular and youre clearly ignoring other definitions of the word gospel. Your definition is a very narrow one that excludes other discoveries. I dont think i can add much to his rebuttal. H covered everything pretty well.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-16138796539704253952012-05-21T19:28:20.286-07:002012-05-21T19:28:20.286-07:00Sure, just let me know what post.Sure, just let me know what post.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16560200287472677227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-72070535558191512652012-05-21T19:12:04.809-07:002012-05-21T19:12:04.809-07:00Charles: Thanks for your heart-felt questions. I&...Charles: Thanks for your heart-felt questions. I'm afraid Dr. H may respond in this forum -- would you mind if I posed your question in a dedicated post, gave it some thought, then tried to answer it? I could also run it by a few other people.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-85047224112351480742012-05-21T18:49:53.461-07:002012-05-21T18:49:53.461-07:00Marshall,
Not sure if you'll get this, but he...Marshall,<br /><br />Not sure if you'll get this, but here goes...<br /><br />A couple of things. You mentioned you might not be the best person to answer my question - can you get me in touch with someone who can? I've tried to post, call, etc to get in touch with William Lane Craig (who uses personal experience as an evidence of God), but to no avail. I'm currently hoping to get in touch with Jim Dennison, but we'll see how that goes. Do you have someone better suited to answer?<br /><br />As for your answer - I can't help, but feel as though it is unsatisfactory. You first mention that you do feel God's presence. I would argue that is exactly the problem -YOU (meaning other people who ask for it and search for it don't) and Feel (is it really god you feel? Can you be sure? etc....) So you feel (or give God credit) for something you feel. I have always had trouble talking to God as though he were in the room. Would anyone take me seriously if I talked to my dead biological father, an imaginary friend, or even someone I knew was living, but wasn't "there"? I can't imagine they would (or at best one wouldn't believe they could hear me and respond).<br /><br />Why would you suggest this tension is good for us? In what way? I don't think it is good for me. It has stopped me from going to church. (Although there are other reasons for that other than this one.)<br /><br />You say that a few times you seen "objective" reasons to believe God hears you and cares about you. I'd be interested to know what they things were (and the possibility that it wasn't God at all), and would also ask is this a special privilege he gives to some and not all?<br /><br />You mentioned that you think God does speak to us all the ways that I mention, but I think my whole argument was that he doesn't. As for your friend, did he really hear God and have to leave his homeland? Was it God that he heard? Did he have to leave? And if that is true, then why is it that God would only choose to talk to us and then make that the punishment? Is he punishing us for having to make himself heard? Seems a bit sadistic or unreasonable to me (assuming that is the case).<br /><br />Finally, you mentioned that we do "walk by faith." What does that mean? At this point, I'm willing to say that most modern American Christianity is wrong and that it doesn't mean a "personal" relationship with God. So then, what does it mean? Does it mean simply trying to learn more about God by reading the bible, and also trying to follow the best you can while always just kinda waiting for heaven?<br /><br />One last thought - I hope you don't read me as hostile or antagonistic. This is a serious problem for me. i recognize it isn't for everyone (or even most people), but at this point I am trying to find answers and trying to make sense of it all.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16560200287472677227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-87426294615448936222012-05-20T10:51:54.448-07:002012-05-20T10:51:54.448-07:00Matt: Yes, and of course that's the main focus...Matt: Yes, and of course that's the main focus of my rebuttal. But this word "gospel" is very important to these folks, which is why they often give their books titles like "The Gnostic Gospels," "The Five Gospels," "Four Gnostic Gospels," and so forth. This is not by accident. The way they use the word "gospel" is to trick the reader into thinking they really have somehow demonstrated that Thomas (or the others) is as good as, or even better than, the real gospels. But read carefully, you find that even in The Five Gospels, the Jesus Seminar can only point to two sayings (98 and 99, I think) that are not paralleled in the gospels, and that they can claim with a straight face really came from Jesus. I don't think those two sayings did come from Jesus, nor would it much matter if they did -- they're highly obscure. And these folks don't even pretend that, say, the Gospel of Mary or the Gospel of Judas tells us anything new and true about Jesus. <br /><br />So sure, the historical validity (actually invalidity) of Thomas & Co is the central issue. But the word "gospel" is used strategically, and repeatedly, to win that greater point by means of an optical illusion.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-35755923871568907392012-05-20T10:10:03.534-07:002012-05-20T10:10:03.534-07:00Hello David,
(Longtime reader first time...)
Is ...Hello David,<br /><br />(Longtime reader first time...)<br /><br />Is the definition of gospel that important? I think the real sting of the Jesus Seminar's claims is that Thomas (whatever it can be called) is a more reliable source of the sayings of Jesus than the canonical gospels.Matt Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05947081596759328950noreply@blogger.com