Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-10-2012, 06:15 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
(17-10-2012 06:07 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(17-10-2012 05:11 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  AS got it right, obviously through sound deductive reasoning and meticulous research. Your answer, sir, is ridiculous.

How would you know it was a guy? All your stuff wasn't taken, only the TV. These points are important!

Why would a woman steal your tv? Angel obviously likes to watch football and needed a new tv.

That case is not so easy as it sounds.
It was an hermaphrodite angel, and he/she is sell of your TV for a gender-change-surgery. He/She wants to be a genderless person.

If atheism is a religion, then not playing football is an Olympic discipline.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Marco Krieger's post
17-10-2012, 06:18 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
(17-10-2012 06:15 PM)Marco Krieger Wrote:  
(17-10-2012 06:07 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Why would a woman steal your tv? Angel obviously likes to watch football and needed a new tv.

That case is not so easy as it sounds.
It was an hermaphrodite angel, and he/she is sell of your TV for a gender-change-surgery. He/She wants to be a genderless person.

This sounds like an appeal to emotion. You're trying to manipulate me, aren't you, mein herr?

Viel Gloecke!

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cardinal Smurf's post
17-10-2012, 06:32 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
(17-10-2012 06:18 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  
(17-10-2012 06:15 PM)Marco Krieger Wrote:  That case is not so easy as it sounds.
It was an hermaphrodite angel, and he/she is sell of your TV for a gender-change-surgery. He/She wants to be a genderless person.

This sounds like an appeal to emotion. You're trying to manipulate me, aren't you, mein herr?

Viel Gloecke!

Sure, but i try to manipulate all of you here, you didn't notice?
Ah, coming back to the angel-issue, he/she is also sick and tired of the wings, so after the tv-robbery he/she flys into a jet-engine of an plane.
The plane crashes into the hospital, were the surgery was intended to happen.
Sade little angel!
Good luck next time.
Viel Glück beim nächsten mal.
And we didn't say "Mein Herr", anymore, we just say " Alter, was geht?"
That means "Old Fellow, what's up?"

If atheism is a religion, then not playing football is an Olympic discipline.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Marco Krieger's post
17-10-2012, 07:12 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
Anyone else ever notice that everytime we get a new theist they come here with basically the exact same spiel and they always claim it as evidence?

Evidence.

[Image: You-keep-using-that-word1-300x252.jpg]

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like lucradis's post
17-10-2012, 07:12 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
Well...it looks like Jesus' resurrection has been well and truly debunked. Well done! Just to help put a nail in the coffin, I'll reproduce some spiel which makes a few points not made yet...

Jesus’ Resurrection
“If Christ has not been raised, you are still in your sins. And what is more serious, all who have died in Christ have perished. If our hope for Christ has been for this life only, we are the most unfortunate of all people.” (1 Cor. 15:17–19, NJB).

"If the resurrection of Jesus cannot be believed except by assenting to the fantastic descriptions included in the Gospels, then Christianity is doomed. For that view of the resurrection is not believable, and if that is all there is, then Christianity, which depends upon the truth and authenticity of Jesus' resurrection, also is not believable." (Bishop John Shelby Spong).

The Romans crucified Jesus. It was a devastating, humiliating end to the hopes of his supporters. The Gospel authors could not have their hero disappear after such a wretched demise. The rank and file are not inclined to idolize a loser. The scriptwriters had to spruce up the story. Jesus had to rise from the dead, just like a god was expected to. The Egyptian Osiris, the Greek Dionysus, the Persian Mithras, and many others had all risen from the dead. Resurrection is a timeless theme; if a character is charismatic enough, people love to imagine that death has been defeated, even today. Consider Elvis Presley.

The resurrection of Christ proved the divinity of Jesus. It is the central tenet of the faith, the one most important belief upon which Christianity is based. Mark’s gospel, the first to be written, and the one that the others copied, should have made a big deal about this exceptional event. Yet the author only devotes the second half of the last chapter to it, as if it was tacked on like an afterthought. Mark has only twenty or so lines describing what many people presume was the premiere event in the history of the world.

Many scholars claim the character and style of the last twelve verses in Mark (the resurrection story) are different from the rest of the Gospel. They say at 16:9 there is an abrupt end to the narrative flow and the style loses its descriptive quality. Mary Magdalene is spoken of in 16:9 as if she had not been mentioned before. What is more, the whole resurrection story is absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts, the oldest Latin manuscript, the oldest Syriac manuscript, and from about one hundred early Armenian manuscripts, as well as the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written 897 CE and 913 CE). In many later texts that include verses 9–20, asterisks or obeli mark the verses as doubtful or spurious. Moreover, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Tertullian are completely unaware of the existence of a resurrection story in Mark. Eusebius and Jerome are, but they’re fourth century commentators, and they note that it is absent from their earlier Greek transcripts.
The significance of this is staggering. The original author of Mark created the first biblical biography of Jesus, but failed to mention that he rose from the dead!

The resurrection ending (16:9–20) was added to the end of Mark by an unknown author sometime after the latter part of the second century, a fact admitted by most New Testament scholars in the past century! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16). A footnote in the Jerusalem Bible states,
“The ‘long ending’ of Mark, vv.9–20, is included in the canonically accepted body of inspired scripture. This does not necessarily imply Markan authorship which, indeed, is open to question” (Jerusalem Bible).

The Catholic Encyclopedia states,
“Catholics are not bound to hold these verses (16:9–20) were written by Saint Mark.” The arrogant authors are assuming they can tell Catholics what they are allowed to believe. They then make the following ridiculous claim as one of several possible explanations for the lack of a resurrection ending: “If, then, Mark concluded with verse 8, it must have been because he died or was interrupted before he could write more.” Imagine Mark sitting at his desk, stylus poised, just about to create history by writing the final twenty lines of his epic when—oops—he dies! A little trail of ink meanders off the page. If you are able to accept Mary died a virgin, you can probably presume this “must have” happened too.

The Catholic encyclopedia goes on to state: “Whoever wrote the verses, they are inspired, and must be received as such by every Catholic.” I presume they’re proposing the interpolator was “inspired” by God. Wouldn’t their case be more credible if he had been “inspired” by some eyewitnesses? Consider the tone of the commentary; they are ordering their readers what to believe, rather than offering an informed opinion about a quintessential issue.

The real reason the original author of Mark didn’t write about the resurrection was that there was no resurrection. The resurrection only became a popular belief in some circles in the early to mid second century, maybe when Paul’s letters became more widely circulated. The original Nazarene followers of Jesus may have hoped he was going to return, but never believed he had already done so.

Most Church leaders who know about the interpolated ending insist that since the last twelve verses are “canonically authentic,” there is no need to compromise the faith of their flock by admitting they aren’t bona fide. That is fraudulent.

It is very likely the same interpolator(s) also added lines into Mark in which Jesus predicts he will rise from the dead. The authors of the other Gospels probably included a resurrection because by the time they were writing the myth had been widely circulated, although their accounts may have been added at a later date too.
The four Gospels give different reports of events after the death of Jesus because they didn't have this part of Mark's chronicle to copy, so each made up their own. Matthew adds an earthquake and the corpses of holy men walking around Jerusalem. Jesus wasn’t the only Jew to rise from the dead! I wonder whether these walking corpses helped remove the rubble from the earthquake? Did they rejoin their relatives around the table? It might have been disturbing divvying up dinner to your dead half decayed dad!

The Catholic Encyclopedia writes this about the gospels:
“First of all, they commended themselves by their tone of simplicity and truthfulness, which stood in striking contrast with the trivial, absurd, or manifestly legendary character of many of those uncanonical productions.” I think they’re reading their canonical accounts with rose-colored glasses.

Luke and John have the risen Jesus appearing in Jerusalem, far more prestigious than Galilee, which was believed to be a backward badland, yet was where Mark has him appearing. There are numerous other inconsistencies. Christian apologists have tried to reconcile the four very different resurrection stories, with no success.

Jesus did have brothers, two of who, James and Jude, have probably written their own letters in the Bible. If one’s brother had risen from the dead, one would be elated and awestruck, but neither even mentions the fact.

Nor do we find any testimony to the resurrection in the Epistles of Peter or John, as they too were written in the first century, long before the idea of the resurrection had taken root.

Paul believed in a resurrection, but this is how he got to know his risen Christ:
“Then God, who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his Son in me” (Gal. 1:15–16, NJB). He was writing at least twenty years after Jesus died, and gave no description of God’s son. His experience was not a physical reappearance of a dead Jesus, but one that emerged from his own imagination that he thought was inspired by God.
There is no first-century secular writer who mentioned Jesus, let alone a risen Jesus. If a resurrected Jesus had appeared to as many people as claimed in the bible, many contemporary historians would have shouted it from the rooftops, yet there is not a word about it. The resurrection of Jesus is a myth!

Why are millions of people today convinced Jesus rose from the dead? The authors of Christian literature just assume it happened. If a tale is told often enough, it takes on a life of its own. Some Christian commentators dissect the four accounts of the resurrection to try to reconcile them with each other (unsuccessfully), as if that proved they were true.

The truth is the believers have been duped.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Mark Fulton's post
17-10-2012, 07:36 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
(17-10-2012 07:12 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Well...it looks like Jesus' resurrection has been well and truly debunked. Well done! Just to help put a nail in the coffin, I'll reproduce some spiel which makes a few points not made yet...

Jesus’ Resurrection
“If Christ has not been raised, you are still in your sins. And what is more serious, all who have died in Christ have perished. If our hope for Christ has been for this life only, we are the most unfortunate of all people.” (1 Cor. 15:17–19, NJB).

"If the resurrection of Jesus cannot be believed except by assenting to the fantastic descriptions included in the Gospels, then Christianity is doomed. For that view of the resurrection is not believable, and if that is all there is, then Christianity, which depends upon the truth and authenticity of Jesus' resurrection, also is not believable." (Bishop John Shelby Spong).

Thanks Mark. So good you're back ! I am writing a paper on other possible meanings of "resurrection". (Crossan, BB Scott). I recently went to a seminar in San Diego where Scott, ("The Trouble with The Resurrection" author) spoke, and it was fascinating. Since we live in a scientific literalist age, the idea of "authentic metaphor" as Spong was saying is utterly devalued. We value ONLY 100% literal meanings and thought. That simply was NOT the way the world was in the day of Yeshua, in pre-scientific times, where there were all sorts of magic, considered to be just as real, honest, and every bit authentic, as what we would call a "fact". and "miraculaous" was "everyday".

Also, have we ever talked about the Jewish "Nazorite" idea ? It's an idea that was non-geographical. A Nazorite was an ascetic, (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...5-nazarite ), which was as old as Ancient Israel. Since we know there was only a grave yard in the location in the Nazareth Valley, and NO town, is it not possible Yehsua, was just a Hebrew ascetic in the tradition of Nazorites. It makes perfect sense, and answers the question of why he was never married.
The first Christians were members of the sub-sect of Judaism called the "Way". And they did not separate from Judaism for hundreds of years, despite the Jews attempts to get rid of them, (the "expulsion curses", of Gamailiel III).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-10-2012, 07:56 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
(17-10-2012 07:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Also, have we ever talked about the Jewish "Nazorite" idea ? It's an idea that was non-geographical. A Nazorite was an ascetic, (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...5-nazarite ), which was as old as Ancient Israel. Since we know there was only a grave yard in the location in the Nazareth Valley, and NO town, is it not possible Yehsua, was just a Hebrew ascetic in the tradition of Nazorites. It makes perfect sense, and answers the question of why he was never married.
The first Christians were members of the sub-sect of Judaism called the "Way". And they did not separate from Judaism for hundreds of years, despite the Jews attempts to get rid of them, (the "expulsion curses", of Gamailiel III).

That also explains why Jesus always has long hair in his photos.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
17-10-2012, 08:30 PM (This post was last modified: 17-10-2012 10:32 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
(17-10-2012 07:12 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I wonder whether these walking corpses helped remove the rubble from the earthquake? Did they rejoin their relatives around the table? It might have been disturbing divvying up dinner to your dead half decayed dad!

Goddammit Yeshua. You KNOW I hated my father-in law. If I ever get my hands on that Jeebus guy, he's gonna have hell ta pay. He hated my cooking, and always complained. And now I have to go out, and redo that damn funeral ALL over again. Shit. I waited for 40 years to get rid of that bastard, and what do i get ? Fucking resurrected dad ? Tongue



Ask yourself, or anyone else :
Am I biased ? If I actually have the SAME quality of evidence, or better, for another event in history, than there is for the resurrection, BEFORE I see the evidence, will I accept the evidence for both events as true ? If you are NOT biased, you MUST say yes.

Guess what ?

You MUST believe also that the Salem Massachusetts witches really WERE witches. The evidence is BETTER, than for the resurrection. See the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xv_Iklb1V4

So, Idiot for Christ, I hope you realize, that by making this thread, in which your Jeebus guy's resurrection comes up as a prominent search engine result, you have directed many hundreds of views here already, (650 at least so far in a few hours), and which will be literally thousands in the days and weeks, and months to come, and by providing not a shred of rebuttal, or intelligent answers to support any of the nonsense that you thought was unimpeachable from the mouth of your great Prophet, William Lane Craig, you have scandalized many thousands of people looking for information on this subject, and have afforded us an opportunity to utterly destroy Craig and his gang of 3rd rate idiots. I would imagine, that in your world, one might have to answer for such astounding pride and arrogance some day, inasmuch as you are not prepared, or competent to deal with the consequences of what you have started. Big Grin

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-10-2012, 10:21 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
Even if these claims are generally accepted, that doesn't make them true. Islam is generally accepted by a whole culture of people. Does that make it true? If someone is raised from the start to believe something, they might defend it to the death depending on what it is. If there were a gun to my head I would say anything, including that I believe in Allah. If I actually believed in allah or god, or whatever other deity fits, I would be willing to die for the cause. Since dying for your religious beliefs usually includes the belief that you will go to heaven. If these guys did exist, they were most likely quite willing to die and go meet their maker. It is not whether or not the belief is true that makes them willing to die. It is what the belief is all about that makes them willing to die.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Birdguy1979's post
17-10-2012, 11:20 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
Hold on, I'm going to find a snake and discuss what it thinks about Facebooking with humans, I'm sure you all are just as tired as I am of all these physical conversations with these reptiles as we eat fruit and watch the trees grow. I'm exhausted.

Leviticus does not justify stupidity, but it is more than enough to define corruption of the human mind.

[Image: 24851795.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: