Same old question!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-03-2015, 04:26 PM
RE: Same old question!
(26-02-2015 05:48 AM)TheStraightener Wrote:  One of by biggest peeves with theists is when they respond by saying "these are the same old questions atheists have been asking for years"

You know, there's a reason people keep asking those questions.. That reason is that no one has been able to answer them or provide any evidence.

People still ask Who was Jack the Ripper? That's an old question, and do you know why people still ask it? Because no one has put forth a solid answer. They day they provide solid identity for Jack is the day people stop asking the questions.

Thesists see the age of a question as a weakness.. While overlooking the fact that these questions only persist because no one can answer them to a stasfactory standard or provide evidence.

The age of an unanswered question is quite damning to someone of faith, and they need to realise it.

Theists have the same old questions also.
They're called "doubts". If they say they don't have them, they're lying.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
03-03-2015, 02:20 PM
RE: Same old question!
(02-03-2015 03:40 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(02-03-2015 03:30 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There are good reasons to consider the resurrection from the dead a fact--which would indicate Jesus's divinity.

Maybe you could amuse us by listing some of these "good reasons". I have never seen any. It is possible to doubt that Jesus ever existed in the first place (at least as he is described in the Bible), and the resurrection is a lot less believable than his existence. All the "good reasons" that have been presented to me so far have amounted to "it says so in the Bible" ("historical fiction" written by "true believers" many years after the fact), and that's not very convincing. Do you have something better?

You are describing a circle:

Quote:It is possible to doubt that Jesus ever existed in the first place (at least as he is described in the Bible

You don't believe in the miracles of Jesus. The resurrection is a miracle. Therefore you "know" it is all historical fiction. What are you asking me for? Reasons to convert? Or to un-deconvert? Are you asking me sincerely?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2015, 02:52 PM
RE: Same old question!
(02-03-2015 03:30 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Problems here are endemic. You wish we'd live in a world where little kids only make falsifiable claims...?!

Yes, such as your problem with grasping analogies and putting words in my mouth.

I didn't say I had a problem with kids making those claims; I said I don't take them seriously. Same with YHWH.


(02-03-2015 03:30 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You also have rejected ALL of hundreds of apologetics I've posted about what you call "mysterious ways" and what I call "let's discuss the Bible to see if it address this question(s)". It's not really my burden if you want to keep believing ALL the ways of the Lord are mysterious.

It's because that's what they all boil down to. At some point, they all boil down to some alien motivation that we can't possibly comprehend. The only exception to this is trying to explain God's motives by comparing him to a parent/doctor/judge/police officer or some other human to make the situation more relatable (because it doesn't otherwise make sense). Of course, the glaring problem here is that God is supposed to be better than humans and not suffer from the same limitations as them, so the analogy always fails.


(02-03-2015 03:30 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I think nearly none of them are mysterious!

Why did God
  • drown the children in the flood instead of just their parents?
  • kill the first born Egyptians instead of just the ones who held slaves?
  • give men foreskins?
  • create Tay Sachs and harlequin babies?
  • make a universe this vast?


(02-03-2015 03:30 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I would ask you to again consider the person of Jesus, His extraordinary words and claims, His universal appeal--even the cults love Him as foretold (!)--and His resurrection from the dead. There are good reasons to consider the resurrection from the dead a fact--which would indicate Jesus's divinity.

I would ask you to consider the claims and deeds of David Copperfield recorded on film. It still doesn't mean he's an actual wizard. Why would I take a 2,000 year old book about obvious mythology any more seriously?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RobbyPants's post
03-03-2015, 02:58 PM
RE: Same old question!
(03-03-2015 02:20 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(02-03-2015 03:40 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Maybe you could amuse us by listing some of these "good reasons". I have never seen any. It is possible to doubt that Jesus ever existed in the first place (at least as he is described in the Bible), and the resurrection is a lot less believable than his existence. All the "good reasons" that have been presented to me so far have amounted to "it says so in the Bible" ("historical fiction" written by "true believers" many years after the fact), and that's not very convincing. Do you have something better?

You are describing a circle:

Quote:It is possible to doubt that Jesus ever existed in the first place (at least as he is described in the Bible

You don't believe in the miracles of Jesus. The resurrection is a miracle. Therefore you "know" it is all historical fiction. What are you asking me for? Reasons to convert? Or to un-deconvert? Are you asking me sincerely?

You said you had "good reasons" to consider the resurrection of Jesus a "fact". I'm asking you to list a few of them. That's all. I'm guessing that your definitions of "good reasons" and "fact" are a bit loose for my tastes, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Show me what you got.

However, there is good evidence (GoodWithoutGod can exhaustively cite it if you wish) that the Gospels were written many years after the death of Jesus, and written by people who never met him. So it's only natural to take these stories with a huge grain of salt, especially when they claim miraculous events. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I'm not sure who said that, but it certainly applies here. So I hope your "good reasons" are something more than "the Bible says so". I don't believe the Bible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
03-03-2015, 03:26 PM
RE: Same old question!
(02-03-2015 03:27 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 08:01 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Get ready to see the delusional fantasy of Q, he flies around in this world of the imagination with his Jeebus wings as he creates one ad-hoc rationalization after another.

What Q thinks his reality is:

[Image: White-Unicorn-with-Fairy-flying-image-1500x1100.jpg]

Here's what rational people see:

[Image: o-JIMMY-KRYUNE-HORSE-570.jpg?1]

Here's what I see when atheists post silly pictures rather than expressing reason, questions and thoughtful input:

[Image: agnostic_4.jpg]

Why feed Christian notions of atheism? Why play games?

If you don't like what atheists have to say, one remedy is to stop hanging around atheist forums.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like pablo's post
04-03-2015, 01:01 PM
RE: Same old question!
(03-03-2015 02:52 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(02-03-2015 03:30 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Problems here are endemic. You wish we'd live in a world where little kids only make falsifiable claims...?!

Yes, such as your problem with grasping analogies and putting words in my mouth.

I didn't say I had a problem with kids making those claims; I said I don't take them seriously. Same with YHWH.


(02-03-2015 03:30 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You also have rejected ALL of hundreds of apologetics I've posted about what you call "mysterious ways" and what I call "let's discuss the Bible to see if it address this question(s)". It's not really my burden if you want to keep believing ALL the ways of the Lord are mysterious.

It's because that's what they all boil down to. At some point, they all boil down to some alien motivation that we can't possibly comprehend. The only exception to this is trying to explain God's motives by comparing him to a parent/doctor/judge/police officer or some other human to make the situation more relatable (because it doesn't otherwise make sense). Of course, the glaring problem here is that God is supposed to be better than humans and not suffer from the same limitations as them, so the analogy always fails.


(02-03-2015 03:30 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I think nearly none of them are mysterious!

Why did God
  • drown the children in the flood instead of just their parents?
  • kill the first born Egyptians instead of just the ones who held slaves?
  • give men foreskins?
  • create Tay Sachs and harlequin babies?
  • make a universe this vast?


(02-03-2015 03:30 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I would ask you to again consider the person of Jesus, His extraordinary words and claims, His universal appeal--even the cults love Him as foretold (!)--and His resurrection from the dead. There are good reasons to consider the resurrection from the dead a fact--which would indicate Jesus's divinity.

I would ask you to consider the claims and deeds of David Copperfield recorded on film. It still doesn't mean he's an actual wizard. Why would I take a 2,000 year old book about obvious mythology any more seriously?

We can compose an infinite number of questions likewise. But the Bible offers clues on both your questions and mine. I've seen estimates on the number of shots you can take on any pool table to be in the millions or more, but any good billiards teacher will explain that most shots fall into similar patterns and can be played effectively and simply.

In other words, when you make a statement like "everything in the universe that I question, the Bible and Christians ultimately say is due to mysterious ways" I cannot possibly disagree more strongly. I always try to either give and answer or a Socratic question or both. You just don't accept the answers you've been given, that's all. The Bible DOES have thousands of pages of answers including answers to many of life's questions and the questions you've asked.

drown the children in the flood instead of just their parents? (you didn't like the answers of children go to heaven instead of growing up to be like the parents who were so evil they died in the flood--not a mystery)

kill the first born Egyptians instead of just the ones who held slaves? (the whole nation held the Jewish nation in thrall, and was given to idolatry--the whole nation of Egypt was judged for slaughtering the whole generation of Jewish babies--Moses escaped this, remember?--not a mystery)

give men foreskins? (he made all things good originally and foreskins have uses as you know for everything from pleasure to hygiene--but the covenant with Israel is a BLOOD covenant in circumcision--shades of Jesus--not a mystery)

create Tay Sachs and harlequin babies? (there is suffering in the world due to not only Adam's sin, but yours and mine--not a mystery)

make a universe this vast? ("the heavens declare the glory of God" and cause us to wonder--some of us wonder accurately--not a mystery)

The very WORD mystery comes from the scriptures where Paul gives nine mysteries and answers eight of them in the passages where they appear. A Bible mystery is something happening now or then that is revealed in purpose after. You are taking "mysterious ways" way off base IMHO.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2015, 02:02 PM
RE: Same old question!
'Suffering because of sin' might be the most frightening belief held and the worst rationalization....especially when you hear them (and they all do it) excuse their own sin as being human.

Fuck that. Fuck the God that would accept that. And fuck you hypocrites who keep on sinning because all you think you have to do is pray for forgiveness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
05-03-2015, 03:07 AM
RE: Same old question!
(04-03-2015 01:01 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  We can compose an infinite number of questions likewise. But the Bible offers clues on both your questions and mine. I've seen estimates on the number of shots you can take on any pool table to be in the millions or more, but any good billiards teacher will explain that most shots fall into similar patterns and can be played effectively and simply.

In other words, when you make a statement like "everything in the universe that I question, the Bible and Christians ultimately say is due to mysterious ways" I cannot possibly disagree more strongly. I always try to either give and answer or a Socratic question or both. You just don't accept the answers you've been given, that's all. The Bible DOES have thousands of pages of answers including answers to many of life's questions and the questions you've asked.

drown the children in the flood instead of just their parents? (you didn't like the answers of children go to heaven instead of growing up to be like the parents who were so evil they died in the flood--not a mystery)

kill the first born Egyptians instead of just the ones who held slaves? (the whole nation held the Jewish nation in thrall, and was given to idolatry--the whole nation of Egypt was judged for slaughtering the whole generation of Jewish babies--Moses escaped this, remember?--not a mystery)

give men foreskins? (he made all things good originally and foreskins have uses as you know for everything from pleasure to hygiene--but the covenant with Israel is a BLOOD covenant in circumcision--shades of Jesus--not a mystery)

create Tay Sachs and harlequin babies? (there is suffering in the world due to not only Adam's sin, but yours and mine--not a mystery)

make a universe this vast? ("the heavens declare the glory of God" and cause us to wonder--some of us wonder accurately--not a mystery)

The very WORD mystery comes from the scriptures where Paul gives nine mysteries and answers eight of them in the passages where they appear. A Bible mystery is something happening now or then that is revealed in purpose after. You are taking "mysterious ways" way off base IMHO.

You make it clear that none of these questions or their answers present any great mystery to you. That seems very strange to me. It seems to me that you are missing the deeply nonsensical and morally outrageous aspects of your answers.

For example, you justify the mass drowning of the great flood by saying that all the people were simply evil. If you really believe this, it seems to me that you would have to believe that the children were evil, even those not yet born. You would have to believe the disabled and sickly were evil. This simplistic and morally unsatisfying explanation seems to me to reflect a lack of empathy that is fundamental. I find it difficult to believe that you actually believe that human beings are not born innocent, especially when they are utterly without capacity to do wrong or harm. Even if I were to take these awful assumptions as truth, I would have to ask myself if I believe that among such a large population there was not at least one adult innocent as well. Is the ratio of morally sound individuals to those morally unsound so unbalanced as that?

Given that I am unable to believe in the evil of innocents, I cannot believe that their deaths were justified. It may have seemed natural in a bronze age society to accept that the individual is the property of the state to be killed on a whim without moral justification. It may have been considered reasonable that a creator god had the right to dispose of his creations as he saw fit. What I do not understand is how any of these attitudes are anything but a time capsule from the days of unrestricted tyranny and abuse. We are living in a world where this kind of view is well behind catching up to what is commonly considered good moral and ethical sense.

I will give you another example. You offer up human sin as the explanation for suffering. That is on its face certainly an explanation, yet not one without serious questions to be asked. How can it be said that a creation that is the product of omnipotence and omniscience is capable of doing anything other than its created purpose? If god knows all possible outcomes in advance, yet creates rebellious, curious, and perhaps even sinful creations, isn't it reasonable to assume this state of imperfection is intended?

The phrase "created sick, commanded to be sound" stays with me as a description of this situation. Man is supposedly created with an imperfect nature followed by the notice that his nature is sinful and abhorrent to his creator. Add to this Hell, and you are left with what I can only call a sadistic abusive experiment, but without the wondering about the results.

I think it is fairly common for Atheists to be asked something like "What happened to you?" as though their position is the product of suffering alone. I have certainly noticed how the worst of times can bring someone to a state in which they begin to question their beliefs. I think it is these extreme situations that really bring the problem of evil home to a person in a way that they cannot ignore or rationalize away.

Some suffering and some evil is just so utterly disproportionate to any possible even perceived guilt, that any author of it would most certainly be a sadist. There are some things to which we would not subject even our hated enemies.

When I come across someone saying the things you are saying, I can't help but think that they simply haven't run into enough suffering and evil yet to bring this all home to them. Maybe they just haven't really empathized with a child suffering from the hell of something like Tay Sachs.

So, can it be that you really think things like drowning millions or say Hell are proportionate, just punishments for any crime? Can you bring yourself to blame humanity for its own creation?

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Dark Phoenix's post
05-03-2015, 03:37 AM
RE: Same old question!
Allegedly all-wise God can't think of a way in which he can avoid eternally torturing people for not believing in tripe... All-wise and all-loving yet unable to make even the simplest of plans like "maybe I won't torture people today". Yup, that Christian God sure is one wonderful guy Dodgy

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
05-03-2015, 04:52 AM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2015 05:01 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Same old question!
(03-03-2015 02:20 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(02-03-2015 03:40 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Maybe you could amuse us by listing some of these "good reasons". I have never seen any. It is possible to doubt that Jesus ever existed in the first place (at least as he is described in the Bible), and the resurrection is a lot less believable than his existence. All the "good reasons" that have been presented to me so far have amounted to "it says so in the Bible" ("historical fiction" written by "true believers" many years after the fact), and that's not very convincing. Do you have something better?

You are describing a circle:

Quote:It is possible to doubt that Jesus ever existed in the first place (at least as he is described in the Bible

You don't believe in the miracles of Jesus. The resurrection is a miracle. Therefore you "know" it is all historical fiction. What are you asking me for? Reasons to convert? Or to un-deconvert? Are you asking me sincerely?

Your Jeebus never rose from the dead. Here's why...

The Romans crucified Jesus. That unfortunate fact didn’t do much for Jesus’ image. Most of the Gospels’ authors couldn’t have Jesus just disappear after such a dreadful demise. They had to spruce up the story, because it’s too hard to love a loser. Jesus had to come back, 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 like to imagine he’s defeated death, even today. Consider Elvis Presley.

For the true believer, the resurrection “proves” Jesus’ divinity. The resurrection 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, but it didn’t. Mark devotes only the second half of his last chapter (16;9-20) to the resurrection, as if the resurrection was just tacked on to the story like an afterthought. Mark has only twenty or so lines describing what many people presume was the premiere event in the world’s history.

“Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.” (Mark 16;9-20, KJV.)

There are some odd facts about these verses in Mark. At 16:9 there’s an apparent end to the narrative flow and the style loses its descriptive quality. Mary Magdalene is spoken of as if she hadn’t been mentioned before.

What’s more, the appearance of a risen Jesus isn’t documented in the two oldest Greek manuscripts, the oldest Latin manuscript, the oldest Syriac manuscript, in about one hundred early Armenian manuscripts, or in the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written 897 CE and 913 CE.) In many other early texts that include verses 9–20, asterisks mark the verses as doubtful or spurious.

Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Tertullian, early third century commentators, are unaware that a resurrected Jesus appeared in Mark. Eusebius and Jerome are, but they’re from the fourth century, and they note that a risen Jesus never appears in their earlier Greek transcripts.

The original author of Mark failed to mention that Jesus visited his followers after he was crucified! That’s one seriously important omission!

Verses 16:9–20 were obviously added to the end of Mark by an unknown author, a fact admitted by most contemporary New Testament scholars. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16). Someone perhaps two hundred years after the gospel was first written, realized there was no resurrection story in Mark, so, simply added one.

A footnote in the conservative Catholic 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.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia states,
“Catholics are not bound to hold these verses (16:9–20) were written by Saint Mark.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm).

The rather presumptuous authors are assuming they can tell Catholics what to believe. They then make the following outlandish 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, pen poised, just about to create history by writing the final twenty lines of his epic when—oops—he dies! A trail of ink meanders off the page, and none of his readers were to find out who saw the risen Jesus until about 200 years later, when another “inspired” writer added the ending.

“Whoever wrote the verses, they are inspired, and must be received as such by every Catholic.”

They’re ordering their readers what to believe! To resort to special pleading suggests how weak their argument is.

If Jesus’ original biographer failed to mention who the risen Jesus reappeared to and when, then obviously there was no resurrection.

The fact that someone (probably in the early third century) could just add an ending to a Gospel, and this was (almost) unnoticed by the church fathers, seriously undermines all the Gospel stories. Any obvious flaws in any of the Gospel texts could be just as easily doctored, as happened here, and subsequent readers would be no wiser. Imagine the tailoring of sayings and events that probably occurred when the original version of Mark was first put together!

Most Church leaders who know about the interpolated ending don’t discuss it in church. They don’t want to compromise the faith of their flock, and that, some would say, is dishonest.

The authors of the other Gospels included an appearance of a risen Jesus. They each gave different reports of events after Jesus’ death, probably because they didn’t have a resurrection story in Mark’s chronicle to copy, so each made up their own. Matthew adds an earthquake and the corpses of holy men walking around Jerusalem, events that aren’t mentioned in the other Gospels.

“And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” (Matthew 26;51-53, KJV.)

Jesus wasn’t the only Jew to rise from the dead! There were zombies too! What did these walking corpses get up to after they “appeared?” Did they help remove rubble from the earthquake? Maybe they went back to their old homes, which would have caused quite a ruckus. It might have been disturbing divvying up dinner to your dead half decayed dad!

The Catholic Encyclopedia states 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.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm).

Might these conservative Christian authors be reading their canonical accounts with rose-colored glasses?

Luke and John have the risen Jesus appearing in Jerusalem, far more prestigious than Galilee, which, in the Roman world, had a reputation as an uncultured place, yet this was where Mark (only) suggests the risen Jesus will be visiting. (see 16;7.) There are numerous other inconsistencies. Christian apologists have tried to reconcile the very different resurrection reports, with no success.

There is no guarantee that the first versions of Matthew, Luke and John, perhaps originally written in the late first century, contained resurrection accounts either. Their versions of the event could just as easily have been added in to the writing some time in the second century, possibly after Marcion propagated Paul’s (who wrote about a risen Christ) writings in Rome in the 140’s. If this is so, none of the four original Gospels had Jesus rising from the dead; the whole resurrection idea was added to their Gospels after Paul’s theology became too popular to be ignored.

Jesus did have two brothers, James and Jude, who may have written their own letters that are included in the bible, which are thought to have been written in the 50’s or early 60’s CE, or possibly earlier. If one’s brother had risen from the dead, one would be elated, awestruck and keen to tell anyone who would listen, but neither brother even mentions Jesus’ resurrection.

Paul believed in a resurrection, but not because Jesus’ disciples told him about it. 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 revelation wasn’t a physical reappearance of a dead Jesus, but one that emerged from his own imagination that he thought was inspired by God.

Paul may have written that over 500 people witnessed the risen Jesus;

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.” (1 Corinthians 15 ; 3-8, KJV)

This is not evidence that 500 people witnessed a resurrection, as some evangelists claim, but only evidence that one person (Paul, or an interpolator) claimed 500 people saw a risen Jesus. Paul was a man obsessed with convincing people to join his communities, and maybe truth could be sacrificed if it helped build up the numbers.

There’s no first-century secular writer who mentioned Jesus, let alone a risen Jesus.
If a man had risen from the dead and appeared to as many people as claimed, contemporary historians, his brothers, friends and followers would have shouted it from the rooftops, and told scores of literate commentators, yet we hear not a word about it from anyone, other than (maybe) the other three gospel authors and Paul.

Millions of people today are convinced Jesus rose from the dead. Some of them assume eyewitnesses wrote the gospels, and that the Gospels’ authors were scrupulously honest, but neither of these assumptions are valid. Some dissect the four accounts of the resurrection to try to reconcile them with each other, (unsuccessfully) as if that somehow proved they were true.

In reality, the story of the resurrection has been told so often, it has taken on a life of its own, so much so that believers assume it must be true.

The fact is the resurrection story doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. There are no legitimate reasons to believe the extraordinary claim that Jesus, or anyone else, rose from the dead. The believers have been duped. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6PWFvzKl3I).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: