Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2012, 05:29 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
(17-10-2012 07:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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).

Hi Bucky, I take your point about authentic metphor in ancient times. Obviously Christians don't.

Good article re Nazorites. Thanks! Complex topic. I think they were the same as the Nazarenes. As you know, John the Baptist, Yeshua and James were Nazarenes. They may have been started c400 BCE by a prophet called Essa. They were dyed in the wool Jews, and intensely anti Roman. They were also called "the way" and the "children of light." I can't be sure, but suspect they were Essenes (or very closely affiliated to them).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2012, 03:29 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
Buck No Books -


Quote:Ok then, lets look at this nonsense.

Let’s! (grammar, it’s “let’s” as in Let us – since you’re such a stickler on grammar, thought I’d point this out for you, since you love to point them out for me)

(17-10-2012 02:41 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  2) This Gospel was the central message of the early church and.
3) Even proclaimed this message in Jerusalem, where Jesus was killed and buried.

Quote:Assertion. No evidence. Prove it. The message of Jesus never said anything about "resurrection". The preaching of Jesus did not include himself as content. He said "come follow me", not "come worship me".

Correct, that is the teaching of Jesus IN the Gospels are primarily to the Jew. This is prior to fulfilling the law, his death and resurrection – After his resurrection, his message extends then to everyone else, or as the saying goes, “first to the Jew, then to the gentile.”

As for Jesus speaking/teaching to the resurrection: "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again" (Mark 8:31; see also Matthew 17:22; Luke 9:22).

He also speaks of his “enemies” destroying the temple (his body) and that he would rebuild it in three days (John 2:19; Mark 14:58; cf. Matthew 26:61).

This “sign of Jonah” Matthew 12:39; 16:4

‘After three days I will rise'" (Matthew 27:63).

As for #3 Acts highlights that the Gospel was preached in Jerusalem.



Quote: When the young man in Matthew asked him what he should do to gain eternal life, Jesus said : "keep the commandments". Nothing else. Proof that later Christianity is not what Jesus taught, or even remotely resembled it.

First off, you left out quite a bit here. The passage, found in Matthew 19:16-22. Jesus said keep the commandments, yes – as a good Jew should – they are UNDER the law still during this time.

However, the man wanted reach perfection (unattainable). To do this, Jesus told him to sell his goods and “follow me.” The man didn’t, thus Jesus takes the moment to make his point about the difficulty of a rich man entering heaven.

So, yes, there was more – follow me was added as well.

As Jesus is teaching to the Jews here, this falls right in line with what we would expect him to teach – following the law, fulfilling the law. However, as Jesus just pointed out, following the law to perfection is impossible by man.

But maybe you should darken the door of a church now and again, because this IS taught.

In addition, Paul’s letters attest to the early churches preaching of the Gospel – AFTER the death and resurrection. The ultimate fulfillment of the law via Jesus.

Quote: Proof later church radically changed what Jesus was all about.

Changed to what? You fail to say here. What was Jesus all about in your mind?


Quote:4) Jesus’ brother James was a skeptic, until his own encounter with the risen Jesus.

Quote:Assertion,. No external evidence. Not proven. IF the James of the NT "Letter of James", is the brother of Jesus, it is astounding that he never mentions the resurrection once, if that was the central theme in the church, and in fact the fact that James DOES spend much of his time talking about continuing adherence to the Jewish law AFTER the Diaspora, is proof that the communities STILL, that late considered themselves Jews, and members of Jewry, well after the time the gospels were written.

Ah, “proven” – yep the great challenge history can’t do, yet every atheist expects ONLY when it comes to Jesus.

But here’s a quick list of evidence of James:

Mark 6:3-4 Independent account (…and the brother of James…)
John 7:3-5 Independent accout (…not even his brothers believed)
Acts 1:14 Independent account(…and with his brothers)
Acts 21:18 Independent AND first hand accout (…rest of US went to see James…)
Jude 1:1 Independent
Galatians 1:18-19 (Paul) Independent (…appeared to…then to James)
James 1:1 (himself) Independent - self

Quote: there is NO external evidence (for James)

Josephus Antiquities 20.9.1 independent AND external

As to the fact, that James doesn’t mention the resurrection means: he didn’t mention it. Remember what the Epistle is about: it was written to the 12 scattered tribes abroad, aka Jewish/Christian folks. Folks who would already know about the resurrection. It’s main goal was a letter to highlight the duties of those.

In short: no need for him to mention the resurrection.

So, yes there’s evidence that James was a skeptic and was converted by his experience.

As for the disciples still considering themselves Jews – correct! OTHERS called them Christians, not themselves, they still were Jews in their minds.

Quote:5) Paul, an early prosecutor of the early church, was also converted by his own experience with the risen Jesus.

Quote:Not proven.

There’s that word again!

Quote: No external evidence for Paul's origins or identity. In fact we can infer that there were two men writing under that name, as they have two distinct Theologies. (see below). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDSUTjxNuiU


Okay, let’s first deal with your link. A video about a popular (not scholarly) book – with more than a few issues:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconten...ticle=2827
http://creation.com/review-jesus-interru...art-ehrman
and here’s an interesting article on Act’s and Paul etc: http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/actspaul.html

Now, while there is a question on how many of the 13 books were attributed to him, the main one that concerns the resurrection: 1 Corinthians, is not in question.

Whether or not the other books were written by him or not, is not relevant to this discussion.

Now, we DO have letters that he wrote. As well as independent accounts of him:
Acts
2 Peter 3:15-16

As for not being “external” these books and letters are INDEPENDENT of each other and despite that they are part of the Bible NOW, they weren’t when they were written, not for quite a bit of time after – as you well know.

But outside the Bible:

Ignatius:

“I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did.”

Ignatius, Letter to the Romans

“You are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul…”

Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians

Ignatius also quoted Paul often in his own writings.
Clement speaks of Paul:
“Owing to envy, Paul also obtained….. striking example of patience.”
“Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul….among you.”
Clement, The First Epistle of Clement, Ch. 47
Polycarp says:
““For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed and glorified Paul….and our neighbour, is the mother of us all.”
And
““I exhort you all, therefore….and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles.”
Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians,
Also Muslim historians speak of Paul:
Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad
al-Tabari, History
But let’s look at what you said:
Quote: No external evidence for Paul's origins or identity.
Perhaps not of his origin – which isn’t all that odd considering the time. However, there is of his identity, and as an Apostle.
Interesting paper on Paul as persecutor: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/32...1335745387
(it’s a preview, but the preview alone makes the case of Paul being a persecutor.
Quote:a. Also, as noted around the time of Jesus’ ministry, death, and claimed resurrection.

Quote:Irrelevant. No external evidence. In fact he had every motivation to lie, as he wanted to gain adherents, which he did do by importing themes from Mithraism, ie the Eucharist, and Zoroastrian "purification", which was antithetical to Hebrew "atonement/sacrifice" themes).

NOT irrelevant? Dates matter, the fact that the times match up means that Paul 1) was around Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ death and claimed resurrection 2) he knew what the disciples were saying and claiming.

If the dates didn’t match, you sing it to high heaven that they didn’t!

In history, Bucky, DATES MATTER.

Second, no reference to your claim…should I quote you and say “Assertion, no proof?” or would you like to put up at least on reference to this assertion.

Quote:6) Jewish leadership (hostile to the early church) was unable to derail the message, despite both motive and means.

Quote:They did try to expel the Way cult from Jewish communities, as is known as late as 90's AD when Gamaliel had the "expulsion curses" read. However it again proves the Way cult was still a parasitic part of Judaism, and the Jews wanted them out, and they refused to leave.

Thank you for adding to my point that the Jewish leadership was hostile to the early Christians as well as others.

Quote:a. Best offering they had to try and discredit the resurrection: they stole the body.

Quote:No. The entire thing was a fiction.


(again, since you’re a stickler for grammar: “was a fiction?” Was a fiction what? It’s usually been fiction, or was a fictional ____.)

What the resurrection or the claim that they stole the body? Yes I agree the later was fiction, by the Jewish leadership.

Yet, you back track to say…

Quote: If this was used, it was irrelevant. There is no proof this was widespread. If it was, it only proves widespread doubt.

If – it’s irrelevant.

So your retort is: didn’t happen, but if it did it doesn’t matter. Except that it does because it shows doubt.

Wow, talk about having cake and eating it.
But that there was doubt, by the leadership is WELL KNOWN. And that they either came up with a bad alternative stolen body or had nothing.


Quote: 7) Sunday became a day of worship, which was a departure from Jewish tradition.

Quote:Irrelevant. Custom did not become fixed until mid Second Century, In fact DISPROVES gospel, as Luke 23.54 requires Sabbath as "commandment" on Saturday, IN THE GOSPEL. Oops.

1) okay, let’s chuck it as irrelevant. Does it hurt the case above? Nope, in fact this is, I admit, a very weak piece of the puzzle and have no issue disregarding it.
2) Luke 23:54 - It was the preparation day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.
No “requirement” as you have listed, but a statement made…”preparation day” aka: Friday. Part of the narrative.

Quote:Cultural consideration:
1a The Jews’ (the disciples were Jewish, remember) belief of resurrection was that it would occur at the end of the world only. However, the disciples believed that he was resurrected before such, not fitting with Jewish belief.

Quote:Absolutely false. The Jews believed the Messiah would come to restore the kingdom, and would be a POLITICAL messiah, and PROVED this in acts, 1:6 "Lord wilt Thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel".

You didn’t even reply to the quoted section.

The quoted section speaks to the Jewish belief of RESURRECTION.

You switch it to the belief of a Messiah.

Absolutely off topic.


Quote: also disproven by the appellation of Simon bar Kochba, leader of the revolt in 132 CE as "messiah", also, (among MANY others).

Again, OFF TOPIC and says NOTHING to the Jewish belief of resurrection.

A bit off track there, Bucky.

Quote:2a. Is there a “better” explanation?

Quote:Logical Fallacy called Argument from Ignorance.

Um…no, see that little question mark there?

It’s a question: Is there a better explanation?

Certainly many have been offered…are they better?

See? Question.

Read, don’t skim.

If you can answer the question, please do.

Quote:Also there are very good "other" explanations. The "magical" resurrection is actually THE WORST, (most improbable) explanation. ANY other one, is better. There are many. Since "resurrection is THE most improbable, ANY other explanation would be ahead of it in line of Probability.

Well, then let’s discuss what you believe is the best explanation for ALL OF THE ABOVE…

Quote:However, these fall short of explanatory scope and power as the resurrection would.

Quote:Of course you would say that. Unsupported assertion. No criteria or standard established for determination.

And of course you would say there ARE better explanations – so let’s look at them, shall we?

And I await each as being well SUPPORTED assertions you will come up with.

You go ahead and start with one and let's see how it answers all of the above.


Quote:Also, unlike the resurrection, the other theories need more than ONE additional hypothesis. Resurrection needs only one: God exists.

Quote:Capricious standard. Bad faith exposed. No standard established a priori.

Certainly, God existing is the one additional hypothesis. However, a resurrection is certainly within the power of a god to do.

How many additional hypothesis do any of your “better” explanations need?

Put them up and let’s see. Let’s also see how they fair with a priori as well.

Quote:So I will, for now, leave it at that,

Quote:That's a good thing. You are obviously not up to this task, and have made a fool of yourself, and your cult.
So that's it ? That's your best shot ? Please.
Do you know how much Craig got paid for this ? We did an estimate. Would you like to know how much he ripped off the churches and schools for ? We had people there. We know.

Irrelevant how much Craig got paid – says nothing to whether the above holds or not. By all means post your estimate.

As for my best shot – well, your retort is quite failing as we just saw…but, I know you try again…

Quote:So since I know you can't think for yourself, and you have proven that, I will address Criag (Craig), as we are making a video, to put out in public. So thank you SO VERY much for giving us , in advance, his arguments, so we can get busy putting our video up on YouTube.

His argument has been out there for a few years now, and you JUST NOW are aware of it? Cripes he offers these transcripts and also has audio of many of his debates.

You didn’t know ANY of this before now?

Where have you been?

Thank me?

LOL.

Jeez, looks like you don’t do much digging around yourself there Bucky…

Quote: We can credit your help in it if you like ?? I see you were just wetting your pants to come back here and do this. We had predicted it in PM's among each other. Thanks for being so predictable. I won $10.00. Smile Yippeee.

You can credit me if you wish, but I think most people will think: well, duh, we knew that’s what Craig’s argument was, Bucky didn’t? Where’s he been?

Wetting my pants?

Quote:So I don't really understand why you would start a thread, and just copy-paste in the same old crap that's been refuted so many times before ? Don't you have anything new or original ? Why not even ONE original argument ?

Refuted?

Hardly in your case, Bucky, as I just shown above you don’t know what’s out there in terms of arguments: not knowing Craig’s position?

Also making irrelevant statements such as about the messiah, yet nothing about their belief in resurrection…

And the other issue I pointed out – refutation? Huh.

So let’s look at what you say here:

Quote:1. There is no evidence that Jesus ever existed, much less was crucified. The manner of a death is evidence of nothing. All others who were crucified never claimed resurrection. Therefore #1 is irrelevant.

As for there is no evidence you are doing yourself no favors in your credibility. You may say that you don’t believe the evidence, but there is evidence. External evidence as well.

Josephus: Antiquities,

Book 18. Ch. 3: “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man….When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him….And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

book 20. Ch. 9. Par. 1. “….And so he convened the judges of the Sanhedrin, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ,…”

Cornelius Tacitus in his Annals, xv. 44: “Christus ... was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontious Pilate.”

Lucian of Samosata: “…He (Jesus) the man Palestine who was crucified” “…begin worshiping that crucified sophist and living by his laws.”

Additionally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity...ical_facts

Bart, as you linked to above (how’s that for using and original argument Becky?) believes Jesus was crucified – better tell him there’s no evidence. Especially since his career is based on misquotes, and misinterpretations, etc. of Jesus. How can a person who doesn't exist be misquoted? Bart needs to KNOW THIS!

Quote: Many people were crucified. #1 is meaningless.

A means of executing criminals at that time, thus relevant as to time – which is very important in history. And crucifixion as you just admitted was highly popular, so it’s not a stretch to believe Jesus would have met the same manner.

And is one of the basic facts listed in the link.

Thanks for helping my point!

Quote:2. If he was buried in a tomb, it is irrelevant to any argument for a resurrection. All dead people are put in tombs.

Let’s look at that again:
Quote: all dead people are put in tombs

Well, yes if you were rich or someone ‘sponsored’ you. Which is why it’s noted that Jesus was in a tomb – Joseph of Arimathea allowed Jesus to be buried in his family tomb.

As Jesus was crucified as a criminal, and was not rich, he had no tomb of his own or a family tomb, which means he would have been buried in a mass grave.

Given this, of course it’s relevant because knowledge of a single tomb, thus single body,
tomb would have been known – thus if the body was still there, folks could just say: “no he isn’t resurrected, his body’s right there! Still in the tomb!”

In addition, per Jewish tradition, a year after being buried, the family would return to the tomb and take the bone and place them in ossuaries.

Jesus’ family didn’t do this. It’s not recorded that they did anywhere, nor even hinted.

The anointing of the body was, which was what the woman were going to do when they discovered the empty tomb, so why not – according to tradition – finish the burial process a year later?

So, yes being buried in a tomb IS relevant especially in the cultural context, especially if it’s found to be empty a few days later.

Quote: This list is a bad faith attempt to make an absurd conclusion appear to be a reasonable outcome of a normal set of facts, which it is not. #2 is also irrelevant.

Please offer other reasonable outcomes of the set of facts presented.

Quote:3. The gospels, which are faith documents, written by believers to remind themselves what they believe they already believe, are evidence of nothing. In a culture where many miraculous events were seen to be commonplace, another commonplace miraculous event is nothing unusual, or unique. Many of the other apocalyptic preachers also were seen to do miracles, and a few even rise from the dead, thus this resurrection is also not a unique event.

Yes, please list some of these and we can compare them.

Quote: The description of the finding of the "empty tomb" in the gospels are all different in each gospel, with regard to who was there first, and what they saw, thus they are ALL suspect.

Ah, but what they don’t disagree on?
Death
Burial
Empty tomb

What they differ on, is not enough to discredit them – despite your wish it would.

An interesting look at the “contradictions” you hold so dearly to: http://www.answering-islam.org/Andy/Resu...rmony.html

Quote: The resurrection was NOT the central event on which Christianity was founded, as we know for certain the original Gospel of Mark, had no resurrection, and all scholars know it was added later.

Correct Mark is dated first, but PAUL’S letters are before Mark.

http://www.gci.org/gospel/paul

Luke includes it and was around with Paul and other eyewitnesses at the time.

So yes, it was taught prior to and during the writings of the Gospels.

Quote:4. Many people have experiences they believe are true, especially humans who live in cultures that have what Anthropologists call "magical thinking".

Correct. This does happen for sure.

Says nothing to whether or not Jesus rose from the dead or not.

Quote:Paul was a self admitted liar. He never met Jesus. I can say I have a delusion in front of 10,000,000 people and MY claim to that event is no stronger than 1, UNLESS the OTHER people also corroborate it, and they did not.

Okay, so let’s say he was a liar…why did he convert to the religion he was persecuting?


Quote:Matthew said that there was an earthquake, split rocks, the temple curtain was rent, and "the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised" (Matthew 27:52). NO ONE EVER said anything about all your other zombies from the zombie invasion, nor have the split rocks been found, nor was the temple curtain recorded by any Jewish historian to have miraculously been ripped, nor was the earthquakes, either at the death, OR the resurrection recorded by the historians of the day, who recorded ALL the other (real) earthquakes.

Yep, scholars aren’t sure if Matthew meant for this to be literal or apocryphal.

Either way, it doesn’t change the narrative of death, burial, resurrection.

Quote:The deluded men who flew the planes into the towers also believed their delusion, therefore you have ample evidence, that many men are willing to die for their delusions, thus ALL your "martyr" arguments are dismissed, as nothing unique, and in fact quite common.

Certainly they KILLED for their faith. However, the big difference is that the early Christians suffered torture and persecution and were EYE witnesses to what they claimed. They didn’t attack others for disbelieving them. They didn’t carry out terrorist acts.

They were tortured and killed, yet didn’t recant their ORIGINAL, eyewitness claim.

Also, those of 911 never met the prophet…

That others do something like murdering people for their religion, doesn’t speak to the disciples being tortured and killed for their direct claims and belief.

Quite a difference.

Quote:The earliest Jewish disciples did NOT believe he was resurrected, including Thomas, (the doubter). Therefore this was false. In fact the Road to Emmaus event in Acts PROVES that they did NOT recognize what they saw, and whatever it was, was NOT a physical "body". The fact that he went through walls means whatever it was, it could NOT have been a real physical body, as NO "physical body" ever passes through walls.

LOL, EXACTLY! They didn’t believe he would return – they didn’t BELIEVE in such a resurrection. Yet, that’s exactly what they claimed happened!

Go back and read those sections of the Bible: they were despondent, thought it was over, until Jesus revealed himself to them as resurrected.

So, if they didn’t think he would be resurrected due to their beliefs, why did go to their death saying/believing he was?

This also supports my claim about James brother not believing as well, yet converting as you just admit above – the disciples didn’t expect Jesus to be resurrected. Yet, they then believe that he was resurrected.

Why?

So, again instead of arguing against the resurrection, you offer more evidence for it.

Certainly no natural “physical body” passes through walls, but if God could raise Jesus from the dead, walls aren’t much of a problem.

Quote:The burden of proof is on YOU to cook up a "better explanation. One does not have to "explain" something which did not happen. Also ANY explanation is a better one, as a "miracle" is the LEAST probable explanation. There is substantial scholarly opinion, (Scott and Crossan among them), that what was intended by "resurrection" was "not defeated", but since you are a Fundie American Literalist, and your Anal Retentive Personality Disorder, REQUIRES a simplistic, childish, literalist explanation, all other possible interpretations, which might make sense, are ruled out, because you are so ignorant of how ancient literature is written, and it's meaning, and non-scientific worldview, is not accounted for.

And then you finish with a rant…yeah, very profound finish here. Very strong, best yet.

Quote:Please, go call Dr. Willaim Fucking Craig, and tell him you want your money back.

Well, WLC hasn’t gotten one penny from me, so no money is exchange is needed. But hell, I’ll ask him anyway, maybe – maybe he’ll be feeling generous. How much should I ask for you think?

But, since you are so positive in your retort, how about instead, YOU send him this yourself - why wait for the video? this should suffice, correct?

Go ahead, I bet Craig will toss away his beliefs base on what you presented above for sure.

So, send it to him and tell me what he says back to you.

(I was told you don’t swear often, but that’s doesn’t seem to be the case)

Quote:What you did was to buy a bill of goods from a charlatan, snake-oil salesman. Nice try.

Again, send this to him and explain as such – heck challenge him to a debate yourself! No reason you shouldn’t get come coin out of this too!

So, after you have sent the email (or should I send it to him on your behalf? Or anyone you chose) let me know if you convinced him or not.

Quote:So, I didn't enjoy that very much. That was easy, Is that all ya got ? Nothing harder ? Thanks for the practice tho. Maybe one of these days you people will come up with something original.

Well, gee sorry you didn't enjoy that. As for being easy, yeah I supposed making off point arguments and helping me make mine is easy!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2012, 03:59 PM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2012 04:06 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
(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.

"By that I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable) for him who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God; that such experience does not function in this case as a premiss in any argument from religious experience to God, but rather is the immediate experiencing of God himself; that in certain contexts the experience of the Holy Spirit will imply the apprehension of certain truths of the Christian religion, such as "God exists," "I am condemned by God," "I am reconciled to God," "Christ lives in me," and so forth; that such an experience provides one not only with a subjective assurance of Christianity's truth, but with objective knowledge of that truth; and that arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit for him who attends fully to it."

[sic]

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
19-10-2012, 04:18 PM
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.

"By that I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable) for him who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God; that such experience does not function in this case as a premiss in any argument from religious experience to God, but rather is the immediate experiencing of God himself; that in certain contexts the experience of the Holy Spirit will imply the apprehension of certain truths of the Christian religion, such as "God exists," "I am condemned by God," "I am reconciled to God," "Christ lives in me," and so forth; that such an experience provides one not only with a subjective assurance of Christianity's truth, but with objective knowledge of that truth; and that arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit for him who attends fully to it."

[sic]

I call shens. This has to be drivel from something like wisdomofwlc.com. Right?

(http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/)

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
19-10-2012, 04:21 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
(19-10-2012 04:18 PM)Cardinal Smurf 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.

"By that I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable) for him who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God; that such experience does not function in this case as a premiss in any argument from religious experience to God, but rather is the immediate experiencing of God himself; that in certain contexts the experience of the Holy Spirit will imply the apprehension of certain truths of the Christian religion, such as "God exists," "I am condemned by God," "I am reconciled to God," "Christ lives in me," and so forth; that such an experience provides one not only with a subjective assurance of Christianity's truth, but with objective knowledge of that truth; and that arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit for him who attends fully to it."

[sic]

I call shens. This has to be drivel from something like wisdomofwlc.com. Right?

(http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/)
The source of the quote is like one space below the quote itself [sic]. Confused

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2012, 04:53 PM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2012 05:01 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
(19-10-2012 03:29 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Buck No Books -


Quote:Ok then, lets look at this nonsense.

Let’s! (grammar, it’s “let’s” as in Let us – since you’re such a stickler on grammar, thought I’d point this out for you, since you love to point them out for me)

(17-10-2012 02:41 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  2) This Gospel was the central message of the early church and.
3) Even proclaimed this message in Jerusalem, where Jesus was killed and buried.

Quote:Assertion. No evidence. Prove it. The message of Jesus never said anything about "resurrection". The preaching of Jesus did not include himself as content. He said "come follow me", not "come worship me".

Correct, that is the teaching of Jesus IN the Gospels are primarily to the Jew. This is prior to fulfilling the law, his death and resurrection – After his resurrection, his message extends then to everyone else, or as the saying goes, “first to the Jew, then to the gentile.”

As for Jesus speaking/teaching to the resurrection: "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again" (Mark 8:31; see also Matthew 17:22; Luke 9:22).

He also speaks of his “enemies” destroying the temple (his body) and that he would rebuild it in three days (John 2:19; Mark 14:58; cf. Matthew 26:61).

This “sign of Jonah” Matthew 12:39; 16:4

‘After three days I will rise'" (Matthew 27:63).

As for #3 Acts highlights that the Gospel was preached in Jerusalem.



Quote: When the young man in Matthew asked him what he should do to gain eternal life, Jesus said : "keep the commandments". Nothing else. Proof that later Christianity is not what Jesus taught, or even remotely resembled it.

First off, you left out quite a bit here. The passage, found in Matthew 19:16-22. Jesus said keep the commandments, yes – as a good Jew should – they are UNDER the law still during this time.

However, the man wanted reach perfection (unattainable). To do this, Jesus told him to sell his goods and “follow me.” The man didn’t, thus Jesus takes the moment to make his point about the difficulty of a rich man entering heaven.

So, yes, there was more – follow me was added as well.

As Jesus is teaching to the Jews here, this falls right in line with what we would expect him to teach – following the law, fulfilling the law. However, as Jesus just pointed out, following the law to perfection is impossible by man.

But maybe you should darken the door of a church now and again, because this IS taught.

In addition, Paul’s letters attest to the early churches preaching of the Gospel – AFTER the death and resurrection. The ultimate fulfillment of the law via Jesus.

Quote: Proof later church radically changed what Jesus was all about.

Changed to what? You fail to say here. What was Jesus all about in your mind?


Quote:4) Jesus’ brother James was a skeptic, until his own encounter with the risen Jesus.

Quote:Assertion,. No external evidence. Not proven. IF the James of the NT "Letter of James", is the brother of Jesus, it is astounding that he never mentions the resurrection once, if that was the central theme in the church, and in fact the fact that James DOES spend much of his time talking about continuing adherence to the Jewish law AFTER the Diaspora, is proof that the communities STILL, that late considered themselves Jews, and members of Jewry, well after the time the gospels were written.

Ah, “proven” – yep the great challenge history can’t do, yet every atheist expects ONLY when it comes to Jesus.

But here’s a quick list of evidence of James:

Mark 6:3-4 Independent account (…and the brother of James…)
John 7:3-5 Independent accout (…not even his brothers believed)
Acts 1:14 Independent account(…and with his brothers)
Acts 21:18 Independent AND first hand accout (…rest of US went to see James…)
Jude 1:1 Independent
Galatians 1:18-19 (Paul) Independent (…appeared to…then to James)
James 1:1 (himself) Independent - self

Quote: there is NO external evidence (for James)

Josephus Antiquities 20.9.1 independent AND external

As to the fact, that James doesn’t mention the resurrection means: he didn’t mention it. Remember what the Epistle is about: it was written to the 12 scattered tribes abroad, aka Jewish/Christian folks. Folks who would already know about the resurrection. It’s main goal was a letter to highlight the duties of those.

In short: no need for him to mention the resurrection.

So, yes there’s evidence that James was a skeptic and was converted by his experience.

As for the disciples still considering themselves Jews – correct! OTHERS called them Christians, not themselves, they still were Jews in their minds.

Quote:5) Paul, an early prosecutor of the early church, was also converted by his own experience with the risen Jesus.

Quote:Not proven.

There’s that word again!

Quote: No external evidence for Paul's origins or identity. In fact we can infer that there were two men writing under that name, as they have two distinct Theologies. (see below). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDSUTjxNuiU


Okay, let’s first deal with your link. A video about a popular (not scholarly) book – with more than a few issues:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconten...ticle=2827
http://creation.com/review-jesus-interru...art-ehrman
and here’s an interesting article on Act’s and Paul etc: http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/actspaul.html

Now, while there is a question on how many of the 13 books were attributed to him, the main one that concerns the resurrection: 1 Corinthians, is not in question.

Whether or not the other books were written by him or not, is not relevant to this discussion.

Now, we DO have letters that he wrote. As well as independent accounts of him:
Acts
2 Peter 3:15-16

As for not being “external” these books and letters are INDEPENDENT of each other and despite that they are part of the Bible NOW, they weren’t when they were written, not for quite a bit of time after – as you well know.

But outside the Bible:

Ignatius:

“I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did.”

Ignatius, Letter to the Romans

“You are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul…”

Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians

Ignatius also quoted Paul often in his own writings.
Clement speaks of Paul:
“Owing to envy, Paul also obtained….. striking example of patience.”
“Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul….among you.”
Clement, The First Epistle of Clement, Ch. 47
Polycarp says:
““For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed and glorified Paul….and our neighbour, is the mother of us all.”
And
““I exhort you all, therefore….and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles.”
Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians,
Also Muslim historians speak of Paul:
Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad
al-Tabari, History
But let’s look at what you said:
Quote: No external evidence for Paul's origins or identity.
Perhaps not of his origin – which isn’t all that odd considering the time. However, there is of his identity, and as an Apostle.
Interesting paper on Paul as persecutor: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/32...1335745387
(it’s a preview, but the preview alone makes the case of Paul being a persecutor.
Quote:a. Also, as noted around the time of Jesus’ ministry, death, and claimed resurrection.

Quote:Irrelevant. No external evidence. In fact he had every motivation to lie, as he wanted to gain adherents, which he did do by importing themes from Mithraism, ie the Eucharist, and Zoroastrian "purification", which was antithetical to Hebrew "atonement/sacrifice" themes).

NOT irrelevant? Dates matter, the fact that the times match up means that Paul 1) was around Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ death and claimed resurrection 2) he knew what the disciples were saying and claiming.

If the dates didn’t match, you sing it to high heaven that they didn’t!

In history, Bucky, DATES MATTER.

Second, no reference to your claim…should I quote you and say “Assertion, no proof?” or would you like to put up at least on reference to this assertion.

Quote:6) Jewish leadership (hostile to the early church) was unable to derail the message, despite both motive and means.

Quote:They did try to expel the Way cult from Jewish communities, as is known as late as 90's AD when Gamaliel had the "expulsion curses" read. However it again proves the Way cult was still a parasitic part of Judaism, and the Jews wanted them out, and they refused to leave.

Thank you for adding to my point that the Jewish leadership was hostile to the early Christians as well as others.

Quote:a. Best offering they had to try and discredit the resurrection: they stole the body.

Quote:No. The entire thing was a fiction.


(again, since you’re a stickler for grammar: “was a fiction?” Was a fiction what? It’s usually been fiction, or was a fictional ____.)

What the resurrection or the claim that they stole the body? Yes I agree the later was fiction, by the Jewish leadership.

Yet, you back track to say…

Quote: If this was used, it was irrelevant. There is no proof this was widespread. If it was, it only proves widespread doubt.

If – it’s irrelevant.

So your retort is: didn’t happen, but if it did it doesn’t matter. Except that it does because it shows doubt.

Wow, talk about having cake and eating it.
But that there was doubt, by the leadership is WELL KNOWN. And that they either came up with a bad alternative stolen body or had nothing.


Quote: 7) Sunday became a day of worship, which was a departure from Jewish tradition.

Quote:Irrelevant. Custom did not become fixed until mid Second Century, In fact DISPROVES gospel, as Luke 23.54 requires Sabbath as "commandment" on Saturday, IN THE GOSPEL. Oops.

1) okay, let’s chuck it as irrelevant. Does it hurt the case above? Nope, in fact this is, I admit, a very weak piece of the puzzle and have no issue disregarding it.
2) Luke 23:54 - It was the preparation day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.
No “requirement” as you have listed, but a statement made…”preparation day” aka: Friday. Part of the narrative.

Quote:Cultural consideration:
1a The Jews’ (the disciples were Jewish, remember) belief of resurrection was that it would occur at the end of the world only. However, the disciples believed that he was resurrected before such, not fitting with Jewish belief.

Quote:Absolutely false. The Jews believed the Messiah would come to restore the kingdom, and would be a POLITICAL messiah, and PROVED this in acts, 1:6 "Lord wilt Thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel".

You didn’t even reply to the quoted section.

The quoted section speaks to the Jewish belief of RESURRECTION.

You switch it to the belief of a Messiah.

Absolutely off topic.


Quote: also disproven by the appellation of Simon bar Kochba, leader of the revolt in 132 CE as "messiah", also, (among MANY others).

Again, OFF TOPIC and says NOTHING to the Jewish belief of resurrection.

A bit off track there, Bucky.

Quote:2a. Is there a “better” explanation?

Quote:Logical Fallacy called Argument from Ignorance.

Um…no, see that little question mark there?

It’s a question: Is there a better explanation?

Certainly many have been offered…are they better?

See? Question.

Read, don’t skim.

If you can answer the question, please do.

Quote:Also there are very good "other" explanations. The "magical" resurrection is actually THE WORST, (most improbable) explanation. ANY other one, is better. There are many. Since "resurrection is THE most improbable, ANY other explanation would be ahead of it in line of Probability.

Well, then let’s discuss what you believe is the best explanation for ALL OF THE ABOVE…

Quote:However, these fall short of explanatory scope and power as the resurrection would.

Quote:Of course you would say that. Unsupported assertion. No criteria or standard established for determination.

And of course you would say there ARE better explanations – so let’s look at them, shall we?

And I await each as being well SUPPORTED assertions you will come up with.

You go ahead and start with one and let's see how it answers all of the above.


Quote:Also, unlike the resurrection, the other theories need more than ONE additional hypothesis. Resurrection needs only one: God exists.

Quote:Capricious standard. Bad faith exposed. No standard established a priori.

Certainly, God existing is the one additional hypothesis. However, a resurrection is certainly within the power of a god to do.

How many additional hypothesis do any of your “better” explanations need?

Put them up and let’s see. Let’s also see how they fair with a priori as well.

Quote:So I will, for now, leave it at that,

Quote:That's a good thing. You are obviously not up to this task, and have made a fool of yourself, and your cult.
So that's it ? That's your best shot ? Please.
Do you know how much Craig got paid for this ? We did an estimate. Would you like to know how much he ripped off the churches and schools for ? We had people there. We know.

Irrelevant how much Craig got paid – says nothing to whether the above holds or not. By all means post your estimate.

As for my best shot – well, your retort is quite failing as we just saw…but, I know you try again…

Quote:So since I know you can't think for yourself, and you have proven that, I will address Criag (Craig), as we are making a video, to put out in public. So thank you SO VERY much for giving us , in advance, his arguments, so we can get busy putting our video up on YouTube.

His argument has been out there for a few years now, and you JUST NOW are aware of it? Cripes he offers these transcripts and also has audio of many of his debates.

You didn’t know ANY of this before now?

Where have you been?

Thank me?

LOL.

Jeez, looks like you don’t do much digging around yourself there Bucky…

Quote: We can credit your help in it if you like ?? I see you were just wetting your pants to come back here and do this. We had predicted it in PM's among each other. Thanks for being so predictable. I won $10.00. Smile Yippeee.

You can credit me if you wish, but I think most people will think: well, duh, we knew that’s what Craig’s argument was, Bucky didn’t? Where’s he been?

Wetting my pants?

Quote:So I don't really understand why you would start a thread, and just copy-paste in the same old crap that's been refuted so many times before ? Don't you have anything new or original ? Why not even ONE original argument ?

Refuted?

Hardly in your case, Bucky, as I just shown above you don’t know what’s out there in terms of arguments: not knowing Craig’s position?

Also making irrelevant statements such as about the messiah, yet nothing about their belief in resurrection…

And the other issue I pointed out – refutation? Huh.

So let’s look at what you say here:

Quote:1. There is no evidence that Jesus ever existed, much less was crucified. The manner of a death is evidence of nothing. All others who were crucified never claimed resurrection. Therefore #1 is irrelevant.

As for there is no evidence you are doing yourself no favors in your credibility. You may say that you don’t believe the evidence, but there is evidence. External evidence as well.

Josephus: Antiquities,

Book 18. Ch. 3: “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man….When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him….And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

book 20. Ch. 9. Par. 1. “….And so he convened the judges of the Sanhedrin, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ,…”

Cornelius Tacitus in his Annals, xv. 44: “Christus ... was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontious Pilate.”

Lucian of Samosata: “…He (Jesus) the man Palestine who was crucified” “…begin worshiping that crucified sophist and living by his laws.”

Additionally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity...ical_facts

Bart, as you linked to above (how’s that for using and original argument Becky?) believes Jesus was crucified – better tell him there’s no evidence. Especially since his career is based on misquotes, and misinterpretations, etc. of Jesus. How can a person who doesn't exist be misquoted? Bart needs to KNOW THIS!

Quote: Many people were crucified. #1 is meaningless.

A means of executing criminals at that time, thus relevant as to time – which is very important in history. And crucifixion as you just admitted was highly popular, so it’s not a stretch to believe Jesus would have met the same manner.

And is one of the basic facts listed in the link.

Thanks for helping my point!

Quote:2. If he was buried in a tomb, it is irrelevant to any argument for a resurrection. All dead people are put in tombs.

Let’s look at that again:
Quote: all dead people are put in tombs

Well, yes if you were rich or someone ‘sponsored’ you. Which is why it’s noted that Jesus was in a tomb – Joseph of Arimathea allowed Jesus to be buried in his family tomb.

As Jesus was crucified as a criminal, and was not rich, he had no tomb of his own or a family tomb, which means he would have been buried in a mass grave.

Given this, of course it’s relevant because knowledge of a single tomb, thus single body,
tomb would have been known – thus if the body was still there, folks could just say: “no he isn’t resurrected, his body’s right there! Still in the tomb!”

In addition, per Jewish tradition, a year after being buried, the family would return to the tomb and take the bone and place them in ossuaries.

Jesus’ family didn’t do this. It’s not recorded that they did anywhere, nor even hinted.

The anointing of the body was, which was what the woman were going to do when they discovered the empty tomb, so why not – according to tradition – finish the burial process a year later?

So, yes being buried in a tomb IS relevant especially in the cultural context, especially if it’s found to be empty a few days later.

Quote: This list is a bad faith attempt to make an absurd conclusion appear to be a reasonable outcome of a normal set of facts, which it is not. #2 is also irrelevant.

Please offer other reasonable outcomes of the set of facts presented.

Quote:3. The gospels, which are faith documents, written by believers to remind themselves what they believe they already believe, are evidence of nothing. In a culture where many miraculous events were seen to be commonplace, another commonplace miraculous event is nothing unusual, or unique. Many of the other apocalyptic preachers also were seen to do miracles, and a few even rise from the dead, thus this resurrection is also not a unique event.

Yes, please list some of these and we can compare them.

Quote: The description of the finding of the "empty tomb" in the gospels are all different in each gospel, with regard to who was there first, and what they saw, thus they are ALL suspect.

Ah, but what they don’t disagree on?
Death
Burial
Empty tomb

What they differ on, is not enough to discredit them – despite your wish it would.

An interesting look at the “contradictions” you hold so dearly to: http://www.answering-islam.org/Andy/Resu...rmony.html

Quote: The resurrection was NOT the central event on which Christianity was founded, as we know for certain the original Gospel of Mark, had no resurrection, and all scholars know it was added later.

Correct Mark is dated first, but PAUL’S letters are before Mark.

http://www.gci.org/gospel/paul

Luke includes it and was around with Paul and other eyewitnesses at the time.

So yes, it was taught prior to and during the writings of the Gospels.

Quote:4. Many people have experiences they believe are true, especially humans who live in cultures that have what Anthropologists call "magical thinking".

Correct. This does happen for sure.

Says nothing to whether or not Jesus rose from the dead or not.

Quote:Paul was a self admitted liar. He never met Jesus. I can say I have a delusion in front of 10,000,000 people and MY claim to that event is no stronger than 1, UNLESS the OTHER people also corroborate it, and they did not.

Okay, so let’s say he was a liar…why did he convert to the religion he was persecuting?


Quote:Matthew said that there was an earthquake, split rocks, the temple curtain was rent, and "the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised" (Matthew 27:52). NO ONE EVER said anything about all your other zombies from the zombie invasion, nor have the split rocks been found, nor was the temple curtain recorded by any Jewish historian to have miraculously been ripped, nor was the earthquakes, either at the death, OR the resurrection recorded by the historians of the day, who recorded ALL the other (real) earthquakes.

Yep, scholars aren’t sure if Matthew meant for this to be literal or apocryphal.

Either way, it doesn’t change the narrative of death, burial, resurrection.

Quote:The deluded men who flew the planes into the towers also believed their delusion, therefore you have ample evidence, that many men are willing to die for their delusions, thus ALL your "martyr" arguments are dismissed, as nothing unique, and in fact quite common.

Certainly they KILLED for their faith. However, the big difference is that the early Christians suffered torture and persecution and were EYE witnesses to what they claimed. They didn’t attack others for disbelieving them. They didn’t carry out terrorist acts.

They were tortured and killed, yet didn’t recant their ORIGINAL, eyewitness claim.

Also, those of 911 never met the prophet…

That others do something like murdering people for their religion, doesn’t speak to the disciples being tortured and killed for their direct claims and belief.

Quite a difference.

Quote:The earliest Jewish disciples did NOT believe he was resurrected, including Thomas, (the doubter). Therefore this was false. In fact the Road to Emmaus event in Acts PROVES that they did NOT recognize what they saw, and whatever it was, was NOT a physical "body". The fact that he went through walls means whatever it was, it could NOT have been a real physical body, as NO "physical body" ever passes through walls.

LOL, EXACTLY! They didn’t believe he would return – they didn’t BELIEVE in such a resurrection. Yet, that’s exactly what they claimed happened!

Go back and read those sections of the Bible: they were despondent, thought it was over, until Jesus revealed himself to them as resurrected.

So, if they didn’t think he would be resurrected due to their beliefs, why did go to their death saying/believing he was?

This also supports my claim about James brother not believing as well, yet converting as you just admit above – the disciples didn’t expect Jesus to be resurrected. Yet, they then believe that he was resurrected.

Why?

So, again instead of arguing against the resurrection, you offer more evidence for it.

Certainly no natural “physical body” passes through walls, but if God could raise Jesus from the dead, walls aren’t much of a problem.

Quote:The burden of proof is on YOU to cook up a "better explanation. One does not have to "explain" something which did not happen. Also ANY explanation is a better one, as a "miracle" is the LEAST probable explanation. There is substantial scholarly opinion, (Scott and Crossan among them), that what was intended by "resurrection" was "not defeated", but since you are a Fundie American Literalist, and your Anal Retentive Personality Disorder, REQUIRES a simplistic, childish, literalist explanation, all other possible interpretations, which might make sense, are ruled out, because you are so ignorant of how ancient literature is written, and it's meaning, and non-scientific worldview, is not accounted for.

And then you finish with a rant…yeah, very profound finish here. Very strong, best yet.

Quote:Please, go call Dr. Willaim Fucking Craig, and tell him you want your money back.

Well, WLC hasn’t gotten one penny from me, so no money is exchange is needed. But hell, I’ll ask him anyway, maybe – maybe he’ll be feeling generous. How much should I ask for you think?

But, since you are so positive in your retort, how about instead, YOU send him this yourself - why wait for the video? this should suffice, correct?

Go ahead, I bet Craig will toss away his beliefs base on what you presented above for sure.

So, send it to him and tell me what he says back to you.

(I was told you don’t swear often, but that’s doesn’t seem to be the case)

Quote:What you did was to buy a bill of goods from a charlatan, snake-oil salesman. Nice try.

Again, send this to him and explain as such – heck challenge him to a debate yourself! No reason you shouldn’t get come coin out of this too!

So, after you have sent the email (or should I send it to him on your behalf? Or anyone you chose) let me know if you convinced him or not.

Quote:So, I didn't enjoy that very much. That was easy, Is that all ya got ? Nothing harder ? Thanks for the practice tho. Maybe one of these days you people will come up with something original.

Well, gee sorry you didn't enjoy that. As for being easy, yeah I supposed making off point arguments and helping me make mine is easy!

No-Book-Buck. That's my new name. Don't wear it out. Tongue
The *saying* "First to the Jew, then to the Gentile" ?? Come on IoC. Show me ONE instance of that, externally, or PRE cult, The cult made it up, and you know it. So now "sayings" are important ?
Well, maybe they are. "sayings" + Q = Mark.

Read this VERY VERY slowly IoC. x 10, out loud.

The Bible cannot prove the Bible.
The Bible cannot prove the Bible.
The Bible cannot prove the Bible.
The Bible cannot prove the Bible.
The Bible cannot prove the Bible.
The Bible cannot prove the Bible.
The Bible cannot prove the Bible.
The Bible cannot prove the Bible.

Very slowly now. Very slowly.
Jesus said nothing. The writers placed the words in his mouth. It's called a
"literary device". That's what writers do. They do it all the time.
There is no evidence Jesus said anything. Anything in the Bible is evidence of nothing, except that it's written in the Bible.

If you were writing a book, trying to convince some people your hero had not robbed a bank, would you have your hero say "I am going to rob a bank" ?
Get it ? I doubt it. Big Grin

All your "independent accounts could be copies of copies of copies of copies etc etc etc. Proof of nothing. Not really independent.

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

The Josephus quote is forgery. Everyone knows that. I've seen it in the Museum in Milan. It's a fake. In different ink, in different handwriting. Josephus didn't write it. Christian monks forged it, in their wonderful new God granted morality from Jeebus. No scholar argues that.

All the other so-called "proofs" are about "Christians", not Jesus. They prove nothing.

Criag will toss nothing. He makes too much money from idiots for Christ buying his shit.
Your Jeebus is a delusion.

Here's what Paul changed :


http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...Saint-Paul

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
19-10-2012, 06:48 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
(19-10-2012 04:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No-Book-Buck. That's my new name.
It does sound kind of catchy. Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
19-10-2012, 06:51 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
(19-10-2012 06:48 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(19-10-2012 04:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No-Book-Buck. That's my new name.
It does sound kind of catchy. Consider

I think I prefer Bookless Buck. Sounds more elegant.

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
19-10-2012, 06:53 PM
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
Harry Potter is real.
Don't believe me? I got 7 books as proof bitch, you only got 1.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like earmuffs's post
19-10-2012, 06:56 PM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2012 11:06 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...ENJOY!
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.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: