Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-10-2012, 06:05 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
Came across this today: http://ehrmanblog.org/decent-burials-for...-victims/. Jesus may not have even been given a proper or timely burial.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 06:26 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
Quote:1) Jesus died via crucifixion.
The historicity of Jesus is still an open question, as is the method of his death. There were a great many prophets and messiahs of various sorts killed by crucifixion, so call it plausible.

Quote:2) Jesus was buried in a tomb.
The historicity of Jesus is still an open question, as is the method and location of his burial.

Quote:3) A few days later Jesus’ tomb was discovered empty by his women followers.
Not accepted as historical fact, unless taken on faith.

Quote:4) Disciples had experiences they believed to be true and actual appearance of the risen Jesus. (including accounts from Paul of Jesus appearing before 500 additional people)
The historicity of Jesus' disciples and Jesus himself are open questions, but it is known that none of the original disciples actually wrote of their experiences, everything is second- or third-hand.


Since your premises are faulty, your whole argument is faulty.

Bye.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Phaedrus's post
22-10-2012, 05:53 AM (This post was last modified: 22-10-2012 06:47 AM by fstratzero.)
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
This whole thread makes me!
[Image: 4plzE.gif]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_tomb

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like fstratzero's post
22-10-2012, 10:52 AM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
(19-10-2012 03:59 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(19-10-2012 03:29 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Go ahead, I bet Craig will toss away his beliefs base on what you presented above for sure.
Quite the contrary. Craig has claimed several times that even if the resurrection was disproven by, for example, finding the remains of Jesus Christ, he would continue believing in it because he has the witness of the Holy Spirit. Debating with Craig is entirely pointless, because no amount of evidence can change his position. He, among several other apologetics, is intellectually dishonest on almost all accounts.

I don't think anyone goes into a debate with Craig, or any other apologist, thinking "Man, if I win this debate I'm going to deconvert my opponent to Atheism!". I know Seth has said so himself (that he doesn't have such a belief).

I will further submit that any theist who agrees to debate on any topic related to validating his god or his religion is so deeply certain of his own convictions that he is beyond deconversion, at least at this time. He's a warrior for god, taking the stage to prove the one real Truth, and he knows it.

Or he's a guy who has found a quick and easy way to make tons of money as an apologist and will never be publicly deconverted regardless of the strength of his own convictions (which may not be strong at all) - doing so would be an end of his income.

Craig could be either one of those guys, but either way, nobody is going to deconvert him in a debate.

No, the real point of the debate is to make good points, get it recorded, and get it out to the public for people on the fence, people who aren't secure in their faith convictions, people who might actually hear those good points and begin thinking about their delusions and who could, as a result of your debate, actually come to their senses and deconvert.

So let Craig hang onto his (claim of) Holy Spirit righteousness. The debate is not for him anyway.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aseptic Skeptic's post
22-10-2012, 11:05 AM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
(22-10-2012 10:52 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  
(19-10-2012 03:59 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Quite the contrary. Craig has claimed several times that even if the resurrection was disproven by, for example, finding the remains of Jesus Christ, he would continue believing in it because he has the witness of the Holy Spirit. Debating with Craig is entirely pointless, because no amount of evidence can change his position. He, among several other apologetics, is intellectually dishonest on almost all accounts.

I don't think anyone goes into a debate with Craig, or any other apologist, thinking "Man, if I win this debate I'm going to deconvert my opponent to Atheism!". I know Seth has said so himself (that he doesn't have such a belief).

I will further submit that any theist who agrees to debate on any topic related to validating his god or his religion is so deeply certain of his own convictions that he is beyond deconversion, at least at this time. He's a warrior for god, taking the stage to prove the one real Truth, and he knows it.

Or he's a guy who has found a quick and easy way to make tons of money as an apologist and will never be publicly deconverted regardless of the strength of his own convictions (which may not be strong at all) - doing so would be an end of his income.

Craig could be either one of those guys, but either way, nobody is going to deconvert him in a debate.

No, the real point of the debate is to make good points, get it recorded, and get it out to the public for people on the fence, people who aren't secure in their faith convictions, people who might actually hear those good points and begin thinking about their delusions and who could, as a result of your debate, actually come to their senses and deconvert.

So let Craig hang onto his (claim of) Holy Spirit righteousness. The debate is not for him anyway.
I don't know what you're arguing against. Never have I said that the point of a debate is to deconvert your opponent. My post was a response to Idiot for Christ who (sarcastically) said that Craig would drop his belief if presented with the evidence that Bucky Ball posted. I replied that Craig is so intellectually dishonest that even if he was presented with undeniable evidence, he wouldn't drop his belief.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 11:28 AM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
I wasn't arguing against anything.

Just making a point about the real usefulness of a debate: helping people struggling with doubts to find answers by watching the debate and starting to think for themselves. It's never about converting or deconverting the people on the stage arguing for the opposition.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 03:04 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
Bucky No Books

Quote:I'm sort of tired of this little game today. Maybe I'll play later.

Won’t hold my breath…especially after that last reply...

Oh, and don't forget to post what WLC makes on debates and talks, I'm interested:___________________
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 03:08 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
(19-10-2012 06:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi IFC,

I'll give you some credit....you have at least made an attempt to study some of the history behind your beliefs. That's more than most apologists.

However...if you ever genuinely want to make sense out of the whole messy story, you need to read Bucky's one liner another 10 times, slowly.

I hope you might get something from the following spiel...

Yeshua’s Words?
There is no evidence that Yeshua had chroniclers writing down his words as he spoke, so any recording of his remarks must have been reliant on the “oral tradition.” Yet Jesus’ lyrics are recounted in long passages in all the Gospels. For example, there is a monologue that goes on barely uninterrupted for almost ten pages in John 13–18, and there are similar lengthy lectures in Matthew. They must be fictitious. People in those days could not accurately quote the words of speakers, as we are able to do today. Papyrus, the ancient equivalent of paper, was expensive and hard to get hold of, as was ink. People didn’t presume Jesus would have a premature demise. They were itinerant, poor, had to watch their backs and were too concerned with day-to-day survival to be bothered with somehow documenting his words.

Roughly nineteen hundred years ago, educational standards were very poor. It is estimated that only twenty percent of people in the Roman Empire could read at all and less than ten percent could read well (William Harris), and Jews in Palestine were even more illiterate. The author Meir Bar-Ilan claims that less than three percent of Israel’s population was literate, and less than that in rural areas
(http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/i...&id=4172). If you grew up Jewish outside a city, you were unschooled. It is highly unlikely that Jesus or any of his disciples could read or write.

The Catholic Encyclopedia disagrees with the majority of historians about the literacy of those in Jesus’ circle: “We may suppose that the Apostles, at least most of them, read and spoke Greek as well as Aramaic, from their childhood.” They “suppose” that “most” of the apostles were bilingual, and could read and write in two languages! They can’t verify these absurd assumptions with evidence. I think they are implying that the apostles wrote the Gospels (in Greek), yet admit elsewhere they didn’t. Carefully chosen commentary is creating an incorrect impression.

The so-called “oral tradition,” said to be how Jesus’ supporters remembered what he said, and then (somehow) later documented, is a myth. We have trouble remembering words from conversations five minutes ago, and our memories are very prone to suggestion, exaggeration, and confabulation. We forget, alter, and exaggerate details. Why would poorly educated peasants perform any better?

Consider a modern analogy. Imagine a politician gave some speeches in a foreign language in a distant country one hundred years ago, and one year later was assassinated. A publicist asks you to write an interesting, detailed short story about the life of this character, whom you had never met, nor had anyone else in your acquaintance. Some of his admirers claim he was someone special. Quoting his actual words is important. You can ask anyone you can find about him, but can’t use the telephone, Internet, newspapers or a car. Imagine you stitched together a story that was translated into another language, let’s call it Greek, and you presented it to the publicist. He handed it on to his marketing people, who tied up some loose ends and inconsistencies and added some details of their own to make it more appealing. They had it translated into Italian, promoted it heavily through a chain of bookstores, and it became a best seller in Italy. You would have to make sense of multiple disparate poorly remembered facts and rumors. Inevitably, most of the story would be sourced from your creative imagination. The translators and editors would butcher your largely fabricated script.

The job the original authors of Mark’s Gospel had would have been even more difficult. They were writing anything from 40-150 years after Jesus’ death. A war had devastated Jewish society in the interim. In reality, any verbal tales they heard about Jesus would have been second hand at best and more likely have almost no relation to an actual historical figure. It seems there is no possibility that the Gospel stories could contain the actual words of Jesus.

Why Were the Gospels Written?

They were written to entice people to join a religious cult, not for humanitarian reasons or academic interest. They were propaganda tools that integrated the theological, philosophical, and political ideals of the cult. Each Gospel was targeted at the people of the time, not for distant future generations.

Access to books was very limited and there was no mass media, so what the average person thought about the world was only what he had learned from experience and what his parents and neighbors had told him, or maybe, if he was Jewish, what had been read to him from scripture. He had little or no understanding of science or reasoned critical thought, so believed in gods, ghosts, spirits, demons, witches, and the like. If there was sickness in a household, the local wizard or priest was called. It was an age in which myths were commonly considered as truthful, and stories of magic and miracles were believed. Only some of the more educated people, who were relatively few in number, questioned belief in gods.

Modern biographies are usually based on factual accounts of a person’s life. In contrast, ancient authors customarily told stylized life stories. Documenting the actual thoughts, words, and actions of the character was attempted, but to do it accurately was not thought of as particularly important, as biographies were written primarily to create legends and promote moral messages. The Gospel authors and editors didn’t need to appeal to reason or common sense to sell their sort of story. The events they described had happened I think over a hundred years earlier in another part of the world, and their audience had neither the means nor the inclination to check out the facts. What was important was to have written works appealing enough to compete with scores of other interesting cults so that an unsophisticated audience would be impressed. They wrote stylized biographies using the standards of the time. They may not have considered themselves dishonest, but judged by modern standards, they were.

There was no such thing as a printing press, so in the first two hundred years of each gospel’s existence, translators, editors, interpreters, and interpolators altered the original writings by adding or subtracting whatever they thought might be useful. So the dates that are commonly given for the authorship of each Gospel (ranging from 70 CE to 180 CE) are only of limited usefulness, as they can only be thought of only as when the first drafts were composed. (http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm). It was only in the later fourth century that the Gospels had finished evolving and were accepted as the legacy of the apostolic age.

yes, a very interesting perspective to be sure, oral tradition to reliability of the Gospels!

Great areas to get into and will get a reply in the works for ya!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Idiot for Christ's post
22-10-2012, 03:34 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
(22-10-2012 03:04 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Oh, and don't forget to post what WLC makes on debates and talks, I'm interested:___________________

That's as important as how much the thieving preachers rake in.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 03:55 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
(22-10-2012 11:28 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  I wasn't arguing against anything.

Just making a point about the real usefulness of a debate: helping people struggling with doubts to find answers by watching the debate and starting to think for themselves. It's never about converting or deconverting the people on the stage arguing for the opposition.
I must have misunderstood your post then, my bad.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: