[split] Debating Lion IRC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2013, 05:36 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(25-01-2013 05:04 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Are people seriously still humouring this guy...?
Oh because that's just the ONLY possibility right? Couldn't be stories that were passed around like rumours today, that changed piece by piece and ended up miracle stories, no need for any gods will.

Okay, I've tried to find the comedian who said it, but the closest I could find was a the actual quote.

Quote:I think the whole "messiah" thing was just a mistranslation of "masseuse".

I can picture now, shepherd Joe has had a sore neck for weeks and walks into town wincing in pain.
"Sore neck shepherd Joe?" asks shepherd Bob.
"Yeah" replies shepherd Joe.
"You should go see that Jesus fellow down in Nazareth, I heard he's an absolute miracle worker..."

This has been going on in my mind for the past week. Hope you guys enjoy.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cheapthrillseaker's post
25-01-2013, 06:59 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
I waded through 25-30 pages of this thread, firmly believing that it would get good at some point . . . then in came Bucky to prove me right, thank you!

Something I noticed Lion say a couple of times that I'm don't think was picked up on (though I may be wrong, occasionally the words would start to blur together for me) - he seemed to make a point of talking about how so many people were convinced that Jesus was actually resurrected. As if this was an actual point in his favour.

I'm sorry Lion, but I don't care who or how many were convinced of it - if you can't show me WHAT convinced them, and that it was valid enough to convince people today who are far less ignorant of the world than a bunch of desert dwellers 2000 years ago, then it is irrelevant.

Also Bucky claimed quite a few times that no human has ever been witnessed to rise from the dead. Sorry but I have to contest this - if you are unaware of it there is a condition called Lazarus Syndrome where people have been recorded to die, have no heart beat and then some time later the heart restarts and they are fine. Scientists are unable to satisfactorily explain it as yet though there are some ideas, however Lion if you try and put a supernatural spin on it I will be asking for plenty of evidence to back it up.

If I recall correctly there have been 25 reported cases of Lazarus Syndrome since 1982 - and I would argue that a natural case of Lazarus Syndrome is a far more likely cause of the resurrection of Jesus, assuming there was one in the first place, than any intervention from Yahweh.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like hedgehog648's post
25-01-2013, 07:07 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
That is certainly an interesting syndrome, Hedgehog.

However, I would argue that a person can only be truly considered dead once neurological activity has ceased, so the auto-resuscitation of the heart, while intriguing, should not be considered as a sort of resurrection.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
25-01-2013, 09:25 PM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2013 06:31 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(25-01-2013 04:38 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(24-01-2013 04:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The central point here is that irrespective of the dating of the text, the events recorded in the text were ALREADY thought to be factual be an existing group of people before those events were documented.

And you have yet to explain your own self-contradiction viz;

a) Gospel writers produced the texts as liturgy for an existing known audience
b) Gospel writers had no idea who would read the texts.

You first claimed a) when trying to refute their intent to serve as permanent historical record.

Then you refuted yourself by asserting b) when I mentioned canonical exegesis and that the Gospel CONTENT itself explains that the authors were doing Gods will to spread the teaching of Jesus - Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, forgiveness is offered, death is not the end, life has teleological/eschatological significance beyond atheism's pointless and depressing materialism/nihilism.
It's the "ad populum" fallacy IRC. This thread is "proof of the resurrection", or have you forgotten again. The fact that people "thought" it was true, even a LOT of people proves nothing. YOU have proven no gospel to be true, and provided no evidence for any resurrection. No references offered. No supporting evidence, no scholarly support. Just assertions. Guesses, and conjecture.
The gospels were produced for their own age, for liturgical worship, as any scholar knows. That they did not know who would read them in the future is no contradiction. Sorry. Fail again.
You have no clue what they thought they were doing, whether it was "god's will" or not is more guessing, and more unsupported conjecture, and in light of all the "pious fraud" of the day, it's very likey they knew they were lying, or at least exaggerating.
Jebus DID think the "kingdom was at hand", and he was wrong, just like all the other apocalyptics. ("THIS generation shall not pass away until all these things have been accomplished"). As far as "depression and materialism, speak for yourself. You know none of us personally, and your Jebus told you to "judge not, lest ye be judged".
So live in your fairy land, IRC. You have yet to prove ANY of it's true, oh deluded one. Like you actually think you're gonna "convert" anyone here with that sorry-ass knowledge of your own cult. Did we go to Biola, and study apologetics there ? Who ever made you think you're up to this task ? But thanks for the self-righteous little pompous diatribe Church Lady. Don't know what we'd do with out one of those from the "oh-so-superior" religionist whose life is not materialistic and so much more full of meaning. I realise your private parts become a bit more bulbous, and engorged when delivering your "superior" dance sermon, so I wouldn't want to deprive you of that little bit of fun, but really, have you nothing better to do ? Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
25-01-2013, 11:15 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(25-01-2013 07:07 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  That is certainly an interesting syndrome, Hedgehog.

However, I would argue that a person can only be truly considered dead once neurological activity has ceased, so the auto-resuscitation of the heart, while intriguing, should not be considered as a sort of resurrection.
But could easily give rise to stories... although Lazarus syndrome after being beaten up, nailed to stuff, speared and stuffed in a hole would be pretty impressive Big Grin But that's assuming the rest of the story happened as described, which seems doubtful.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
26-01-2013, 05:34 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(25-01-2013 07:07 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  That is certainly an interesting syndrome, Hedgehog.

However, I would argue that a person can only be truly considered dead once neurological activity has ceased, so the auto-resuscitation of the heart, while intriguing, should not be considered as a sort of resurrection.
To my knowledge doctors do not declare death until neurological activity has ceased, so we are talking about people who have been officially declared to have no brain function and then come back to life later - in one case in Malaysia it was two and a half hours after the proclamation of death, although in that case the patient died three weeks later.

In most cases it seems to occur about half an hour or so after declaration.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2013, 05:54 AM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2013 05:58 AM by Vosur.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(26-01-2013 05:34 AM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  To my knowledge doctors do not declare death until neurological activity has ceased, so we are talking about people who have been officially declared to have no brain function and then come back to life later - in one case in Malaysia it was two and a half hours after the proclamation of death, although in that case the patient died three weeks later.

In most cases it seems to occur about half an hour or so after declaration.
Do you have a source for a case in which a brain dead person came back to life hours later? Because that's absolutely impossible.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2013, 07:23 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(26-01-2013 05:54 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(26-01-2013 05:34 AM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  To my knowledge doctors do not declare death until neurological activity has ceased, so we are talking about people who have been officially declared to have no brain function and then come back to life later - in one case in Malaysia it was two and a half hours after the proclamation of death, although in that case the patient died three weeks later.

In most cases it seems to occur about half an hour or so after declaration.
Do you have a source for a case in which a brain dead person came back to life hours later? Because that's absolutely impossible.
This site provided quite a few sources on the lazarus phenomenon, but i don't believe that in any of these cases that people came back from brain death. Death is described as a process of organ failure that leads to brain death. Once the brain goes I believe that's the point in which many doctors would agree that death has occurred. On a side note PubMed is an excellent source for researching medical publications

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121643/

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2013, 12:20 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(25-01-2013 06:59 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  ...If I recall correctly there have been 25 reported cases of Lazarus Syndrome since 1982 - and I would argue that a natural case of Lazarus Syndrome is a far more likely cause of the resurrection of Jesus, assuming there was one in the first place, than any intervention from Yahweh.

Thank you for bringing this up. I was also pleasantly surprised to see Bucky Ball mentioning Lazarus and others who were reportedly seen alive after death.

I argue resurrection demonstrates that the survival of (what I call) the soul is possible even after that 'singularity' we call death.

Divine/supernatural intervention WOULD be likely if sufficient motive was present and nobody here in this debate has challenged the Gospels explanation of God's motive since this post;

(17-01-2013 11:44 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(17-01-2013 07:42 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  ...Let me ask you a final time:

Would you like to debate with me?

Yes or no?

Yes.
And with anyone else who thinks theres no good logical reasons or evidence to believe in the death and Resurrection of the historical
Jesus of Nazareth - my personal Lord and Saviour.

...who gave Himself to bring us the Good News that The Kingdom of God is closer than you think. And that people who are sad, broken, afflicted, ashamed, depressed, confused by the sins of this world (greed, hatred, violence, injustice) can find salvation, forgiveness and hope if they want. The Resurrection shows us that God DOES love us and that death is not the end.

Heart


I'm assuming you accept that medical science doesnt completely understand the difference between inanimate matter (body) and energy (volition/free will/soul) and I'm assuming the scientific explanation for your Lazarus Syndrome isnt some...'spontaneous random quantum weirdness' hypothesis by which the dead brain mysteriously re-animates. (That WOULD be spooky.) And if the claim is that the brain wasnt really ''dead'' in the first place what then causes it to spring back to life unexpectedly?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2013, 12:36 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(22-01-2013 02:47 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  For reference, external evidence, means evidence outside the bibal.

And supported means the evidence is supported by another external piece.

This overlooks the fact that there is no equivalent or comparable historical text from that time which provides as much historical detail about a historical figure
as the Gospels do about Jesus of Nazareth.

The Gospel texts are separate historical documents which corroborate one another.

And these texts did not become part of The Bible until hundreds of years AFTER they were written. So asking for extra-biblical corroboration of the Gospels is ignorant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: