The resurrection
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2017, 12:04 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 11:27 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 10:40 AM)Alla Wrote:  TO F STOP

ask them first to explain to you in details what this resurrection exactly is. See what they say. May be then you can figure how to refute this claim.
I don't know, I am just trying to help you.

BTW, I believe in resurrection of the dead. But don't ask me about it.

I believe in pink sparkly unicorns. But don't ask me about it. Facepalm

If one where to ask a general question about people who believe in pink sparkly unicorns, I wonder if someone else would answer it?

My first question is: Where do I get one?
My second question is: Do they poop everywhere? Because that might be a deal-breaker.
Last question: Are they cuddly?

Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Emma's post
21-02-2017, 12:15 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 11:53 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 10:27 AM)dancefortwo Wrote:  The gospel of Mark, which is the first gospel written, doesn't have a resurrection in the earliest copies and some of the early church fathers commented on this problem. Here is a link to the Codex Vaticanus from 300 AD. It's in Greek. So far as I know this is the oldest extant copy of the entire new testament. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03

You can scroll through to the photo of the Mark manuscript , click on it and scroll through to the last chapter and verse and it stops at verse 8 (or is it 6, I can't remember). After around the 4th century the last 8 verses were written and added so it would have a resurrection scene. Most Christians are totally unaware of this.

I think there's some confusion on this point. Even if you stop at verse 6, the two Marys have already discovered the empty tomb and been told "He is risen". That certainly implies a resurrection. What's missing (and was added later) was the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to Mary Magdalene and the apostles. But I don't think it's fair to say that the original doesn't have a resurrection, because it clearly does.

The original, hilariously, has an anecdote within an anecdote.

If we treat it as simply a story, then sure, we can say it involves a resurrection as an idea. If it's supposed to be evidence of any sort, it's just some people saying stuff has happened. Within an anecdote, which is already just people saying stuff has happened.

Absolutely hilarious Big Grin

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
21-02-2017, 12:17 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 12:04 PM)Emma Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 11:27 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I believe in pink sparkly unicorns. But don't ask me about it. Facepalm

If one where to ask a general question about people who believe in pink sparkly unicorns, I wonder if someone else would answer it?

My first question is: Where do I get one?
My second question is: Do they poop everywhere? Because that might be a deal-breaker.
Last question: Are they cuddly?

Thank you.

I'd watch out for the horn, could take your eye out. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like adey67's post
21-02-2017, 12:19 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 12:15 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 11:53 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I think there's some confusion on this point. Even if you stop at verse 6, the two Marys have already discovered the empty tomb and been told "He is risen". That certainly implies a resurrection. What's missing (and was added later) was the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to Mary Magdalene and the apostles. But I don't think it's fair to say that the original doesn't have a resurrection, because it clearly does.

The original, hilariously, has an anecdote within an anecdote.

If we treat it as simply a story, then sure, we can say it involves a resurrection as an idea. If it's supposed to be evidence of any sort, it's just some people saying stuff has happened. Within an anecdote, which is already just people saying stuff has happened.

Absolutely hilarious Big Grin

Right, but I'm not claiming that it's evidence of anything. I'm an atheist. If Jesus existed at all, he probably was nothing like the character portrayed in the Gospels, and I'm quite sure he didn't die and then resurrect. In fact, I'm quite sure this is impossible for anyone to do.

However, I don't think it can be claimed with a straight face that there's no resurrection in Mark's Gospel, because there clearly is. It's not about whether it actually happened -- just whether or not it's in the story. And it is in the story.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
21-02-2017, 12:21 PM
RE: The resurrection
(20-02-2017 08:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's a little "nerdy", but Jewish apocalyptic heroes, (and Jesus was one in a line of them) were "raised up" (as in metaphorically "exalted"), not "bodily raised from the dead".
It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the culture, (and the Greek language used to describe it).

See : "How Jesus Became a god, the Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee", (Bart Ehrman),
or "The Trouble With Resurrection", (Dr. B.B. Scott ... Christian seminary professor).

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look

Oh my goodness! I've never made that connection before. Yes, Judaism aims to "raise up" people or things to a higher spiritual status. I'd never made the connection that the Christians might have just misunderstood this very basic and fundamental Jewish concept and taken it as a literal "raising up" from the dead.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Aliza's post
21-02-2017, 12:23 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 12:04 PM)Emma Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 11:27 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I believe in pink sparkly unicorns. But don't ask me about it. Facepalm

If one where to ask a general question about people who believe in pink sparkly unicorns, I wonder if someone else would answer it?

My first question is: Where do I get one?
My second question is: Do they poop everywhere? Because that might be a deal-breaker.
Last question: Are they cuddly?

Thank you.

They can be trained to poo in their box.
Ours are fairly cuddly when their sparkles are sparkling.

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
21-02-2017, 12:28 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 12:21 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(20-02-2017 08:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's a little "nerdy", but Jewish apocalyptic heroes, (and Jesus was one in a line of them) were "raised up" (as in metaphorically "exalted"), not "bodily raised from the dead".
It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the culture, (and the Greek language used to describe it).

See : "How Jesus Became a god, the Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee", (Bart Ehrman),
or "The Trouble With Resurrection", (Dr. B.B. Scott ... Christian seminary professor).

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look

Oh my goodness! I've never made that connection before. Yes, Judaism aims to "raise up" people or things to a higher spiritual status. I'd never made the connection that the Christians might have just misunderstood this very basic and fundamental Jewish concept and taken it as a literal "raising up" from the dead.

Big Grin Exactly
Jewish apocalyptic heroes, (for example the seven sons of Hanah, as I discuss in my piece), Elijah, etc etc etc were "rasied up", and the Greek words are the same words used in that way. Paul was a Jewish apocalyptic. He used those words and he meant them in the way his culture used them. They were all taken out of context and misused later.

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
21-02-2017, 01:15 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 12:19 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 12:15 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  The original, hilariously, has an anecdote within an anecdote.

If we treat it as simply a story, then sure, we can say it involves a resurrection as an idea. If it's supposed to be evidence of any sort, it's just some people saying stuff has happened. Within an anecdote, which is already just people saying stuff has happened.

Absolutely hilarious Big Grin

Right, but I'm not claiming that it's evidence of anything. I'm an atheist. If Jesus existed at all, he probably was nothing like the character portrayed in the Gospels, and I'm quite sure he didn't die and then resurrect. In fact, I'm quite sure this is impossible for anyone to do.

However, I don't think it can be claimed with a straight face that there's no resurrection in Mark's Gospel, because there clearly is. It's not about whether it actually happened -- just whether or not it's in the story. And it is in the story.

Sure, I agree Smile

I've heard it speculated that it was a cliffhanger ending, to a story which never got continued for whatever reason. Or perhaps just a dramatic ending to leave you to draw your own conclusion. That makes sense to me. If someone was actually trying demonstrate anything to be true, it would be a really stupid place to stop.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 01:22 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 11:53 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 10:27 AM)dancefortwo Wrote:  The gospel of Mark, which is the first gospel written, doesn't have a resurrection in the earliest copies and some of the early church fathers commented on this problem. Here is a link to the Codex Vaticanus from 300 AD. It's in Greek. So far as I know this is the oldest extant copy of the entire new testament. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03

You can scroll through to the photo of the Mark manuscript , click on it and scroll through to the last chapter and verse and it stops at verse 8 (or is it 6, I can't remember). After around the 4th century the last 8 verses were written and added so it would have a resurrection scene. Most Christians are totally unaware of this.

I think there's some confusion on this point. Even if you stop at verse 6, the two Marys have already discovered the empty tomb and been told "He is risen". That certainly implies a resurrection. What's missing (and was added later) was the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to Mary Magdalene and the apostles. But I don't think it's fair to say that the original doesn't have a resurrection, because it clearly does.

Yes, this is true. But what's missing is the testimony that he was physically seen walking around by people. This is the icing on the cake of the fairy story.

Also it puts a bit of a clinker on the new testament being without error. If stuff needed to be added 400 years later to match the other gospels then what else might have been added. My understanding it that the woman taken into adultery story is also not in any of the earlier copies.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
21-02-2017, 01:44 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 01:22 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 11:53 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I think there's some confusion on this point. Even if you stop at verse 6, the two Marys have already discovered the empty tomb and been told "He is risen". That certainly implies a resurrection. What's missing (and was added later) was the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to Mary Magdalene and the apostles. But I don't think it's fair to say that the original doesn't have a resurrection, because it clearly does.

Yes, this is true. But what's missing is the testimony that he was physically seen walking around by people. This is the icing on the cake of the fairy story.

Also it puts a bit of a clinker on the new testament being without error. If stuff needed to be added 400 years later to match the other gospels then what else might have been added. My understanding it that the woman taken into adultery story is also not in any of the earlier copies.

Yeah, I've read some of Bart Ehrman's stuff, and apparently there was a lot of deliberate tinkering going on, as well the normal copyist's errors and the like. This is part of what turned Ehrman from an Evangelical into an agnostic. If this is really "God's word", God wouldn't have allowed it to be so corrupted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: