Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Resurrection

stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 7:03:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At what number does everyone disagree with and why?
Thank you for your responses.

1. Jesus was a historical figure
2. Jesus died
3. Jesus was buried in the tomb
4. Jesus' tomb was empty
5. The disciples believed the resurrection to the point of death even though they had every inclination not to
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 7:06:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I see a problem between 3 and 4 but i don't disagree with anything.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 7:09:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 7:06:15 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I see a problem between 3 and 4 but i don't disagree with anything.

I wasn't trying to formulate a syllogism or anything but could you please explain what you mean by problem please? Thanks for the response.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 7:13:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
well, if he was buried in his tomb how could it be empty?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 7:15:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 7:13:10 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
well, if he was buried in his tomb how could it be empty?

I mean, personally I would say the resurrection because that is what I believe the evidence best shows, but I'm not sure what others would say.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 7:17:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I mean, to say he died and was buried in a tomb then some time later the tomb was empty really doesn't imply resurrection in any way.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 7:19:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 7:17:11 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I mean, to say he died and was buried in a tomb then some time later the tomb was empty really doesn't imply resurrection in any way.

So what would you say is the reason that the tomb was empty?
Tlhedglin
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 11:08:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 7:03:52 PM, stubs wrote:
At what number does everyone disagree with and why?
Thank you for your responses.

1. Jesus was a historical figure
2. Jesus died
3. Jesus was buried in the tomb
4. Jesus' tomb was empty
5. The disciples believed the resurrection to the point of death even though they had every inclination not to

External contemporary sources?
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 11:45:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 7:03:52 PM, stubs wrote:
At what number does everyone disagree with and why?
Thank you for your responses.

1. Jesus was a historical figure
2. Jesus died
3. Jesus was buried in the tomb
4. Jesus' tomb was empty
5. The disciples believed the resurrection to the point of death even though they had every inclination not to

3-5. I'm inclined to think that there is a historical core to the Jesus figure and I'll guess that he probably died. Outside of that though I have my doubts.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 11:47:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 7:19:10 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:17:11 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I mean, to say he died and was buried in a tomb then some time later the tomb was empty really doesn't imply resurrection in any way.

So what would you say is the reason that the tomb was empty?
A question: Why do you think that resurrection is the most plausible answer?
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:06:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 11:47:31 AM, Mirza wrote:

A question: Why do you think that resurrection is the most plausible answer?

The most noted natural explanations such as hallucinations, disciples stole the body, the women went to the wrong tomb just don't seem plausible. On the contrary the resurrection, if it occurred, would give a good reason to the fact the disciples sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead even though they had every inclination not to.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:41:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 2:06:03 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/17/2012 11:47:31 AM, Mirza wrote:


A question: Why do you think that resurrection is the most plausible answer?

The most noted natural explanations such as hallucinations, disciples stole the body, the women went to the wrong tomb just don't seem plausible. On the contrary the resurrection, if it occurred, would give a good reason to the fact the disciples sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead even though they had every inclination not to.

Well, yes, if it occurred then obviously the resurrection would be plausible. I don't see how you can just state that the alternatives are implausible - why?

I mean, even according to Christianity, the resurrection is an extremely rare event. Further, when you put on top of that the notion that the Gospels are anonymous and written decades after the fact, show signs of clear legendary embellishment, I don't see where you are coming from here.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 5:04:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 2:41:29 PM, Meatros wrote:
At 4/17/2012 2:06:03 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/17/2012 11:47:31 AM, Mirza wrote:


A question: Why do you think that resurrection is the most plausible answer?

The most noted natural explanations such as hallucinations, disciples stole the body, the women went to the wrong tomb just don't seem plausible. On the contrary the resurrection, if it occurred, would give a good reason to the fact the disciples sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead even though they had every inclination not to.

Well, yes, if it occurred then obviously the resurrection would be plausible. I don't see how you can just state that the alternatives are implausible - why?

I mean, even according to Christianity, the resurrection is an extremely rare event. Further, when you put on top of that the notion that the Gospels are anonymous and written decades after the fact, show signs of clear legendary embellishment, I don't see where you are coming from here.

This is plausible. Even in North Korea they still worship Kim Il Sung as a divine entity, there are books which state that he can throw a pine cone and turn it into a grenade like he could perform miracles. It's clear that after somebody who made an impact on the Earth dies, the myths come around. People even claim to spot these legends afterwards in the flesh..When Elvis died? Many people claimed to have seen him. When 2 Pac died? People still claim to have seen him.

There is nothing about the Jesus story which makes me go "Oh, maybe there is some truth to these miracles" because I see a pattern of human nature and how mythology emerges. If one is to adhere to these beliefs, they do so on faith.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 5:05:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 2:41:29 PM, Meatros wrote:


Well, yes, if it occurred then obviously the resurrection would be plausible. I don't see how you can just state that the alternatives are implausible - why?

I mean, even according to Christianity, the resurrection is an extremely rare event. Further, when you put on top of that the notion that the Gospels are anonymous and written decades after the fact, show signs of clear legendary embellishment, I don't see where you are coming from here.

Well hallucinations are implausible because hallucinations only are personal things. Two people cannot experience the same hallucination. Which is a problem because more than one person claimed to see Jesus at a time. The disciples stealing the body is implausible because of the guards. Even though Matthew is the only one that records there being guards there is good reason to believe they were there. Also, if the women went to the wrong tomb the soldiers could have pointed them to the correct one.

As for the historic reliability of the gospels and there as you call it "legendary embellishment" I would love to discuss this with you because I just wrote a very in depth research paper about that.

Thank you for your opinions.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 5:09:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 5:04:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


This is plausible. Even in North Korea they still worship Kim Il Sung as a divine entity, there are books which state that he can throw a pine cone and turn it into a grenade like he could perform miracles. It's clear that after somebody who made an impact on the Earth dies, the myths come around. People even claim to spot these legends afterwards in the flesh..When Elvis died? Many people claimed to have seen him. When 2 Pac died? People still claim to have seen him.

There is nothing about the Jesus story which makes me go "Oh, maybe there is some truth to these miracles" because I see a pattern of human nature and how mythology emerges. If one is to adhere to these beliefs, they do so on faith.

This doesn't account for how the origin of the belief that Jesus was resurrected came to be. As I stated earlier in the thread I believe the early Jewish tradition taught that the Messiah would not suffer much less die. When Jesus did die, as one scholar puts it, "The Jesus movement had come to a stop" Then all of a sudden these disciples were willing to die for something they believed. I'm just looking for a natural explanation that would account for this.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 5:15:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 5:05:31 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/17/2012 2:41:29 PM, Meatros wrote:


Well, yes, if it occurred then obviously the resurrection would be plausible. I don't see how you can just state that the alternatives are implausible - why?

I mean, even according to Christianity, the resurrection is an extremely rare event. Further, when you put on top of that the notion that the Gospels are anonymous and written decades after the fact, show signs of clear legendary embellishment, I don't see where you are coming from here.

Well hallucinations are implausible because hallucinations only are personal things. Two people cannot experience the same hallucination. Which is a problem because more than one person claimed to see Jesus at a time. The disciples stealing the body is implausible because of the guards. Even though Matthew is the only one that records there being guards there is good reason to believe they were there. Also, if the women went to the wrong tomb the soldiers could have pointed them to the correct one.

As for the historic reliability of the gospels and there as you call it "legendary embellishment" I would love to discuss this with you because I just wrote a very in depth research paper about that.

Thank you for your opinions.

I'd love to read your research paper, if you wouldn't mind.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 5:16:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 7:03:52 PM, stubs wrote:
At what number does everyone disagree with and why?
Thank you for your responses.

1. Jesus was a historical figure
2. Jesus died
3. Jesus was buried in the tomb
4. Jesus' tomb was empty
5. The disciples believed the resurrection to the point of death even though they had every inclination not to

1. It depends on what historicity youre choosing to accept. I do not accept the biblical historicity of Jesus, in that he walked around doing miracles and claimed to be God or the son of God.
2. As far as im concened, i couldnt care less. But Muslims seem to claim otherwise.
3. Sure. People die, they get buried.
4. Sure. People open up the tomb, desecrate the body, looters come in and steal stuff. This happens all the time.
5. People believe in many things, and are often wrong about them. People claim to see many things, and are often wrong about them. Eyewitness, isnt proof.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 5:34:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 5:16:14 PM, tkubok wrote:
1. It depends on what historicity youre choosing to accept. I do not accept the biblical historicity of Jesus, in that he walked around doing miracles and claimed to be God or the son of God.

There is proof of his existance, and you have to shift the goal posts to ignore it.

It is very well known that people at times wished to erase people or occurences from history - burning scrolls and what not.

If he infact did the things claim in the scriptures, why wouldn't a person, opposed to the effect this man had on people, do the same?

2. As far as im concened, i couldnt care less. But Muslims seem to claim otherwise.

And they believe he will return as well..

3. Sure. People die, they get buried.

4. Sure. People open up the tomb, desecrate the body, looters come in and steal stuff. This happens all the time.

With Roman gaurds present? I don't know if you're very familiar with what kinda people these Roman police/military personel were; but they were not to be f*cked with..
implausible.

5. People believe in many things, and are often wrong about them. People claim to see many things, and are often wrong about them. Eyewitness, isnt proof.


it seems enough to get people in and out of a lot of trouble in almost any circumstance where an eye witness is present.

this seems like a pretty lame argument.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 5:36:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 5:15:52 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/17/2012 5:05:31 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/17/2012 2:41:29 PM, Meatros wrote:


Well, yes, if it occurred then obviously the resurrection would be plausible. I don't see how you can just state that the alternatives are implausible - why?

I mean, even according to Christianity, the resurrection is an extremely rare event. Further, when you put on top of that the notion that the Gospels are anonymous and written decades after the fact, show signs of clear legendary embellishment, I don't see where you are coming from here.

Well hallucinations are implausible because hallucinations only are personal things. Two people cannot experience the same hallucination. Which is a problem because more than one person claimed to see Jesus at a time. The disciples stealing the body is implausible because of the guards. Even though Matthew is the only one that records there being guards there is good reason to believe they were there. Also, if the women went to the wrong tomb the soldiers could have pointed them to the correct one.

As for the historic reliability of the gospels and there as you call it "legendary embellishment" I would love to discuss this with you because I just wrote a very in depth research paper about that.

Thank you for your opinions.

I'd love to read your research paper, if you wouldn't mind.

I would as well :)
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 6:29:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 5:05:31 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/17/2012 2:41:29 PM, Meatros wrote:


Well, yes, if it occurred then obviously the resurrection would be plausible. I don't see how you can just state that the alternatives are implausible - why?

I mean, even according to Christianity, the resurrection is an extremely rare event. Further, when you put on top of that the notion that the Gospels are anonymous and written decades after the fact, show signs of clear legendary embellishment, I don't see where you are coming from here.

Well hallucinations are implausible because hallucinations only are personal things. Two people cannot experience the same hallucination. Which is a problem because more than one person claimed to see Jesus at a time.

Unfortunately we only have Paul's account, and he didnt witness physical Jesus. So the two witness thing is a red herring.


The disciples stealing the body is implausible because of the guards. Even though Matthew is the only one that records there being guards there is good reason to believe they were there. Also, if the women went to the wrong tomb the soldiers could have pointed them to the correct one.

Erm, so yo actually think the Romans put guards there? It's not really coherent on the face of it, to be honest. You are simply presupposing the Gospels to be infallible here. We do not have good reason to suppose they were there - it's obvious embellishment based on the Jewish counters at the time (80-100AD).

As for the historic reliability of the gospels and there as you call it "legendary embellishment" I would love to discuss this with you because I just wrote a very in depth research paper about that.


Where did you get it published?

Thank you for your opinions.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 6:32:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 5:09:54 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/17/2012 5:04:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

This doesn't account for how the origin of the belief that Jesus was resurrected came to be. As I stated earlier in the thread I believe the early Jewish tradition taught that the Messiah would not suffer much less die. When Jesus did die, as one scholar puts it, "The Jesus movement had come to a stop" Then all of a sudden these disciples were willing to die for something they believed. I'm just looking for a natural explanation that would account for this.

You do realize there were multiple Jewish sects at the time, don't you? Further you are making a lot of assumptions based on (presumably) the writings of Church fathers (Eusebius?) a century + after the facts.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 6:46:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 6:29:07 PM, Meatros wrote:
.

Unfortunately we only have Paul's account, and he didnt witness physical Jesus. So the two witness thing is a red herring.


We do have Paul saying that Jesus appeared to 500 people at once and said that most of them were still alive so if any skeptic wanted to check it out for themselves they could. The earliest date for this text is 3-8years after death of Jesus.

Erm, so yo actually think the Romans put guards there? It's not really coherent on the face of it, to be honest. You are simply presupposing the Gospels to be infallible here. We do not have good reason to suppose they were there - it's obvious embellishment based on the Jewish counters at the time (80-100AD).

I would say there are good reasons to believe the guards were there because when the disciples said the body was gone the Romans said the disciples stole the body. So the disciples replied, but there were guards there and the Roman soldiers responded well the disciples paid off the guards. If the soldiers weren't really there wouldn't the Romans just say that?

Where did you get it published?

Didn't get published haha I'm not claiming to be a great writer just the fact that I have a great interest in the subject and have read plenty of books on both side of the argument. Which again doesn't mean my paper is any good, but I think it does establish at least a little bit of credibility because I have read numerous books on the subject.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 6:54:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 5:34:55 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
There is proof of his existance, and you have to shift the goal posts to ignore it.

It is very well known that people at times wished to erase people or occurences from history - burning scrolls and what not.

If he infact did the things claim in the scriptures, why wouldn't a person, opposed to the effect this man had on people, do the same?

I never said i reject the existance of Jesus. What i said was that i do not believe the existance of Jesus as he is depicted in the bible. I have no problem with accepting a Rabbi teacher Jesus, who walked around preaching peace, who didnt do any miracles, but was still a pretty cool guy who was preaching a controversial message.

Its the same standard i hold to Islam as well. I have no problem with accepting that a man, a merchant named Muhammad was charismatic enough to collect a group of followers and run around slaughtering people. But i do not accept the Qurans depiction of Muhammad, the muhammad who received revelation from Angels and ascended to heaven from mecca.

And they believe he will return as well..

Sure. And Some believe he already has returned, in the form of Sun Myung Moon.

With Roman gaurds present? I don't know if you're very familiar with what kinda people these Roman police/military personel were; but they were not to be f*cked with..
implausible.

Right. 2 Grunts, bored out of their mind, gaurding something they have no idea why it needs to be gaurded. Surely no bandit or theif could best them. Clearly no one would have the right mind to hire someone else, equip both of you with crossbows and pick both of the gaurds off together.How improbable that more than 2 people would gather together to rob a grave. How improbable that they would have crossbows or bows and arrows.

it seems enough to get people in and out of a lot of trouble in almost any circumstance where an eye witness is present.

this seems like a pretty lame argument.

And, do we have any eyewitness account of an empty grave? Or is it all hear-say, written from a third person who heard the events?

Remember, even courts dont allow Hear-say evidence, no matter how many witnesses come forth to present their hear-say evidence.

Furthermore, sure, the little things, eyewitness testimony will get you off the hook. But the larger things? Never. Or are you saying that couples and groups who are abducted by aliens, necessarily mean their story is true because of a corroborating eyewitness?
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 7:14:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 6:46:06 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/17/2012 6:29:07 PM, Meatros wrote:
.

Unfortunately we only have Paul's account, and he didnt witness physical Jesus. So the two witness thing is a red herring.


We do have Paul saying that Jesus appeared to 500 people at once and said that most of them were still alive so if any skeptic wanted to check it out for themselves they could. The earliest date for this text is 3-8years after death of Jesus.


A few problems with that; who were these people? What did they actually see? Was it a vision? For all we know it could have been a mass hallucination like the dancing sun of Fatima. What "skeptic" would have checked (and how?)? You are presupposing that the ancient people were like us - they were not. As to the earliest date - you must be referring to Paul's 1 Corinthians 15 letter, right? The date is dispute (it's a formalized creed after all) and demonstrates nothing, really.

Erm, so yo actually think the Romans put guards there? It's not really coherent on the face of it, to be honest. You are simply presupposing the Gospels to be infallible here. We do not have good reason to suppose they were there - it's obvious embellishment based on the Jewish counters at the time (80-100AD).

I would say there are good reasons to believe the guards were there because when the disciples said the body was gone the Romans said the disciples stole the body. So the disciples replied, but there were guards there and the Roman soldiers responded well the disciples paid off the guards. If the soldiers weren't really there wouldn't the Romans just say that?

You assume the Romans were aware of this Jesus movement - but why? Even by Christian accounts, the disciples didn't start preaching for 50 days after the resurrection. Think about it, why would the Romans put guards on his tomb (supposing there was one, which is unlikely)?

Where did you get it published?

Didn't get published haha I'm not claiming to be a great writer just the fact that I have a great interest in the subject and have read plenty of books on both side of the argument. Which again doesn't mean my paper is any good, but I think it does establish at least a little bit of credibility because I have read numerous books on the subject.

Honestly, and not to be critical, but it sounds like you've read some McDowel, strobel, and maybe WLC - not any mainstream critical historian on the NT.

Didn't you debate that the church tradition of who wrote the gospel (mark, Matthew, etc) was likely true? If my memory is correct then that's FAR outside mainstream scholarship and into apologetics.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 7:35:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 7:14:16 PM, Meatros wrote:
s.


A few problems with that; who were these people? What did they actually see? Was it a vision? For all we know it could have been a mass hallucination like the dancing sun of Fatima. What "skeptic" would have checked (and how?)? You are presupposing that the ancient people were like us - they were not. As to the earliest date - you must be referring to Paul's 1 Corinthians 15 letter, right? The date is dispute (it's a formalized creed after all) and demonstrates nothing, really.

It is highly unlikely it was a mass hallucination. I would say impossible. Gary Collins has a doctorate and is the president of a nation association of psychologists. I would consider his opinion pretty valid and he said, "Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature only one person can see a given hallucination at a time. They certainly aren't something which can be seen by a group of people. Neither is it possible that one person could somehow induce a hallucination in somebody else. Since an hallucination exists only in this subjective, personal sense, it is obvious that others cannot witness it."


You assume the Romans were aware of this Jesus movement - but why? Even by Christian accounts, the disciples didn't start preaching for 50 days after the resurrection. Think about it, why would the Romans put guards on his tomb (supposing there was one, which is unlikely)?

The disciples started preaching much earlier than 50years after. Pauls conversion is estimated at 2years after Jesus death.

Didn't you debate that the church tradition of who wrote the gospel (mark, Matthew, etc) was likely true? If my memory is correct then that's FAR outside mainstream scholarship and into apologetics.

Even the skeptical dates of the gospels are 70-90AD. I think it is plausible they did write it.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 7:36:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 7:15:54 PM, Meatros wrote:
What criteria do you use to determine whether or not an ancient document is legit?

The date between written and the events, the amount of copies, the consistency of those copies. That's in general and obviously there's other things that go into it.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 7:43:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 7:35:10 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/17/2012 7:14:16 PM, Meatros wrote:

It is highly unlikely it was a mass hallucination. I would say impossible. Gary Collins has a doctorate and is the president of a nation association of psychologists. I would consider his opinion pretty valid and he said, "Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature only one person can see a given hallucination at a time. They certainly aren't something which can be seen by a group of people. Neither is it possible that one person could somehow induce a hallucination in somebody else. Since an hallucination exists only in this subjective, personal sense, it is obvious that others cannot witness it."

So then you accept the miracle at Fatima is legitimate? Also, this is a pretty blatant appeal to authority here. We don't know what the "500" saw, it could have been some sort of astronomical event (such as the various "UFO" events, one occurring at a military base with loads of credible witnesses).

You assume the Romans were aware of this Jesus movement - but why? Even by Christian accounts, the disciples didn't start preaching for 50 days after the resurrection. Think about it, why would the Romans put guards on his tomb (supposing there was one, which is unlikely)?

The disciples started preaching much earlier than 50years after. Pauls conversion is estimated at 2years after Jesus death.

I said 50 DAYS, not years. the Matthew story is something like 100 ad, and makes no internal sense - why would the Romans have posted guards?


Didn't you debate that the church tradition of who wrote the gospel (mark, Matthew, etc) was likely true? If my memory is correct then that's FAR outside mainstream scholarship and into apologetics.

Even the skeptical dates of the gospels are 70-90AD. I think it is plausible they did write it.

The estimates for mark are between 65-80 AD (IIRC), with the other gospels coming later obviously. As to thinking they wrote it, then you disagree with the experts (which makes me wonder why we should accept your psychological expert). Also, how do you account or the markian priority, or do you just deny it?
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 7:45:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 7:36:16 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/17/2012 7:15:54 PM, Meatros wrote:
What criteria do you use to determine whether or not an ancient document is legit?

The date between written and the events, the amount of copies, the consistency of those copies. That's in general and obviously there's other things that go into it.

I'm not seeing how any of those things give the material credibility. We have millions of Stephen King books written during his life which are all internally consistent - should we take, as credible, "IT",
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 5:34:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 7:35:10 PM, stubs wrote:
It is highly unlikely it was a mass hallucination. I would say impossible. Gary Collins has a doctorate and is the president of a nation association of psychologists. I would consider his opinion pretty valid and he said, "Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature only one person can see a given hallucination at a time. They certainly aren't something which can be seen by a group of people. Neither is it possible that one person could somehow induce a hallucination in somebody else. Since an hallucination exists only in this subjective, personal sense, it is obvious that others cannot witness it."

This is actually not true at all. Its called Folie a Deux, a madness shared by two, with plurals being Folie a plusieurs. In Psychological technical terms its called Shared Psychotic disorder. Its well documented.