[split] Debating Lion IRC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2013, 04:17 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(04-02-2013 03:44 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You don't have a good understanding of ancient Rome and how the government treated religious beliefs. The Nero/fire of Rome/ Christian persecution thing is probably just a tall story. If you disagree, say why. Please provide some evidence that Tiberius or Caligula persecuted Christians as I'm not aware they did. Please explain your understanding of the persecution of Christians, including dates, reasons and the protagonists.
To be fair, your average Christian's idea of being persecuted is someone who disagrees with them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 11:00 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(04-02-2013 04:02 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-02-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Oh wait.
That was a Kalam-related post. Not a Resurrection debate post.
I will link it and post an answer in the other KCA thread.

Speaking of the resurrection ..... waiting for the evidence. Are we gonna get any ? Why is it the Jews and Romans who wanted him gone, including their own historians we know were in Jeruslaem at the time, never mention the fact that he had come back, or remained a threat ? Why is there no mention of all the other zombies in the zombie invasion in Matthew ? If "many other saints rose" why would all the other gospels not bother to mention such a momentous event ? The earthquake ? The (spontaneously) torn temple curtain ? The split rocks ?


His evidence is that "lots of" "real people" saw the risen Jesus.

What he means is that 4 unknown authors, people not "real" enough to reveal their true identities, wrote that there were many witnesses to the resurrection.

The zombies and the earthquake are bullshit, but the resurrection of Jesus isn't...can't you understand? Don't you wannabe SAVED?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
04-02-2013, 11:02 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2013 11:07 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(04-02-2013 04:17 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 03:44 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You don't have a good understanding of ancient Rome and how the government treated religious beliefs. The Nero/fire of Rome/ Christian persecution thing is probably just a tall story. If you disagree, say why. Please provide some evidence that Tiberius or Caligula persecuted Christians as I'm not aware they did. Please explain your understanding of the persecution of Christians, including dates, reasons and the protagonists.
To be fair, your average Christian's idea of being persecuted is someone who disagrees with them.

Yep. Being "right" and not "losing face" is a big theme in churches. Particularly if you're a preacher who hopes to get people flocking to your wishful fantasy religion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 11:31 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(04-02-2013 11:00 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 04:02 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Speaking of the resurrection ..... waiting for the evidence. Are we gonna get any ? Why is it the Jews and Romans who wanted him gone, including their own historians we know were in Jeruslaem at the time, never mention the fact that he had come back, or remained a threat ? Why is there no mention of all the other zombies in the zombie invasion in Matthew ? If "many other saints rose" why would all the other gospels not bother to mention such a momentous event ? The earthquake ? The (spontaneously) torn temple curtain ? The split rocks ?


His evidence is that "lots of" "real people" saw the risen Jesus.

What he means is that 4 unknown authors, people not "real" enough to reveal their true identities, wrote that there were many witnesses to the resurrection.

The zombies and the earthquake are bullshit, but the resurrection of Jesus isn't...can't you understand? Don't you wannabe SAVED?
Unfortunatlely, "salvation" has changed nothing. The Human Condition remains the same. There is no qualitative difference in humanity before or after Jebus. So it's an obvious failure.
As far as people seeing him, the "incident" on the Road to Emmaus shows they did not recognize what they were seeing, necessarily. Even Doubting Thomas upon seeing only did not believe. He had to do the "fingers in the wound" thing, BEFORE whatever he saw became Jebus for him. So it was not something "obvious". The END of the Gospel of Matthew has him, just before the Ascension, in Galilee, and even then it's says they saw something but did not know what it was. It says they saw, but they doubted. THAT is no seeing a risen body. Whatever it means, (and LRC has never even begun to respond to BB Scott's theories, and others I proposed in the Resurrection thread), it did not mean what a "physical " resurrection means today. We are a totally different culture, and things mean different things. So no, I already said, in the "salvation" thread, I don't need any this week. But thanks for asking. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating Yogi, CAAT-LY.
Living daily with the high tragedy of being #2 on Laramie Hirsch's ignore list.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
04-02-2013, 11:42 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2013 11:45 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(03-02-2013 11:52 PM)morondog Wrote:  Well, but historically factual stuff causes everything - cause and effect. The cult of Isis didn't spring from a vacuum.
Exactly. The explanatory power of a Higher Being existing is what gives rise to theism.

(03-02-2013 11:52 PM)morondog Wrote:  
Quote:And the claim that the historical events which gave rise to Christianity never happened and that the Gospels are pure fiction written before anyone ever heard of a (mythical) miracle worker named Jesus and His Crucifixion is a claim which GOES AGAINST the consensus of most historians.
Hmmm. Who makes this claim? There's no denying that Christianity became a major world religion within a few centuries. If you assert that merely the fact that Christianity became popular implies that the claims of the gospels are true... seems a bit tenuous to me ?

No the claim to which I was responding was that the Gospels are invented
IOW. Nobody saw anything they thought was miraculous.

(03-02-2013 11:52 PM)morondog Wrote:  
Quote:Non-theist historians dont need to accept miracles. But they DO accept the historicity of events in which real people claimed they experienced a miracle.
You're talking generalities. Do you think the events of the Odyssey happened as described ? Sure I'll grant you they may be based in historical truth, but they could also be a pleasant fiction. Greeks of the period took them to be every bit as factual as you claim the gospels are.

DITTO what I said about the cult of Isis. And in any case, I am happy to to let the ancient Greco-Romans defend their own (extinct) religion.
Pity there are none of them here. What was the name of that religion which the Roman Empire adopted in its place? Oh yeah....Christianity.



(03-02-2013 11:52 PM)morondog Wrote:  
Quote:Do you see what I saying here? The historical event is the human being actually being executed by the Romans. The historical event is the actual burial of the body. And the historical event is the people who later claimed they saw Jesus. These are SECULAR historical claims.
And the evidence that these secular claims happened is all from your biased source, again ? *No* external evidence.

There are no external documents which can be used to invalidate the Gospel documents. And in the historical method thats all you can work with - the documents you have.

Again, the historical claim in secular terms is merely that real people had ''an experience'' that they described as a supernatural experience....etc etc.
Historians are not asked to speculate about the possible theological explanations or implications of those events.
Historians can only say whether the events themselves PROBABLY HAPPENED.
They have no historical warrant to assert that miracles never happened because the exegesis/texts and archeology dont present evidence to that effect.
All the available texts assert that the people involved believed they had seen a real miracle. No texts or archeology disproves the existence of those people or proves them liars. No contemporary historical documents show anything that would imply insanity on their part (- unless you include the bizarre willingness of early Christians to be tortured to death rather than recant.)

If the bible wasnt called "The Bible" it would be universally accepted as the greatest, most detailed set of historical documents in existence. The fact that it includes historical accounts of people who thought they had a divine experience is the only reason atheist historians belittle its content.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 12:01 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(04-02-2013 11:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 11:00 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  His evidence is that "lots of" "real people" saw the risen Jesus.

What he means is that 4 unknown authors, people not "real" enough to reveal their true identities, wrote that there were many witnesses to the resurrection.

The zombies and the earthquake are bullshit, but the resurrection of Jesus isn't...can't you understand? Don't you wannabe SAVED?
Unfortunatlely, "salvation" has changed nothing. The Human Condition remains the same. There is no qualitative difference in humanity before or after Jebus. So it's an obvious failure.
As far as people seeing him, the "incident" on the Road to Emmaus shows they did not recognize what they were seeing, necessarily. Even Doubting Thomas upon seeing only did not believe. He had to do the "fingers in the wound" thing, BEFORE whatever he saw became Jebus for him. So it was not something "obvious". The END of the Gospel of Matthew has him, just before the Ascension, in Galilee, and even then it's says they saw something but did not know what it was. It says they saw, but they doubted. THAT is no seeing a risen body. Whatever it means, (and LRC has never even begun to respond to BB Scott's theories, and others I proposed in the Resurrection thread), it did not mean what a "physical " resurrection means today. We are a totally different culture, and things mean different things. So no, I already said, in the "salvation" thread, I don't need any this week. But thanks for asking. Tongue




Looks like you're gonna burn in hell then. I'll be there too.

Here's the information you requsted about the first time the gospel authors' names appear...


The Gospels Appear

Irenaeus of Lyons attempted to list the first known Catholic canon in 180-190 CE, although he never compiled a definitive list of books. He knew that many people were attracted to Gnosticism and feared that his account of Christianity couldn’t compete. Formalizing doctrinal authority so that everyone had the same beliefs was his solution to what he saw as a problem. His list included the four canonical Gospels. This was the first record of anybody mentioning the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, over 150 years after the events they purported to record. (http://firstnewtestament.com/gospels_early_irenaeus_of_lyons.htm). Irenaeus gave no good explanation as to who wrote them, or how the authors were connected to Yeshua. He did write "Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome. After their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached; and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia." ("Against Heresies" 3.1.1). I find this explanation woefully inadequate because of the lack of detail. It sounds like a cheap commentary concocted so that the topic of the gospels’ authorship can be glossed over.He implies that Matthew, Luke and John were written independently of Mark’s, which modern scholars know is not the case. He made the ridiculous claimed that as there were only four directions from which the wind blew, there could only be four Gospels. (http://ephesians411.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/irenaeus-and-his-fourfold-gospel-authority-or-canonicity/) He accepted Acts, yet gave no details about its authorship either, and all the Pauline letters. Irenaeus did claim a work could be accepted as canonical if the early church fathers had used it, and this established a theoretical basis for determinations of orthodoxy, yet he never provided any such evidence for the books he chose.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 12:01 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 01:39 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2013 07:02 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating Yogi, CAAT-LY.
Living daily with the high tragedy of being #2 on Laramie Hirsch's ignore list.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
05-02-2013, 02:03 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2013 02:07 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(05-02-2013 12:01 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 11:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...Even Doubting Thomas upon seeing only did not believe... /quote]

Thats right.
Many couldnt believe their own eyes initially. Thats how extraordinary the event was.
But guess what? They did believe.

Many methodological skeptics wont even believe the evidence of their own eyes.

The irony is that if Bucky Ball was walking home one day and got struck by a bolt of lightening and heard a loud voice saying....hey you! I'm God.
And Bucky Ball spent an hour or two getting God to jump through a sequence of Bucky's personal proof evidentiary hoops, until Bucky FINALLY relented and said...OK I admit it. there is a God...just like billions of other theists have said throughout history....

...you know what?

He would not be able to persuade someone like his former self to believe the new Bucky had a real epiphany.

You could give Bucky a lie detector test and he'd pass. But everyone knows you can trick the machine.
You could torture him unsuccesfully and people would still say he must have gone insane.
You could invent a time machine and go back to see and hear Buckys claims verified and finally believe him.....

But then when you got back to the present time, people would say he bribed you to corroborate his story....
Hobo
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 02:08 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(05-02-2013 12:01 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 11:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...Even Doubting Thomas upon seeing only did not believe... /quote]

Thats right.
Many couldnt believe their own eyes initially. Thats how extraordinary the event was.
But guess what? They did believe.

Many methodological skeptics wont even believe the evidence of their own eyes.

The irony is that if Bucky Ball was walking home one day and got struck by a bolt of lightening and heard a loud voice saying....hey you! I'm God.
And Bucky Ball spent an hour or two getting God to jump through a sequence of Bucky's personal proof evidentiary hoops, until Bucky FINALLY relented and said...OK I admit it. there is a God...just like billions of other theists have said throughout history....

...you know what?

He would not be able to persuade someone like his former self to believe the new Bucky had a real epiphany.

You could give Bucky a lie detector test and he'd pass. But everyone knows you can trick the machine.
You could torture him unsuccesfully and people would still say he must have gone insane.
You could invent a time machine and go back to see and hear Buckys claims verified and finally believe him.....

But then when you got back to the present time, people would say he bribed you to corroborate his story....
Hobo
In other words...

you're just too skeptical Bucky. Why don't you JUST BELIEVE like the rest of
us? Come on, join the happy clappy crowd. It feels real good...I just
KNOW it would make you feel good too...but you're just too stubborn.

I have no understanding of history, no nuanced opinion, I don't want to
read, I don't want to think, I just want to believe. But I'm not going
to admit it. Especially to you Bucky. Think I'll just keep thinking,
believing and saying the same things things over and over. That'll wear
you and the others down. Best not address any issues. Mustn't take my
eye off the ball.

All my friends can't be wrong, so you must be, so I don't like you.

Anyway, I know what's true...it's all in the book...right there...why can't you
just read it? You're just too smart for your own good Bucky Ball.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: